The Expositor: Libelous of the deepest dye?

[Analytics]

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.

I don't know if God really commanded Joseph Smith to break the laws of the church as you claim he did. But I do know that thousands of Mormons over the last century have been excommunicated because they claim God commanded them to practice polygamy. All of them were excommunicated. They were excommunicated because they broke the law of the church--whether God commanded them to do so or not is irrelevant.

Since Joseph Smith was in a position to change the law of the church, the path of intergrity would have been to either change the laws of the church so they reflected God's commandments or live the law of the church.

If Joseph Smith wasn't a fallen prophet then the church was in apostasy: the church adamantly rejected Joseph Smith's revelations on this topic.

[dblagent007]

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

Okay, I think I understand the point of disagreement here. I am saying that truth was a defense to an allegation of libel back in 1844 (criminal or civil). The Expositor was primarily true and therefore can't be considered libelous.

What you are saying is that the Nauvoo City Council didn't allege that the Expositor was libelous in the sense that it created a civil or criminal cause of action against the accused. The Nauvoo City Council was simply saying using the term "libelous" to mean "tendency to provoke" or something similar. Since the Expositor had a tendency to provoke, it was a nuisance and should be abated.

As I stated above, I don't know whether this is a proper application of the nuisance laws (shut down a press printing things that are largely true). I would think there would be serious limitations on applications of this nature since the City Council was bound by the U.S. and Illinois Constitutions, both of which contained a freedom of the press provision.

[Lightbearer]

I don't know if God really commanded Joseph Smith to break the laws of the church as you claim he did. But I do know that thousands of Mormons over the last century have been excommunicated because they claim God commanded them to practice polygamy. All of them were excommunicated. They were excommunicated because they broke the law of the church--whether God commanded them to do so or not is irrelevant.

Since Joseph Smith was in a position to change the law of the church, the path of intergrity would have been to either change the laws of the church so they reflected God's commandments or live the law of the church.

If Joseph Smith wasn't a fallen prophet then the church was in apostasy: the church adamantly rejected Joseph Smith's revelations on this topic.

The Church did not reject Joseph or plural marriage, the practice of plural marriage was suspended in 1890 by revelation to the living prophet. Those who pretend that did not occur and choose to follow their own desires are excommunicated. God never commanded the FLDS or any other polygamous cult to practice plural marriage, therefore it was illegitimate and they were cut off the Church. The Church followed Brigham Young and the twelve to the great basin where the law of plural marriage was lived until the Lord withdrew the practice of that commandment. You are under the false assumption that Joseph Smith was not following the laws of God... He was! The Law of the Church and the law of God is the same, God gave section 132 and God later gave Official Declaration 1 (The Manifesto) all in accordance with the laws of the Church.

[T-Shirt]

I'd like to discuss the content of the Expositor and whether or not the Nauvoo City Council correctly designated the paper a public nuisance. Was there actually anything libelous written in the paper? Was their reasoning sound? I have included a link to the full Expositor text.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Primary_sources/Nauvoo_Expositor_Full_Text

I'd rather not talk about the legality of the press' destruction. We have discussed that in a separate thread. Let's focus on whether the decision to destroy the press based on solid facts and sound reasoning or if it was done primarily on emotion.

Quotes from the city council meeting that resulted in the order to destroy the press:

He then read from the constitution of the United States on the freed of the press, and said "We are willing they should publish the truth; but it is unlawful to publish libels.--Councilor Taylor, History of the Church, p. 445.

If we pass only a fine or imprisonment, have we any confidence they will desist? None at all. We have found these men covenant breakers with God...shall they be suffered to go on and bring a mob upon us...I had rather my blood be spilled at once, and would like to have the press removed as soon as the ordinance would allow....--Alderman Orson Spencer, History of the Church, p. 446.

He considered the publication of the Expositor as much murderous at heart as David was before the death of Uriah.--Councilor Phineas Richards, History of the Church, p. 447.

While the Nauvoo Exspositor certainly contained untruths, you surely understand that a public nuisance was not simply about being truthful. The Expositor was full of provocative and incendiary language. It tried to create fear among the people, which could potentially incite riots in an already delicate environment.

Nevertheless, here are some items from the Expositor that address your question:

This statement is, at best, a gross exaggeration:

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.

To this I would add, arrogant. I can think of many men and women who were more thoroughly acquainted with the Church. I donâ??t think any honest person could dispute this.

This quote shows a ridiculous attempt to show themselves as caretakers of the Church:

We have called upon him to repent, and as soon as he shewed fruits meet for repentance, we stood ready to seize him by the hand of fellowship, and throw around him the mantle of protection; for it is the salvation of souls we desire, and not our own aggrandizement.

William Law and Charles Foster had both threatened to kill Joseph Smith. Charles Foster was arrested when he charged Joseph with a pistol. The men responsible for the Nauvoo Expositor, William Law, Wilson Law, Robert D. Foster, Charles A. Foster, Chauncey Higbee , Austin Cowles, Francis Higbee and Charles Ivins had all been excommunicated from the Church and had all made the following vow:

"You solemnly swear, before God and all holy angels, and these your brethren by whom you are surrounded that you will give your life, your liberty, your influence, your all, for the destruction of Joseph Smith and his party, so help you God!"

These men also stated that, â??President Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet and his death was necessary to save the Church.â?

(Joseph Fielding Smith, Church History and Modern Revelation, 4 vols. [salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1946-1949], 4: 182.)

So, I add to my previous statement that this paragraph from the Expositor was not only what I said it was, but it was a bald faced lie. They did not want to extend the hand of fellowship to Joseph Smith, they wanted him dead.

This statement is intended to be nothing more than incendiary:

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 and are not accordant and consonant with the principles of Jesus Christ and the Apostles

This one is a dishonest attempt at fear mongering:

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

None of these men were ever threatened with their lives, before or after publishing the Expositor. Joseph Smith was well aware of these menâ??s motives, long before the paper was printed. This was an attempt to do nothing more than paint a vicious picture of Joseph Smith that was not true. After the murder of Joseph, Robert Foster, who, according to one source, admitted to being a party to Josephâ??s death, was simply asked to leave Nauvoo. Even after the murder, he was not threatened with physical harm.

This one is a lie:

Joseph [ Smith ], who would state that if he had sinned, and was guilty of the charges we would charge him with, he would not make acknowledgment, but would rather be damned; for it would detract from his dignity, and would consequently ruin and prove the overthrow of the Church.

I am unaware of any source that would verify this statement. To the contrary, Joseph Smith admitted to be fallible, imperfect and subject to error. He is chastised, sometimes severely, in the Doctrine and Covenants for his mistakes. Maybe you can come up with something to verify this statement.

This one is a gross distortion of what Joseph actually said:

We would ask him on the other hand, if the overthrow of the Church was not inevitable, to which he often replies, that we would all go to Hell together, and convert it into a heaven, by casting the Devil out; and says he, Hell is by no means the place this world of fools suppose it to be, but on the contrary, it is quite an agreeable place; to which we would now reply, he can enjoy it if he is determined not to desist from his evil ways; but as for us, and ours, we will serve the Lord our God!

Here is what Joseph actually said in responding to his enemies who tried to destroy his character:

"I see no faults in the Church, and therefore let me be resurrected with the Saints, whether I ascend to heaven or descend to hell, or go to any other place. And if we go to hell, we will turn the devils out of doors and make a heaven of it. Where this people are, there is good society. What do we care where we are, if the society be good? I don't care what a man's character is; if he's my friendâ??a true friend, I will be a friend to him, and preach the Gospel of salvation to him, and give him good counsel, helping him out of his difficulties.

Friendship is one of the grand fundamental principles of "Mormonism"; [it is designed] to revolutionize and civilize the world, and cause wars and contentions to cease and men to become friends and brothers."

(Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 vols., introduction and notes by B. H. Roberts [salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1932-1951], 5: 517.)

The context of this statement is wrong and they embellished it to make it appear to be something more and different than it was.

More baseless fear mongering:

Lo! the wolf is in the fold, arrayed in sheep's clothing, and is spreading death and devastation among the saints:

There is absolutely no evidence that Joseph Smith was spreading death and devastation. Can you provide some?

This next one is only the beginning of a rather long paragraph that is a despicable lie:

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...

It goes on to explain that women are brought from England for the sole purpose of being married to Joseph Smith against their will, combined with a lot of incendiary language. Of all the women who were sealed to Joseph Smith, none of them were converts from England, or anywhere in the Eastern hemisphere. There is no record, that I am aware of, of any women from England who were forced, against their will to marry Joseph Smith, or those who were threatened with death if they refused.

End part one.

[T-Shirt]

Begin part two.

This is a lie:

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.

Can you supply the names of any of these miserable, fatherless, motherless and friendless orphans?

More fear mongering, implying that they will possibly be killed for writing this:

Shall we then, however painful the sight, shrink from the contemplation of their real state? We answer, we will not, if permitted to live. As we have before stated, it is the vicious principles of men we are determined to explode. It is not that we have any private pique to settle, that has induced us to be thus plain; for we can respect and love the criminal, if there is any hope of reformation: but there is a point beyond which forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

This is not only fear mongering, but it is arrogant and hypocritical. As I already stated above, they wanted people to think their lives were in danger and that they were so brave to stand in the face of death and expose the truth. And to say they had no, “private pique to settle” is just laughable. The whole despicable plan was born of revenge. Disgusting!

This is a lie:

We believe it is inconsistent, and not in accordance with the christian religion. We do not believe that God ever raised up a Prophet to christianize a world by political schemes and intrigue.

Joseph never tried to Christianize the world by political schemes. Can you support this?

This is an untrue distortion:

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;

I have never seen Joseph preach that God and all his creatures could fall and be cast down together. Have you? Can you show me?

This one is an inexcusable, disgusting attempt to claim what Joseph Smith was doing was worse than the Spanish Inquisition:

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 of 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 even the Spanish inquisition did to heretics as they termed them.

Do you think this is a fair statement? Do you agree that Joseph’s actions were worse than the Spanish inquisition? I did not quote it, but the Expositor also compares Joseph to Nero and Caligula. Do you agree with this? Any one who feels this paragraph is reasonable and accurate is, quite frankly, pathetic and disgusting.

This is a lie:

That we consider the gathering in haste, and by sacrifice, to be contrary to the will of God; and that it has been taught by Joseph Smith and others for the purpose of enabling them to sell property at most exhorbitant (sic) prices,

This would be funny, if it wasn’t so sad. There is no question that in Kirtland and Nauvoo, there were those who were involved in speculation and took advantage of people. Are you aware that Robert Foster was one of those who was heavily involved in this practice? Can you cite references that show Joseph Smith was guilty of the same? These men were liars and hypocrites.

This one presents their unfounded belief as though it were fact:

we look upon the sending of special agents abroad to collect funds for the Temple and other purposes as a humbug practiced upon the saints by Joseph and others, to aggrandize themselves, as we do not believe that the monies and property so collected, have been applied as the donors expected, but have been used for speculative purposes, by Joseph, to [ gull ? ] the saints the better on their arrival at Nauvoo, by buying the lands in the vicinity and selling again to them at tenfold advance; and further that we verily believe the appropriations said to have been subscribed by shares for the building of the Nauvoo House to have been used by J. Smith and Lyman Wight, for other purposses (sic), as out of the mass of stock already taken, the building is far from being finished even to the base.

They even admit that this is only their opinion. They had no evidence. Do you?

Gross distortion:

That we consider all secret societies, and combinations under penal oaths and obligations, (professing to be organized for religious purposes,) to be anti-Christian, hypocritical and corrupt.

You know this is a distortion. What makes this even worse is that these men had there own secret group where they mad secret oaths to kill Joseph Smith. Do you not find this to be hypocritical?

More baseless fear mongering:

That we will not acknowledge any man as king or law-giver to the church; for Christ is our only king and law-giver.

This is a distortion of the council of fifty. Joseph never claimed to be the king and law giver to the Church.

This one, once again, gives the impression that they are the leaders of the Church, despite the fact that William Law was excommunicated:

That we call upon the honest in heart, in the Church, and throughout the world, to vindicate the pure doctrines of Jesus Christ, whether set forth in the Bible, Book of Mormon, or Book of Covenants: and we hereby withdraw the hand of fellowship, from all those who practice or teach doctrines contrary to the above, until they cease so to do, and show works meet for repentance.

This is truly pathetic. This is nothing more than a case of, “You can’t fire meâ?¦ I quit.” It is hard to withdraw the hand of fellowship from a Church you have been excommunicated from. Are you aware that these men had already attempted to start their own Church? William Law was prophet, James Blakesley and Austin Cowles were his counselors, the Higbees and the Fosters were members of the twelve and Charles Ivins was the bishop.

They were even planning a mission to England. But, of course, these men were not bitter about having been stripped of there positions in the Church. Yeah, right.

This is, at best, a misrepresentation and, at worst, a lie:

I certify that I read the revelation referred to in the above affidavit of my husband, it sustained in strong terms the doctrine of more wives than one at a time, in this world, and in the next, it authorized some to have to the number of ten, and set forth that those women who would not allow their husbands to have more wives than one should be under condemnation before God.

Other than the President of the Church, D&C 132 specifically requires that a wife agree and approve any further wives. The way this is stated, it is untrue.

This is nothing more than ridiculous name calling and fear mongering:

It will be perceived that many of the most dark and damnable crimes that ever darkened human character, which have hitherto been to the public, a matter of rumor and suspicion, are now reduced to indisputable facts. We have reason to believe, from our acquaintance with Mr. Jackson, and our own observation, that the statements he makes are true; and in view of these facts, we ask, in the name of heaven, where is the safety of our lives and liberties, when placed at the disposal of such heaven daring, hell deserving, God forsaken villains. Our blood boils while we refer to these blood thirsty and murderous propensities of men, or rather demons in human shape, who, not satisfied with practising their dupes upon a credulous and superstitious people, must wreak their vengeance upon any who may dare to come in contact with them.

Are you willing to agree with and defend these statements?:

- the most dark and damnable crimes that ever darkened human character

- indisputable facts

- hell deserving, God forsaken villains

- blood thirsty and murderous propensities of men

- demons in human shape

- must wreak their vengeance

This is a lie:

In supporting Hyrum Smith, then are you not supporting Joseph Smith, most assuredly; pause then my countrymen, and consider cooly (sic), calmly and deliberately, what you do? Support not that man who is spreading death, devastation and ruin through out your happy country like a tornado.

Again, where is the evidence of this death and devastation? Can you provide it?

This next one is just a joke:

Joseph Smith, the candidate of another "powerful" party has two indictments against him, one for fornication and adultery, another for perjury. Our readers can make their own comments.

The indictments they are referring to were the result of charges filed by William Law himself. Upon being indicted, Joseph immediately went to Carthage and demanded an immediate trial. Law and his weasely cronies chickened out and asked for a delay in the proceedings. Joseph was allowed to go home. Shortly after this, Joseph was dead. How convenient.

According to one source:

A plot to take the Prophet's life while he was at Carthage was disclosed by two of the conspirators, Charles A. and Robert D. Foster. These men repented of their part in the proceedings and confessed to the Prophet in tears.

(William E. Berrett, The Restored Church, 7th ed. [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1953], 232.)

There are more, but frankly, I got tired of looking for them. I find it to be to be quite troubling that anyone can read this document and seriously wonder what is wrong with it.

Finally, to wrap this up, Robert Foster was charged with the murders, but unsubstantiated evidence led to his acquittal. In conversation with Abraham C. Hodge in 1845, he said, "I am the most miserable wretch that the sun shines upon. If I could recall eighteen months of my life I would be willing to sacrifice everything I have upon earth, my wife and child not excepted. I did love Joseph Smith more than any man that ever lived, if I had been present I would have stood between him and death." To this Hodge then asked, "Why did you do as you have done? You were accessory to his murder." Robert replied, "I know that, and I have not seen one moment's peace since that time. I know that Mormonism is true, and the thought of meeting (Joseph and Hyrum) at the bar of God is more awful to me than anything else."

(Susan Easton Black, Who's Who in the Doctrine and Covenants [salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1997], 91 - 92.)

Anyone care to defend these men behind the Expositor?

Best,

T-Shirt

[Analytics]

You are under the false assumption that Joseph Smith was not following the laws of God... He was! The Law of the Church and the law of God is the same, God gave section 132 and God later gave Official Declaration 1 (The Manifesto) all in accordance with the laws of the Church.

I have no opinion on whether or not Joseph Smith was following the laws of God.

However, the laws of the Church during Joseph Smith's lifetime were the laws that were published in the Doctrine and Covenants, were sustained by the church, and were referred to when defending the Latter-day Saints against accusations of polygamy.

The law of the church during Joseph Smith's lifetime was this:

Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.

That is what was canonized in the D&C, it is what Mormons firmly believed, it was the basis Joseph Smith used to excommunicate polygamists, and it is what members of the church referred to to prove Joseph Smith wasn't practicing polygamy when the church's enemies accused him of such.

You can claim that Joseph Smith was obeying the laws of God, but he was in flagrant violations of the laws of the Church.

[mrmendoza]

I don't know if God really commanded Joseph Smith to break the laws of the church as you claim he did. But I do know that thousands of Mormons over the last century have been excommunicated because they claim God commanded them to practice polygamy. All of them were excommunicated. They were excommunicated because they broke the law of the church--whether God commanded them to do so or not is irrelevant.

Since Joseph Smith was in a position to change the law of the church, the path of intergrity would have been to either change the laws of the church so they reflected God's commandments or live the law of the church.

If Joseph Smith wasn't a fallen prophet then the church was in apostasy: the church adamantly rejected Joseph Smith's revelations on this topic.

A couple of things to consider. Joseph was obviously trying to introduce the revelation on plural marrage to the people, but he wanted the other leaders to know about it first so that they could put up a united front when he presented it to them. It's my understanding that Hyrum actually presented the revelation to most of the church leaders in a councel meeting, but was totally rebuffed by most of them. That was how they learned of it and that was how they got a copy of the revelation which they used to villify the prophet! Rather then accepting it, or even saying that they couldn't accept it for the church, they called it an abonination, and whoredoms! Obviously since they also couldn't accept the idea of multilpe gods, they added that to the list for good measure! Their subsequint actions prevented Joseph from feeling it a safe thing to take any further at that time.

I don't know if you understand it or not but according to the revelation , found in D&C;135, only one man held the keys to that law at any given time. That's why others in the church who claim that God commanded them to live in poligamy are not santioned by the church, and are ex'd. Nobody has the keys to that principle except the president of the Church!

I hate to say this, but if I were going to find any fault with what he did, it would be along the line that you said. Only I might be tempted to say that maybe, (After all I don't know what else the Lord told him about it.)just maybe, Joseph should have feared God more then man, and presented it to the whole church and let the chips fall where they may. But I don't know about that!

Mike

[T-Shirt]

Reference, please.

William Marks, the Nauvoo Stake president, was at least ambivalent over Joseph Smith's introduction of plural marriage. William Law could not induce Marks to come out in open opposition to the Prophet's teachings on this subject as Law had induced Marks' first counselor, Austin A. Cowles, to do. But at this trial of William Law, et al., Jack (John) Scott testified that William Law had told him the day before that Joseph Smith had made advances on Jane Law, which accusation the Prophet denied but reportedly later acknowledged. Then Law said that to cover up bad intentions, Joseph Smith had sealed William Law and his wife. While the minutes do indicate that Scott thought "Wm wife lied somewhere," Marks did not agree and, consequently, he could not vote against her. The Prophet was not in attendance at this important meeting; however, at a meeting of those who had received their endowments, Joseph asked for a vote of the men and women to drop William Law from the "Quorum." Though Bathsheba W. Smith did not indicate the member who did not at first vote against Law, it was probably William Marks. The hesitant vote by "one member . . . called forth earnest remarks from the Prophet Joseph. . . . After this explanation the vote was unanimous." Joseph's "earnest remarks" and "explanation" that convinced the unidentified dissenter were probably similar to his explanation of the situation to his German teacher, Alexander Neibaur. On 23 May 1844 William Law testified before the circuit court in Carthage that Joseph Smith had committed adultery (see fn. 46), and the next day Joseph related to Neibaur what he considered were some of the roots of Law's animosity. "Mr Wm Law, wisht to be Married to his Wife for Eternity Mr. Smith said would Inquire of the Lord, Answered no because Law was a Adulterous person. Mrs Law wandet to know why she could not be Married to Mr. Law Mr. S said would not wound her feeling by telling her some days after Mr Smith going toward his Office Mrs Law stood in the door beckoned to him more the once did not Know wheter she bekoned to him went across to Inquire yes please to walk in no one but herself in the house. she drawing her Arms around him if you wont seal me to my husband Seal myself unto you. he Said stand away & pushing her Gently aside giving her a denial & going out. when Mr. Law came home he Inquired who had been in his Absence. she said no one but Br Joseph, he than demanaded what had passed Mrs L then told Joseph wandet her to be Married to him--" (Alexander Neibaur Journal, 24 May 1844, microfilm of holograph, Church Hisstorical Department. For Jack (John) Scott's testimony, see loose sheet transcript of the 18 April 1844 trial in the Brigham Young Papers, Church Historical Department. Compare this with the Joseph Smith Diary under the same date to ascertain the fact that Joseph Smith was not present. For Bathsheba W. Smith's statement on the proceedings at a meeting of those who had received their endowments, see "Recollections of the Prophet Joseph Smith," Juvenile Instructor 27 (1 June 1892):345. (See fn. 65.)

(BYU Studies, vol. 19 (1978-1979), Number 2 - Winter 1979)

and

Apr. 18, 1844

Joseph meets with 32 leading Church brethren (22 of whom belong to the Council of Fifty) to make a ruling about certain Church dissidents. Robert D. Foster, Wilson Law, William Law, Jane Law, and Howard Smith are excommunicated for "unchristianlike conduct." These men did not reject Mormonism, but regarded Joseph as a fallen, not a false, prophet, and planned to set up their own church. They made various charges against Joseph's character. William Law accused Joseph of propositioning Law's wife. Joseph claimed that when he told Jane Law that her husband, William, was unworthy of celestial sealing due to admitted adultery, she then begged to be sealed to Joseph. Several months later Jesse Price would testify that on April 18, 1844, William Law had gone out with pistols determined to blow Joseph's "infernal brains out," saying that he was determined to kill Joseph at first opportunity. (HC 7:227.)

(J. Christopher Conkling, A Joseph Smith Chronology [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1979], 220.)

and

There were other facts, however. William Law had confessed to having committed adultery. Wilson Law had been cashiered from the Legion. At least one of the Fosters had been found guilty of immoral conduct. All the wrongdoing on the part of these men had been exposed by the Mormon leader. Moreover, prior to their defection, they had been content that Joseph Smith should exercise the same power he now wielded. Also they had made no protest till now that he practiced what was known as "plural marriage." It was only when the Prophet's power was used against them that they made objection; only when they engaged in improper marital practices themselves that they found fault with the Mormon leader's plurality of wives. But the chief provocative to anger by the Expositor was the spirit of its publishers.

(John Henry Evans, Joseph Smith, an American Prophet [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1989], 196.)

I'll look for more, if I have time.

T-Shirt

[Analytics]

A couple of things to consider. Joseph was obviously trying to introduce the revelation on plural marrage to the people, but he wanted the other leaders to know about it first so that they could put up a united front when he presented it to them. It's my understanding that Hyrum actually presented the revelation to most of the church leaders in a councel meeting, but was totally rebuffed by most of them. That was how they learned of it and that was how they got a copy of the revelation which they used to villify the prophet! Rather then accepting it, or even saying that they couldn't accept it for the church, they called it an abonination, and whoredoms! Obviously since they also couldn't accept the idea of multilpe gods, they added that to the list for good measure! Their subsequint actions prevented Joseph from feeling it a safe thing to take any further at that time.

I don't know if you understand it or not but according to the revelation , found in D&C;135, only one man held the keys to that law at any given time. That's why others in the church who claim that God commanded them to live in poligamy are not santioned by the church, and are ex'd. Nobody has the keys to that principle except the president of the Church!

I hate to say this, but if I were going to find any fault with what he did, it would be along the line that you said. Only I might be tempted to say that maybe, (After all I don't know what else the Lord told him about it.)just maybe, Joseph should have feared God more then man, and presented it to the whole church and let the chips fall where they may. But I don't know about that!

Mike

Good post Mike; thanks for trying to understand my position. I have no opinion on what God commanded Joseph Smith to do and who has what keys that given them license to do what. Given how secretive Joseph Smith was regarding this, I have no basis for knowing what he was thinking.

But given the orientation of my ethics, if Joseph Smith really thought he was commanded to practice polygamy, he should have announced the revelation to the church just like any other revelation. If his public words and private deeds were in harmony, I would have no grounds to question his integrity.

As it is, he did a great disservice to the integrity of the church. If his course of action was really a sincere effort to follow God, then what he was essentially doing was publicly teaching what was popular (monogamy), and privately doing the opposite.

[JackNimble]

Okay, I think I understand the point of disagreement here. I am saying that truth was a defense to an allegation of libel back in 1844 (criminal or civil). The Expositor was primarily true and therefore can't be considered libelous.

What you are saying is that the Nauvoo City Council didn't allege that the Expositor was libelous in the sense that it created a civil or criminal cause of action against the accused. The Nauvoo City Council was simply saying using the term "libelous" to mean "tendency to provoke" or something similar. Since the Expositor had a tendency to provoke, it was a nuisance and should be abated.

As I stated above, I don't know whether this is a proper application of the nuisance laws (shut down a press printing things that are largely true). I would think there would be serious limitations on applications of this nature since the City Council was bound by the U.S. and Illinois Constitutions, both of which contained a freedom of the press provision.

So I take it that you are merely choosing to ignore the libelous statements made in The Expositor. Is it your argument that it was the statements that were made that were libelous and not that edition (the only one with those statements in it)?

[dblagent007]

So I take it that you are merely choosing to ignore the libelous statements made in The Expositor. Is it your argument that it was the statements that were made that were libelous and not that edition (the only one with those statements in it)?

No, my point was that truth is a defense to a civil or criminal libel action. Lehi says, as far as I understand, that the Nauvoo City Council used the term libel to refer to provoking social unrest, not civil or criminal liability.

The Expositor is full of rhetoric and name calling. I am only interested to know of false statements of fact. T-Shirt provided some examples above but most of them are of opinion and name calling. As I recall from other threads on this subject, there are some inaccurate statements of fact in the Expositor, but they tend to concern less important details while the overarching claim is largely true.

[JackNimble]

No, my point was that truth is a defense to a civil or criminal libel action. Lehi says, as far as I understand, that the Nauvoo City Council used the term libel to refer to provoking social unrest, not civil or criminal liability.

The Expositor is full of rhetoric and name calling. I am only interested to know of false statements of fact. T-Shirt provided some examples above but most of them are of opinion and name calling. As I recall from other threads on this subject, there are some inaccurate statements of fact in the Expositor, but they tend to concern less important details while the overarching claim is largely true.

I believe the matter has long been settled that the council was justified in the destruction of the paper but not the press. Precedent was formed by similar actions concerning other Illinois newspapers of that time period.

[Calm]

I'll look for more, if I have time.

T-Shirt

thank you (and others providing details with documentation), I very much appreciate it. This isn't something I've particularly cared enough to research in depth in the past, certain comments on this thread (and a few others recently) have piqued my curiosity though but I am currently a little occupied with motherly duties to devote much time to research.

But the chief provocative to anger by the Expositor was the spirit of its publishers.

Reading the comments documented above, I think I would agree with this observation.

[justdreamin]

Good post Mike; thanks for trying to understand my position. I have no opinion on what God commanded Joseph Smith to do and who has what keys that given them license to do what. Given how secretive Joseph Smith was regarding this, I have no basis for knowing what he was thinking.

But given the orientation of my ethics, if Joseph Smith really thought he was commanded to practice polygamy, he should have announced the revelation to the church just like any other revelation. If his public words and private deeds were in harmony, I would have no grounds to question his integrity.

As it is, he did a great disservice to the integrity of the church. If his course of action was really a sincere effort to follow God, then what he was essentially doing was publicly teaching what was popular (monogamy), and privately doing the opposite.

What I don't understand about this is that the Book of Mormon is more than clear about the issue of secret combinations. Those who do not believe the BoM was inspired take this issue as Joseph attempting to answer the question concerning the Masons of that day. Those who do believe it was inspired would have to have been able to see the correlation between Joseph keeping this revelation between himself and a few chosen others (a subject that was most thoroughly covered in the then current canon, and thought upon as evil and adulterous,) and the definition of a secret combination. Does it make more sense that man is falible or that God changes his mind quite frenquently. By asking this, I don't mean to hijack this thread. I just think the question has merit, inasmuch as the Laws and others seemed to have the same question.

[mrmendoza]

Good post Mike; thanks for trying to understand my position. I have no opinion on what God commanded Joseph Smith to do and who has what keys that given them license to do what. Given how secretive Joseph Smith was regarding this, I have no basis for knowing what he was thinking.

But given the orientation of my ethics, if Joseph Smith really thought he was commanded to practice polygamy, he should have announced the revelation to the church just like any other revelation. If his public words and private deeds were in harmony, I would have no grounds to question his integrity.

As it is, he did a great disservice to the integrity of the church. If his course of action was really a sincere effort to follow God, then what he was essentially doing was publicly teaching what was popular (monogamy), and privately doing the opposite.

Well, as I said, maybe, just maybe, he should have feared God more then man, but if you believed what he has said about it from the beginning, he never wanted it either! I think he was having just as difficult a time accepting it as did some of the others! Emma, if the word of Eliza R. Snow is to be believed, had accepted it at one time and then rejected it. It was the hardest doctrine for him to grasp, let alone everyone else who just had to take his word for it! Of course we believe that those who did accept did so only after much fasting and prayer and recieved a confermation from the Holy Ghost! But I imagine that there were those for whom the idea alone was such an anathema that they would't even pray about it , but just rejected it out of hand. You know much like many EV's and atheist won't pray about the BOM!

No matter what else we may say about the whole affair, if you just don't believe that Joseph was a true prophet of the true God, your view of his motives and actions, can only be considered in light of mans understanding!'

As an iteresting aside, I've heard it said by some of the early saints, that they didn't have a hard time believing that it was from God, because only God would have them do something so difficult, just to prove their faithfullness!

Mike

[Lightbearer]

I have no opinion on whether or not Joseph Smith was following the laws of God.

However, the laws of the Church during Joseph Smith's lifetime were the laws that were published in the Doctrine and Covenants, were sustained by the church, and were referred to when defending the Latter-day Saints against accusations of polygamy.

The law of the church during Joseph Smith's lifetime was this:

Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.

That is what was canonized in the D&C, it is what Mormons firmly believed, it was the basis Joseph Smith used to excommunicate polygamists, and it is what members of the church referred to to prove Joseph Smith wasn't practicing polygamy when the church's enemies accused him of such.

You can claim that Joseph Smith was obeying the laws of God, but he was in flagrant violations of the laws of the Church.

You do err in that you have no idea what you are talking about. That article on marriage (which was authored by Oliver Cowdry) and was added without the prophet's sanction,as well as the Lectures on Faith were not cannonized as scripture, and beside which the constitution of the Church is not the standard works, it is in the oracles of God (revelation to the living prophet) apparently William Law, the Higbees, Foster, and the other apostates did not understand this either.

[ed2276]

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

Second, what is the definition of a good Mormon?

Definition of "good Mormon" : not you.

Third, he kept it secret because it was not a commandment from God.

Nothing more than a bald assertion on your part.

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.

revised definition of "good Mormon" : definitely not you

[ed2276]

Okay, I think I understand the point of disagreement here. I am saying that truth was a defense to an allegation of libel back in 1844 (criminal or civil). The Expositor was primarily true and therefore can't be considered libelous.

No! No! No! C'mon! The cause of action is not against that which is true, it is against that which is not true. However, as an aside, it used to be the case in ancient law that it was held that the truth works a greater harm than a falsehood. Why? Because a lie can be overcome and extinguished with the assistance of law through the courts, thus giving the person libeled satisfaction; but, a person whose character has been assailed by a truth has no way to satisfy his anger--the courts will not give him satisfaction for the wrong he feels done to him-- other than to exercise private justice (what is just in his own eyes) and to harm the one who utters the truth against him. (Criminal Law ; Perkins and Boyce; pg. 490)

That having been said, even if the truth of the statement is a complete defense, the fact that the majority of the statements are true, and thus beyond the reach of the law, doesn't make the false statements true by extension and make them non-libelous. Each utterance, as to its truth or falsity, must be judged in its own right. Since a false statement is not a true statement, no matter how many truthful statements surround it, the truth cannot be a bar to a libel claim against it.

[Analytics]

You do err in that you have no idea what you are talking about. That article on marriage (which was authored by Oliver Cowdry) and was added without the prophet's sanction,as well as the Lectures on Faith were not cannonized as scripture, and beside which the constitution of the Church is not the standard works, it is in the oracles of God (revelation to the living prophet) apparently William Law, the Higbees, Foster, and the other apostates did not understand this either.

If that's the case, it would seem only fair to the members of the church if the oracles of God would tell the members what the church's laws are, rather than canonizing in their scriptures the polar opposite. Then, faithful members like E.M. Webb wouldn't be made to look like dupes for believing what the church teaches.

In May 1845, E.M. Webb wrote an editorial to the Kalamazoo Gazette which was then republished in The Times and Seasons. In it, he said,

The Latter Day Saints are charged by their enemies with the blackest crimes. Treason, murder, theft, polygamy, and adultery, are among the many crimes laid to their charge....Mr. Rigdon's spiritual wife system was never known till it was hatched by J. C. Bennett who was cut off from the church for seduction. As to the charge of polygamy, I will quote from the Doctrine and Covenants which is the subscribed faith of the church and is strictly enforced. Article on marriage, sec. 109. par. 4. 'Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man should have but one wife and one woman but one husband; except in case of death when either is at liberty to marry again.

[Lightbearer]

If that's the case, it would seem only fair to the members of the church if the oracles of God would tell the members what the church's laws are, rather than canonizing in their scriptures the polar opposite. Then, faithful members like E.M. Webb wouldn't be made to look like dupes for believing what the church teaches.

In May 1845, E.M. Webb wrote an editorial to the Kalamazoo Gazette which was then republished in The Times and Seasons. In it, he said,

I already answered your argument about this, I suppose you figure if you repeat something often enough then everyone will assume you are right. Or perhaps you cannot bear to not have the "last word."

[justdreamin]

I already answered your argument about this, I suppose you figure if you repeat something often enough then everyone will assume you are right. Or perhaps you cannot bear to not have the "last word."

OF COURSE Section 109 was part of the canonized LDS scripture at that time! It remained in the D&C until 1876 when it was removed entirely and replaced with Section 132. And please site a reference for the allegation the 109 was not accepted by JS. Section 109 was written in 1835. Are you saying that it wasn't until Brigham Young was prophet that Joseph Smith realized that this relevation should not belong in the D&C? And what about the statement in the D&C "Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land"??

[Analytics]

I already answered your argument about this, I suppose you figure if you repeat something often enough then everyone will assume you are right. Or perhaps you cannot bear to not have the "last word."

My last post was a response to your insinuation that relying upon the canonized scriptures to define the laws of the church is a misunderstanding of apostates; I used E. M. Webb as an example of a faithful member who feels the same way; I think it is pretty clear to just about everybody that by definition, the laws of the church are the laws published by the church. Anything God tells leaders of the church (or anybody else for that matter) doesnâ??t change the laws of the church until the church officially adopts it.

In any case, this has been a fun, lively thread. Iâ??ve said what I wanted to say, and hope that by expressing my sincere opinions I havenâ??t been too much of a public nuisance.

[LeSellers]

Okay, I think I understand the point of disagreement here. I am saying that truth was a defense to an allegation of libel back in 1844 (criminal or civil). The Expositor was primarily true and therefore can't be considered libelous.

In a technical, legal sense, perhaps. Remember, the law was also in a state of flux at the time, as was the language. That's one of the points I tried to make when I posted the 1828 definition of "libel".

What you are saying is that the Nauvoo City Council didn't allege that the Expositor was libelous in the sense that it created a civil or criminal cause of action against the accused. The Nauvoo City Council was simply saying using the term "libelous" to mean "tendency to provoke" or something similar. Since the Expositor had a tendency to provoke, it was a nuisance and should be abated.

That's one of my points, so we are making progress, finally.

However, let's not forget that the Expositor was explicitly created to defame Joseph Smith and to vindicate several excommunicated members who had been accused of (and proven in my mind) adultery themselves. Their hypocrisy knew meager bounds, at best.

A truth that's told with bad intent beats all the lies you can invent.

â?? "Auguries of Innocence"

As I stated above, I don't know whether this is a proper application of the nuisance laws (shut down a press printing things that are largely true). I would think there would be serious limitations on applications of this nature since the City Council was bound by the U.S. and Illinois Constitutions, both of which contained a freedom of the press provision.

The Constitution for the united States of America and its Bill of Rights did not apply in 1844, no matter how many times we hear this whine. Whether the Illinois constitution protected such noisome and filthy rags in 1844 seemed a matter of local convenience. After all, as we have seen here, the Expositor was far from the first (and doubtless not the last) Illini paper to be abated as a nuisance, whether by legal act, as was that in Nauvoo, or by informal (and more destructive) activity. One wonders whether other city councils were charged with abuse of the press and their mayors incarcerated, much less murdered.

The misplaced concern for the Expositor is universally among those who, as far as I can tell, are grateful that Joseph died a few days later. So, it is with some wonder that I consider their crocodile tears. Would they have had it end any other way? And, since the end justifies the means, should they not rejoice at the whole string of events?

Lehi

[dblagent007]

In a technical, legal sense, perhaps. Remember, the law was also in a state of flux at the time, as was the language. That's one of the points I tried to make when I posted the 1828 definition of "libel".

I am referring to civil and criminal liability for libel. Exactly how was that in a state of flux in 1844? By the way, dictionaries do not law make. Constitutions, Statutes, and court decisions make law.

The Constitution for the united States of America and its Bill of Rights did not apply in 1844, no matter how many times we hear this whine.

Have you read the Nauvoo Charter? How do you explain the sections where the City explicitly agrees to be bound by the the U.S. Constitution. I quoted one of the salient ones in a post up above a ways.

[JackNimble]

But will William Law, his brother, the Higbees, et al., be held somewhat responsible in that FINAL court? We shall see. We shall ALL see. If I were to go by the events that I have seen laid out now, My opinion would be a "yes". Innocent blood was spilt. But since I do not have a perfect knowledge, I can only speculate.