The Expositor: Libelous of the deepest dye?

[dblagent007]

7 June 1844

the first (and only) edition of the Nauvoo Expositor was published. It detailed Joseph's practice of plural marriage, and charged him with various crimes, labeling him a "blood thirsty and murderousâ?¦demonâ?¦in human shape" and "a syncophant, whose attempt for power find no parallel in historyâ?¦ one of the blackest and basest scoundrels that has appeared upon the stage of human existence since the days of Nero, and Caligula."

I would say that THAT was libel.

I think you are judging the statement based on its offensiveness. This statement is surely offensive, but that really doesn't answer the libel question at all. The real question is whether this constitutes a statement of opinion or fact. If it is opinion, then it is not libelous. I think the only statement that even comes close to being a statement of fact is the use of the term "murderous." Resolving this question would require an appeal to controlling legal authority in Illinois at the time as well as how common it was to charge others in this way in a rhetorical setting. It is no slam dunk at all.

[dblagent007]

This very close to the core question that I'm getting at. Is truth a defense where libel is claimed in a nuisance abatement proceeding rather than a defamation suit? Asserting truth as an affirmative defense may be relevant to the latter, but inapplicable to the former. If so, then the veracity of the paper's content isn't the issue, but the impact of the content on the community is. I'm skeptical that this is the case, but it's critical enough that it can't be assumed away.

Truth is always a defense to libel. My question was whether the Expositor could still be a nuisance even though it was true and thus not libel. I think that to be highly unlikely, but not out of the realm of possibility (and I am not doing the legal research to figure it out).

[dblagent007]

D&C 132 was recorded eleven months prior to Joseph's murder. The very reason it was kept quiet is the very reason that happened. Some were not ready for such a revelation and apostatized. It appears that William Law became more impressed with his own position and prominence in the community and less humble with regards to the calling of a true prophet and the revelations he received. Did he actually think that he could tell the prophet he would not allow him to do as God had commanded and not be held as apostate?

I would hope that any follower of a prophet would have some line that, if crossed, would raise red flags. The elimination of such lines leads to the weird religious cults and their associated weird practices (polygamy or some sort of similar weird sexual practice being a principle characteristic). For William Law, polygamy was his Rubicon and JS crossed it (especially since JS approached Wm Law's wife).

[Lightbearer]

The Expositor was like many tabloids of today, sensationalistic hyperbole. In fact one could say it was the "essence" of Anti-Mormon literature. What made it libelous was the tone and intent it had, to defame the character of Joseph Smith and to incite a riot to get a mob up to come in and destroy Nauvoo and drive the Saints out once again as they had been done before in Missouri, Ohio, and New York. The Laws and Higbees had very sharp axes to grind and they would not be satisfied until the Prophet's blood was spilt on the ground. They achieved their purpose and that is why the Expositor only had one edition. That was it's diabolical purpose, to kill the prophet and drive the Saints into the wilderness. If it was unlawful for the Prophet as the Mayor to have the press destroyed I say so what? The question is how many would have died if the Prophet and the city council had done nothing? Plural wives and Plural Gods were just too much for these sanctimonious hypocrites. That same spirit of persecution that killed the prophet was the same that crucified the Lord under pretense of "treason" but the real reason was "blasphemy" the Chief Priests and Elders could not suffer Christ to live, He made Himself a King as well as a God! So it seems both the Prophet and the Lord were both killed for political as well as religious reasons. Whether riding on the back of a donkey and being hailed as a king, or destroying a press and declaring martial law, Satan used both of these acts as the pretext for murder. How people today can condone the actions of a murderous mob is beyond my comprehension in our so-called tolerant society, but I would also say that there are some living to today, if they thought they could get away with it, would murder the prophet and drive the Saints from their homes just as they did then.

[LeSellers]

Truth is always a defense to libel.

In XXI USmerica, yes. But the Expositor incident was in XXI USmerica. Have you read the definition of "libel" in an XIX dictionary? Post hoc Ford notwithstanding.

Chronocentrism rears its ugly head yet again.

My question was whether the Expositor could still be a nuisance even though it was true and thus not [sic] libel. I think that to be highly unlikely, but not out of the realm of possibility (and I am not doing the legal research to figure it out).

Were we to assume it was true, that, again, does not mean it was not libelous to XIX Nauvoo residents.

The terms "libel" and "nuisance" were inseparably connected by means of the fact that if something was libelous, it would, by its nature, induce panic, perhaps riot, etc.

Lehi

[ERayR]

So out of the over 12,000 words in that issue of the Expositor, the only thing you could come up with was what is bolded above? The entire paper is libelous because of that? I'm not sure you have actually read the paper.

How many words does it take? Come up with a number so that we can continue 15, 20, 50, 100, 1000.

If we are to continue with XXI standards I would point out in some circles it takes only one. So if we are to continue with holding to XXI, as you are insisting, then it was in fact libelous.

[toon]

The very fact that Ford viewed the 1st Amendment's Freedom of the Press clause as a constitutional right applicable to the city of Nauvoo shows how out of step he was with XIX legal precedents. In 1844 the governing opinion on the extent of Freedom of the Press was Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833), in which the Supreme Court held that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government, not to the States (and certainly not to individual cities). In other words, state and municipal laws could and did contravene the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. If Ford believed otherwise, he was wrong under XIX law. Even after the adoption of the 14th Amendment the Barron decision continued to be the law of the land (see, e.g., United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)). In fact, it was not until the end of the first quarter of the XX, in Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), that the United States Supreme Court first held that the Fourteenth Amendment made freedom of the press applicable to the governments of the individual states and, therefore, to cities within them. You may think of Ford as being ahead of his time. I think he was just out of step.

Was Ford talking about freedom of the press under the 1st Amendment or under the Illinois Constitution? It's my understanding that the Illinois Constitution at the time did afford some protection of the freedom of the press.

[dblagent007]

In XXI USmerica, yes. But the Expositor incident was in XXI USmerica. Have you read the definition of "libel" in an XIX dictionary? Post hoc Ford notwithstanding.

Chronocentrism rears its ugly head yet again.

Truth was a defense to libel back in 1844. The applicable Illinois statute can be found here. I'll save you the trouble and quote it below.

Criminal Code, Section 120, Illinois Statutes 1839

A libel is a malicious defamation, expressed either by printing or by signs or pictures, or the like, tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead, or to impeach the honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation, or publish the natural defects of one who is alive, and thereby to expose him or her to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule: Every person, whether writer or publisher, convicted of this offence, shall be fined in a sum not exceeding five hundred dollars, or imprisoned not exceeding one year. In all prosecutions for a libel, the truth thereof may be given in evidence in justification, except libels tending to blacken the memory of the dead, or expose the natural defects of the living.

The 1845 version of the same statue can be found here and it is largely the same, if not identical.

The U.S. and Illinois Constitutions, which the Nauvoo Charter agreed to be bound by, may also provide additional independent bases that truth is a defense to libel. The problem with the Nauvoo City Council is that it seemed to base its decision on the English doctrine of seditious libel, which didn't care of the communication was true or not. Unfortunately for them, seditious libel was a doctrine that was on its way out in America (not surprisingly since those that lived in the founding era believed they had the right to publish true, unflattering things about King George and his government). The case of John Peter Zenger is illustrative.

[dblagent007]

Was Ford talking about freedom of the press under the 1st Amendment or under the Illinois Constitution? It's my understanding that the Illinois Constitution at the time did afford some protection of the freedom of the press.

Does it matter? The Nauvoo Charter explicitly stated that the Nauvoo City Government would be bound by the U.S. and Illinios Constitution. See my post above where I quote the applicable section of the Nauvoo Charter.

[T-Shirt]

The Expositor didn't provoke the deaths of Joseph and Hyrum Smith--Joseph Smith's illegal destruction of the press is what provoked his death.

That's right, Joseph caused his own death.

Actually, anyone with a minimal amount of analytical skill knows full well that Joseph's death was the result of, but not limited to, the following,:

1 - The anger of the covenant breaking adulterer William Law and his brother.

2 - A spineless Governor who broke his word and knowingly allowed an illegal mitimus of treason to stand.

3 - A conspiratorial judge who also allowed the charge of treason and illegally forced Joseph into Carthage jail under the guise of protection, while knowing that, in reality, his action made them sitting ducks.

The destruction of the press was, at best, a civil matter, for which Joseph was willing to pay damages. Nothing surrounding the destruction of the press warranted a charge of treason. The destruction simply provided an excuse for those who already hated Joseph Smith to find a way to kill him. Those who try to defend Ford or the Laws are either embarrassingly ignorant or are in league with the Mormon haters of the day who felt that the end justifies the means, the end being; ridding the world of the influence of the evil Joseph Smith.

T-Shirt

[Analytics]

The Expositor was like many tabloids of today, sensationalistic hyperbole. In fact one could say it was the "essence" of Anti-Mormon literature.

I see you didn't provide any quotes to support this point. Here is a typical example of the anti-Mormon garbage that the Nauvoo Expositor spewed out:

As for our acquaintance with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, we know, no man or set of men can be more thoroughly acquainted with its rise, its organization, and its history, than we have every reason to believe we are. We all verily believe, and many of us know of a surety, that the religion of the Latter Day Saints, as originally taught by Joseph Smith, which is contained in the Old and New Testaments, Book of Covenants, and Book of Mormon, is verily true; and that the pure principles set forth in those books, are the immutable and eternal principles of Heaven, and speaks a language which, when spoken in truth and virtue, sinks deep into the heart of every honest man.

[mrmendoza]

There are a couple of reasons I bring up Ford:

1- Ford describes the issue the way that we still think of it: Freedom of the Press is a Constitutionally guaranteed right, and that if there is an extreme case when the press is acting in a libelous way or is a public nusance, that needs to be addressed in a proper court where the defendents have the opportunity to defend themselves. That's what makes sense now, and it is what Thomas Ford said then--that proves that we aren't applying XXI legal standards to XIX events.

2- Ford was a very intelligent and thoughtful legal expert of the day who knew the details of the case. He wasn't a party to the case of whether or not the Expositor was a nusance. He was a third-party who was fully qualified to judge the legality of the city council's actions.

3- Ford didn't hesitate to blame everybody who was a party to the subsequent events--he blames a lot of stuff on the Mormons, but he also blames a lot of stuff on everybody else. He lambasted everybody, and that is why he had few friends. But he tried to be fair in recognizing who was responsible for what. As an example, he blames Cyrus Walker for giving bad legal counsel regarding how the Mormons could exploit the Nauvoo City Charter, and gives some leeway to the Mormons who took the advice of somebody who should have known better.

If the city council acted legally, Ford had no motivation to deny it.

4- Thomas Ford is considered a good historical source. A little self-serving at times, but he generally detailed, thoughtful analysis from the non-Mormon perspective of what was going on. He gives a detailed explanation of why the destruction of the press was illegal. I'm not merely relying on Ford's credibility as a legal scholar, I'm also relying upon the merits of his published analysis itself.

Can you point me to anybody who acknowledges Ford's analysis and gives a detailed exaplnation for why Ford was wrong?

I'm not even remotely qualified to answer your last question, but I believe that no matter how well educated Ford was, no matter how great his law background was, he was speaking as a politician with a vested intrest in the case, not as the judge or jury of a trail. Whenever a person is brought to trail on any charge, the lawyers on both sides of the question have the right and , we hope, the ability to give their respective opinions on the subject! In other words under the circumstances, it doesn't really matter what Ford said, his opinion, even though he was the governour of the state, was an acusation at most! What your asking us, is to act as lawyers, which I do not think most of us are! (Though I don't know for sure about that, Lehi, certainly talks like one sometimes! No offense, Lehi!)

Mike

[Lightbearer]

I see you didn't provide any quotes to support this point. Here is a typical example of the anti-Mormon garbage that the Nauvoo Expositor spewed out:

The quote you provided is perhaps the only "positive" sentiment expressed in the publication. I assume you are calling a CFR for my intemperate statement:"The Expositor was like many tabloids of today, sensationalistic hyperbole. In fact one could say it was the "essence" of Anti-Mormon literature."

Very well as you like it:

"We are earnestly seeking to explode the vicious principles of Joseph Smith, and those who practice the same abominations and whoredoms; which we verily know are not accordant and consonant with the principles of Jesus Christ and the Apostles; and for that purpose, and with that end in view, with an eye single to the glory of God, we have dared to gird on the armor, and with God at our head, we most solemnly and sincerely declare that the sword of truth shall not depart from the thigh, nor the buckler from the arm, until we can enjoy those glorious privileges which nature's God and our country's laws have guarantied to us-freedom of speech, the liberty of the press, and the right to worship God as seemeth us good.-We are aware, however, that we are hazarding every earthly blessing, particularly property,and probably life itself, in striking this blow at tyranny and oppression: yet notwithstanding we most solemnly declare that no man, or set of men combined, shall, with impunity, violate obligations as sacred as many which have been violated unless reason, justice and virtue have become ashamed and sought the haunts of the grave, though our lives be the forfeiture. "

How quick the apostate clamors for their "rights" and how the authorities of the church are always painted as tyrants and oppressors. More found here:

"It is absurd for men to assert that all is well, while wicked and corrupt men are seeking our destruction, by a perversion of sacred things; for all is not well, while whordoms and all manner of abominations are practiced under the cloak of religion. Lo! the wolf is in the fold, arrayed in sheep's clothing, and is spreading death and devastation among the saints: and we say to the watchmen standing upon the walls, cry aloud and spare not, for the day of the Lord is at hand-a day cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate.

It is a notorious fact, that many females in foreign climes, and in countries to us unknown, even in the most distant regions of the Eastern hemisphere, have been induced, by the sound of the gospel, to forsake friends, and embark upon a voyage across waters that lie stretched over the greater portion of the globe, as they supposed, to glorify God, that they might thereby stand acquitted in the great day of God Almighty. But what is taught them on their arrival at this place?- They are visited by some of the Strikers, for we know not what else to call them, and are requested to hold on and be faithful, for there are great blessings awaiting the righteous; and that God has great mysteries in store for those who love the lord, and cling to brother Joseph. They are also notified that Brother Joseph will see them soon, and reveal the mysteries of Heaven to their full understanding, which seldom fails to inspire them with new confidence in the Prophet, as well as a great anxiety to know what God has laid up in store for them, in return for the great sacrifice of father of mother, of gold and silver, which they gladly left far behind, that they might be gathered into the fold, and numbered among the chosen of God.--They are visited again, and what is the result? They are requested to meet brother Joseph, or some of the Twelve, at some insulated point, or at some particularly described place on the bank of the Mississippi, or at some room, which wears upon its front--Positively NO Admittance. The harmless, inoffensive, and unsuspecting creatures, are so devoted to the Prophet, and the cause of Jesus Christ, that they do not dream of the deep laid and fatal scheme which prostrates happiness, and renders death itself desirable; but they meet him, expecting to receive through him a blessing, and learn the will of the Lord concerning them, and what awaits the faithful follower of Joseph, the Apostle and Prophet of God, When in the stead thereof, they are told, after having been sworn in one of the most solemn manners, to never divulge what is revealed to them, with a penalty of death attached that God Almighty has revealed it to him, that she should be his (Joseph's) Spiritual wife; for it was right anciently,and God will tolerate it again: but we must keep those pleasures and blessings form the world, for until there is a change in the government, we will endanger ourselves by practicing it-but we can enjoy the blessings of Jacob, David, and others, as well as to be deprived of them, if we do not expose ourselves to the law of the land. She is thunder-struck, faints recovers, and refuses. The Prophet damns her if she rejects. She thinks of the great sacrifice and of the many thousand miles she has traveled over sea and land, that she might save her soul from pending ruin, and replies, God's will be done and not mine. The Prophet and his devotees in this way are gratified. The next step to avoid public exposition from the common course of things, they are sent away for a time, until all is well; after which they return, as from a long visit. Those whom no power or influence could seduce, except that which is wielded by some individual feigning to be a God, must realize the remarks of an able writer, when he says, "if woman's feelings are turned to ministers of sorrow, where shall she look for consolation?" Her lot is to be wooed and want her heart is like some fortress that has been captured, sacked, abandoned, and left desolate. With her, the desire of the heart has failed-the great charm of existence is at an end; she neglects all the cheerful exercise of life, which gladen the spirits, quicken the pulses, and send the tide of life in healthful currents through the veins. Her rest is broken. The sweet refreshment of sleep is poisoned by melancholy dreams; dry sorrow drinks her blood, until her enfeebled frame sinks under the slightest external injury. Look for her after a little while, and you find friendship weeping over her untimely grave; and wondering that one who but so recently glowed with all the radiance of health and beauty, should so speedily be brought down to darkness and despair, you will be told of some wintry chill, of some casual indisposition that laid her low! But no one knows of the mental malady that previously sapped her strength, and made her so easy a pray to the spoiler. She is like some tender tree, the pride and beauty of the grove-graceful in its form, bright in its foliage, but with the worm praying at its heart; we find it withered when it should be most luxuriant. We see it drooping its branches to the earth, and shedding leaf by leaf until wasted and perished away, it falls in the stillness of the forest; and as we muse over the beautiful ruin, we strive in vain to recollect the blast or thunder-bolt that could have smitten it with decay. But no one knows the cause except the foul fiend who perpetrated the diabolical deed.

Our hearts have mourned and bled at the wretched and miserable condition of females in this place; many orphans have been the victims of misery and wretchedness, through the influence, that has been exerted over them, under the cloak of religion and afterwards, in consequence of that jealous disposition which predominates over the minds of some, have been turned upon a wide world, fatherless and motherless, destitute of friends and fortune; and robbed of that which nothing but death can restore."

This garbage is the same type of contemptible swill that the Anti-Mormons love to vomit up to poison the minds of the public against the Prophet and the Saints. It is rather obvious there intent in publishing this scandal sheet. They of course like all apostates do not say they oppose the Church, but that the leadership has gone astray, it is the same braying of those who Judas like are overcome by Satan and are constantly seeking the destruction of the leaders of the Church and those who dare to follow them.

[Lightbearer]

If that were not enough, what about the following:

Among the many items of false doctrine that are taught the Church, is the doctrine of many Gods, one of the most direful in its effects that has characterized the world for many centuries. We know not what to call it other than blasphemy, for it is most unquestionably, speaking of God in an impious and irreverent manner. It is contended that there are innumerable gods as much above the God that presides over this universe, as he is above us; and if he varies from the law unto which he is subjected, he, with all his creatures, will be cast down as was Lucifer: thus holding forth a doctrine which is effectually calculated to sap the very foundation of our faith, and now, O Lord! shall we set still and be silent, while thy name is thus blasphemed, and thine Honor, power and glory, brought into disrepute? See Isaiah c 43, v 10; 44, 6-8; 45, 5,6, 21, 22; and book of Covenants, page 26 and 39.

In the dark ages of Popery, when bigotry, superstition, and tyranny held universal sway over the empire of reason, there was some semblance of justice in the inquisitorial deliberations; which, however, might have been dictated by prudence, or the fear of consequences; but we are no longer forced to appeal to those states that are now situated under the influence of Popery for examples of injustice, cruelty and oppression-we can appeal to the acts of the inquisitorial deliverations, which, however, might have been dictated by prudence, or the fear of consequences: but we are no longer forced to appeal to those states that are now situated under the influence of popery for examples of injustice, cruelty and oppression-we can appeal to the acts of the inquisitorial department organized in Nauvoo, by Joseph and his accomplices, for specimens of injustice of the most perniciouis and diabolical character that ever stained the pages of the historian.

It was in Rome, and about the twelfth century, when Pope Innocent III, ordered father Dominic to excite the Catholic princes and people to extirpate heretics. But it is in this enlightened and intelligent nineteenth century, and in Nauvoo--a place professing to be the nucleus o the world, that Joseph Smith has established an inquisition, which, if it is suffered to exist, will prove more formidable and terrible to those who are found opposing the iniquities of Joseph and his associates, than ever the Spanish inquisiton did to heretics as they termed them.

Does this not sound like Anti-Mormon trash? I will let others judge for themselves but this sounds very familiar to me.

[Areabird]

The quote you provided is perhaps the only "positive" sentiment expressed in the publication. I assume you are calling a CFR for my intemperate statement:"The Expositor was like many tabloids of today, sensationalistic hyperbole. In fact one could say it was the "essence" of Anti-Mormon literature."

Very well as you like it:How quick the apostate clamors for their "rights" and how the authorities of the church are always painted as tyrants and oppressors. More found here:This garbage is the same type of contemptible swill that the Anti-Mormons love to vomit up to poison the minds of the public against the Prophet and the Saints. It is rather obvious there intent in publishing this scandal sheet. They of course like all apostates do not say they oppose the Church, but that the leadership has gone astray, it is the same braying of those who Judas like are overcome by Satan and are constantly seeking the destruction of the leaders of the Church and those who dare to follow them.

Are you actually trying to say that these statements are not true? This is exactly what was happening at the time! And I'm not seeing the slander or 'braying'. Please point to it specifically since you copied and pasted a very large segment.

[Lightbearer]

Are you actually trying to say that these statements are not true? This is exactly what was happening at the time! And I'm not seeing the slander or 'braying'. Please point to it specifically since you copied and pasted a very large segment.

If you cannot see it from what I have already quoted, then I suppose there is no point discussing it. Is this not defamation of character? All I see is slander and braying! Painting a picture that just did not exist, except in the minds of corrupt men who hated the Prophet. Like a bunch of vicious jackals. Characterizing things as blasphemous and calling plural marriage adultery, I wonder if they considered Abraham and Jacob an adulterer? Of course they would, just as those today who assail the name and character of a true Prophet who's name will outlive those who tried to destroy him.

[mrmendoza]

The quote you provided is perhaps the only "positive" sentiment expressed in the publication. I assume you are calling a CFR for my intemperate statement:"The Expositor was like many tabloids of today, sensationalistic hyperbole. In fact one could say it was the "essence" of Anti-Mormon literature."

Very well as you like it:How quick the apostate clamors for their "rights" and how the authorities of the church are always painted as tyrants and oppressors. More found here:This garbage is the same type of contemptible swill that the Anti-Mormons love to vomit up to poison the minds of the public against the Prophet and the Saints. It is rather obvious there intent in publishing this scandal sheet. They of course like all apostates do not say they oppose the Church, but that the leadership has gone astray, it is the same braying of those who Judas like are overcome by Satan and are constantly seeking the destruction of the leaders of the Church and those who dare to follow them.

Yes, and remember, according to another thread Areabird started, these people were the cream of the crop, the "elete' of Nauvoo! Highly respected people, who only wanted the inform the people of the "vicious principles of Joseph... abominations and whoredoms,...!

And this from those who just a short time earlier called themselves his friends!

And yet it still seems strange to me that, that Areabird who seems to think of himself as a good Mormon, has forgotten that the "principle" as JS sometimes called it was a commandment of God! The reason that JS kept it from the body of the church should be apparent when you see what those whom he did confide it to did with it!

Mike

[Analytics]

More found here: This garbage is the same type of contemptible swill that the Anti-Mormons love to vomit up to poison the minds of the public against the Prophet and the Saints. It is rather obvious there intent in publishing this scandal sheet. They of course like all apostates do not say they oppose the Church, but that the leadership has gone astray, it is the same braying of those who Judas like are overcome by Satan and are constantly seeking the destruction of the leaders of the Church and those who dare to follow them.

Do you understand the big picture of what was going on? Like today, the church then was officially and adamantly anti-polygamy. Like today, the leadership repeatedly spoke out against polygamy. Like today, they excommunicated anybody who was caught preaching or practicing polygamy. The church then was outspokenly anti-polygamy, just as it is today. That is what the rank-and-file members were taught by their leaders, and that is what they believed. Like today, the rank-and-file members were upset that people kept on accusing them of being polygamists.

That is why the mainstream members were upset at William Law: he was accusing Joseph Smith of practicing polygamy, when they were sure he was not.

Given what the official, emphasized, publicized, and believed laws of the Church were, and given how viciously Joseph Smith slandered William Law for trying to hold him accountable to the Laws of the Church, itâ??s clear that mainstream Mormons would have agreed with William Lawâ??s characterization of Joseph Smith had they known that Joseph Smith really was practicing polygamy.

William Law was clearly being loyal to the laws of the church, and Joseph Smith was clearly in defiance of the laws of the church. That being the indisputable truth, is it any wonder which person published a paper and which one destroyed a press?

[ERayR]

Are you actually trying to say that these statements are not true? This is exactly what was happening at the time! And I'm not seeing the slander or 'braying'. Please point to it specifically since you copied and pasted a very large segment.

Please reply to post #81

[LeSellers]

Truth was a defense to libel back in 1844.

In criminal prosecution, but we are talking about something else.

The Nauvoo City Council was determining whether the Expositor was a nuisance, and whether that nuisance should be abated. The argument was that the paper was a libelous rag, using "libel" with its XIX meaning. There was no legal charge of libel, against which the accusation's being true would have been a defense. The discussion of the libelous nature of the Expositor centered around its tendency to provoke, and there is no way that anyone reading the paper in Nauvoo, June 1844 could have deemed it anything else.

Its libelous nature made it a nuisance. The city charter gave the counsel the power and obligation to abate that nuisance, which it did by means of the city marshal according to law.

Lehi

[T-Shirt]

William Law was clearly being loyal to the laws of the church, and Joseph Smith was clearly in defiance of the laws of the church.

Nonsense. William Law was well aware of the doctrine of celestial marriage, as well as plural marriage and he had been sworn to secrecy. He had no objections until he was denied a sealing to his wife at which time he was exposed as the hypocritical adulterer that he was. William's wife, upon learning that she could not be sealed to her husband as a result of his unworthiness, asked to be sealed to Joseph Smith, which he refused. William turned on Joseph and, in the presence of witnesses, vowed to kill him.

T-Shirt

[Lightbearer]

Do you understand the big picture of what was going on? Like today, the church then was officially and adamantly anti-polygamy. Like today, the leadership repeatedly spoke out against polygamy. Like today, they excommunicated anybody who was caught preaching or practicing polygamy. The church then was outspokenly anti-polygamy, just as it is today. That is what the rank-and-file members were taught by their leaders, and that is what they believed. Like today, the rank-and-file members were upset that people kept on accusing them of being polygamists.

That is why the mainstream members were upset at William Law: he was accusing Joseph Smith of practicing polygamy, when they were sure he was not.

Given what the official, emphasized, publicized, and believed laws of the Church were, and given how viciously Joseph Smith slandered William Law for trying to hold him accountable to the Laws of the Church, itâ??s clear that mainstream Mormons would have agreed with William Lawâ??s characterization of Joseph Smith had they known that Joseph Smith really was practicing polygamy.

William Law was clearly being loyal to the laws of the church, and Joseph Smith was clearly in defiance of the laws of the church. That being the indisputable truth, is it any wonder which person published a paper and which one destroyed a press?

Yes I understand all too well what was going on then and now. No, the mainstream of the Church were upset because Law and the other apostates were claiming Joseph was a "fallen prophet." It was not in defiance of the laws of the Church. In fact quite the opposite, John C. Bennett and others were guilty of whoredoms under the guise of plural marriage. The difference between him and what the prophet did is that the Prophet was commanded by God. Of course to an atheist this is untenable because they believe that there is no God to speak anyway. But the two positions (that of today and then) are not comparable other than the apostates and Anti-Mormons of today still try to uphold William Law and the other traitors in their false positions. It is indisputable that the Expositor was nothing more or less than an Anti-Mormon rag, that is why modern Anti-Mormons like to "circle the wagons" and trumpet the First Amendment being abridged as why Joseph was murdered in cold blood by a bunch of contemptible apostates and other enemies of the Church. It is rather instructive that nothing much has changed in all that time, the enemies of the truth still thirst for his blood, even though the enemies of truth then already had that opportunity to sate their thirst. If you think that the faithful would not accept the principle of plural marriage, then how can you explain why there was not a mass apostasy when it was announced to the world?

[Areabird]

How many words does it take? Come up with a number so that we can continue 15, 20, 50, 100, 1000.

If we are to continue with XXI standards I would point out in some circles it takes only one. So if we are to continue with holding to XXI, as you are insisting, then it was in fact libelous.

17%. Come on, everyone knows that!

[Areabird]

Yes, and remember, according to another thread Areabird started, these people were the cream of the crop, the "elete' of Nauvoo! Highly respected people, who only wanted the inform the people of the "vicious principles of Joseph... abominations and whoredoms,...!

And this from those who just a short time earlier called themselves his friends!

And yet it still seems strange to me that, that Areabird who seems to think of himself as a good Mormon, has forgotten that the "principle" as JS sometimes called it was a commandment of God! The reason that JS kept it from the body of the church should be apparent when you see what those whom he did confide it to did with it!

Mike

First off, I never claimed I was a 'good' Mormon.

Second, what is the definition of a good Mormon?

Third, he kept it secret because it was not a commandment from God. But he knew that if he, God's prophet, told those young girls and married women that it was a commandment from God they would be more likely to give in to him.

[Calm]

He had no objections until he was denied a sealing to his wife at which time he was exposed as the hypocritical adulterer that he was. William's wife, upon learning that she could not be sealed to her husband as a result of his unworthiness, asked to be sealed to Joseph Smith, which he refused.

Reference, please.