The Expositor: Libelous of the deepest dye?

[Analytics]

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?

I hope you aren't including your interlocutors on this thread among those who you think are grateful that somebody got murdered. If so, that would be a wholly unfounded and despicable assumption on your part.

Just because I'm in favor of the freedom of the press and in favor of religious leaders being honest with their flocks with regards to who they consider themselves married to doesnt' mean I'm somehow also in favor of murder.

[justdreamin]

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

Is it unreasonable for a member of the church to have an expectation that those in leadership, especially the Prophet of the Lord, act in a manner becoming of thier position? Is it ALWAYS unreasonable to question the behaviour of those in the Church who have stewardship over you, especially if that behaviour goes in direct opposition to an accepted canon of scripture? If we question our leaders or even accuse them of some seemingly wrong behaviour, does this mean we want them dead?? Your conclusion here is quite irrational.

[Lightbearer]

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.

Okay if you insist in playing the game that way, let us look at the passage you quoted:

"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."

I will interpret that plural marriage is NOT polygamy and certainly not fornication. This accords with Jacob's teaching in the Book of Mormon:

(Jacob 2:27-30) "Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts. Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes. For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things."

That is also cannonized scripture too! That is the reason John C Bennett was excommunicated and Joseph and others were not. That is the reason the FLDS and other polygamist cults do not have fellowship in the LDS Church. That is the reason David and Solomon sinned in that they took wives not given to them through revelation to a Prophet. You can express your sincere opinions all you like just don't insist that everyone else accept them. You still have the incorrect notion that God cannot reveal things to a living prophet that can be binding and true and could contradict what might previously be revealed. The Law of Moses is a good example, that is why the chief priests wanted to kill Jesus Christ and that is also why the Laws, Higbee's, and Fosters also thirsted for Joseph Smith's blood. Well you can cheer the mob that slaughtered the prophet if you like, I will hold them in contempt and hope they get a reward according to their vile and inhuman works.

[mrmendoza]

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.

I'm sorry, you're right, you never said you were a "good" Mormon. I'm guilty of reading into what you said on the other thread you started When you said, on 19 August 2009

As a Mormon who attends my ward every Sunday I just want to know what is true about our history and beliefs and what is not.

I made that obviously false assumption by adding on to your meaning. You know, kind of like, "As a mormon who 'faithfully' attends my ward every Sunday" and tries to live the principles, etc, etc! My bad! I assumed that you were trying to make yourself credable as a good Mormon honestly searching for understanding! Well you know what they say about when you assume too much!

As for what my definition of a "good" Mormon is, it's what I'm guilty of thinking you were trying to say, not what you actually said! Again, my apologies for thinking that you thought you were a good Mormon, you're obviously not!

Third, Joseph said it was, I believe him. You do not! Since neither I nor anyone else on this board, nor anywhere, for that matter, can prove that belief to you, we all have to go on with what we've got! We have the testimony of the Holy Spirit, that Joseph was a true prophet, who only taught true principles. you have nothing!

Mike

[Lightbearer]

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"??

For the answer see the following FAIR explaination:

The Article on Marriage was printed in the 1835 D&C as section 101 and in the 1844 D&C as section 109. The portion of the Article on Marriage relevant to polygamy states:

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 case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.

This section was not a revelation given to Joseph Smithâ??it was written by Oliver Cowdery and introduced to a conference of the priesthood at Kirtland on 17 August 1835. Cowdery also wrote a statement of belief on government that has been retained in our current edition of the D&C as section 134. Both were sustained at the conference and included in the 1835 D&C, which was already at the press and ready to be published. Joseph Smith was preaching in Michigan at the time Oliver introduced these two articles to the conference; it is not known if he approved of their addition to the D&C at the time, although he did retain them in the 1844 Nauvoo edition.

On July 7, 1878, Joseph F. Smith discussed Oliver's awareness of polygamy at the time of this publication:

To put this matter more correctly before you, I here declare that the principle of plural marriage was not first revealed on the 12th day of July, 1843. It was written for the first time on that date, but it had been revealed to the Prophet many years before that, perhaps as early as 1832. About this time, or subsequently, Joseph, the Prophet, intrusted this fact to Oliver Cowdery; he abused the confidence imposed in him, and brought reproach upon himself, and thereby upon the church by "running before he was sent," and "taking liberties without license," so to speak, hence the publication, by O. Cowdery, about this time, of an article on marriage, which was carefully worded, and afterwards found its way into the Doctrine and Covenants without authority. This article explains itself to those who understand the facts, and is an indisputable evidence of the early existence of the knowledge of the principle of patriarchal marriage by the Prophet Joseph, and also by Oliver Cowdery.

The article outlined the general practice of performing a Latter-day Saint wedding, explained LDS beliefs about the marriage relationship, and denied that the Saints were practicing polygamy (rumors of which were already circulating as a result of the Prophet teaching the concept to some of his close associates).

Gilbert Scharffs notes:

The original Section 101 (never claimed as a revelation but approved as a statement of belief) did state that monogamy was the practice of the Church at that time. The section was not written by Joseph Smith and was voted upon by members in his absence. Perhaps the section was intended to prevent members from getting involved with plural marriage until such a time as the practice would be authorized by the Lord Church-wide. When that became the fact, the current Section 132 replaced the old Section 101.

The statement itself was not changed between the 1835 and 1844 editions of the D&C. In fact, the statement remained in the D&C until the 1876 edition, even though plural marriage had been taught since at least 1831, practiced in secret since 1836, and practiced openly since 1852. The matter of not removing it in 1852 was simply due to the fact that a new edition of the D&C was not published until 1876.

I doubt this will really answer you question, but I did not want to leave a CFR unanswered.

[Lightbearer]

Is it unreasonable for a member of the church to have an expectation that those in leadership, especially the Prophet of the Lord, act in a manner becoming of thier position? Is it ALWAYS unreasonable to question the behaviour of those in the Church who have stewardship over you, especially if that behaviour goes in direct opposition to an accepted canon of scripture? If we question our leaders or even accuse them of some seemingly wrong behaviour, does this mean we want them dead?? Your conclusion here is quite irrational.

This is also is accepted cannon of scripture:

(D&C 121:16-23) "Cursed are all those that shall lift up the heel against mine anointed, saith the Lord, and cry they have sinned when they have not sinned before me, saith the Lord, but have done that which was meet in mine eyes, and which I commanded them. But those who cry transgression do it because they are the servants of sin, and are the children of disobedience themselves. And those who swear falsely against my servants, that they might bring them into bondage and deathâ?? Wo unto them; because they have offended my little ones they shall be severed from the ordinances of mine house. Their basket shall not be full, their houses and their barns shall perish, and they themselves shall be despised by those that flattered them. They shall not have right to the priesthood, nor their posterity after them from generation to generation. It had been better for them that a millstone had been hanged about their necks, and they drowned in the depth of the sea. Wo unto all those that discomfort my people, and drive, and murder, and testify against them, saith the Lord of Hosts; a generation of vipers shall not escape the damnation of hell."

That is also revelation and is binding upon the Church even today.

[AndyOne]

A religious group that is obedient to, and accepting of, a leader who is not subject to scrutiny on the basis of his own past teachings is the very definition of a cult. I don't believe that the church was designed to exclude JS from discipline for any actions that contravened church teachings - the actual facts suggest otherwise.

[Analytics]

Lightbearer,

Iâ??ve said what I wanted to say on this topic and Iâ??m prepared to give you the last word with regards to your defenses, rationalizations, and special-pleading. But Iâ??m not going to tolerate you ascribing to me a position I donâ??t hold and Iâ??m certainly not going to allow you to slandering me with malicious accusations of being in favor of murder.

You still have the incorrect notion that God cannot reveal things to a living prophet that can be binding and true and could contradict what might previously be revealed.

Iâ??ve never said that, never implied it, and never even thought it. All Iâ??ve maintained is that by defnition, a new revelation isnâ??t a law of the Church until it is presented to the church and sustained. God can reveal anything He wants and it can be totally true even if it totally contradicts what Heâ??d previously revealed. Iâ??m fine with those concepts. However, by definition something isnâ??t a law of the Church until it is announced to the Church and the Church sustains it.

D&C 132 became the law of the church when it was read to the church in August of 1852. It may have been a true revelation before then, but that is when it became the law of the Church. That is all Iâ??m saying. Feel free to disagree with me, but please donâ??t accuse me of saying something Iâ??m not saying.

The Law of Moses is a good example, that is why the chief priests wanted to kill Jesus Christ and that is also why the Laws, Higbee's, and Fosters also thirsted for Joseph Smith's blood. Well you can cheer the mob that slaughtered the prophet if you like, I will hold them in contempt and hope they get a reward according to their vile and inhuman works.

You really need to cool down the rhetoric. The mob that killed Joseph Smith were criminals, and in no way have I ever commended or justified or rationalized their crimes. I denounce mob violence.

Just because I'm in favor of the freedom of the press and in favor of religious leaders being honest with their flocks with regards to who they consider themselves married to doesnâ??t mean I'm somehow in favor of murder.

[Areabird]

A religious group that is obedient to, and accepting of, a leader who is not subject to scrutiny on the basis of his own past teachings is the very definition of a cult. I don't believe that the church was designed to exclude JS from discipline for any actions that contravened church teachings - the actual facts suggest otherwise.

I would have to search through Rough Stone Rolling to find the incident, but I believe at one time Joseph was accused of being 'unprophet-like' by a member. I think he had chewed someone out about something. Someone brought him before a church court (in fact Joseph might have been the one to recommend it) and they essentially tried him. In the end they found him not guilty. I remember when I read this that I was impressed he would allow himself to judged by his peers when he could easily have waved them off. I thought, here's someone who walks the walk.

Now, I think he ducked responsibilities as time went on, but in this case at least he set a great example.

[AndyOne]

I would have to search through Rough Stone Rolling to find the incident, but I believe at one time Joseph was accused of being 'unprophet-like' by a member. I think he had chewed someone out about something. Someone brought him before a church court (in fact Joseph might have been the one to recommend it) and they essentially tried him. In the end they found him not guilty. I remember when I read this that I was impressed he would allow himself to judged by his peers when he could easily have waved them off. I thought, here's someone who walks the walk.

Now, I think he ducked responsibilities as time went on, but in this case at least he set a great example.

He may have strayed from it over time, but I believe that was the intent - that even the prophet was subject to the rules of the church. Church leaders today are also members of wards and stakes and under the stewardship of those local leaders. Everyone is intended to be accountable.

[cjcampbell]

I don't know the exact contents of the Expositor, but I've always found it interesting in the discussion of this seemingly bad breech of Constitutional freedoms, to look at the actions of Abraham Lincoln. He shut down hundreds of opposition newspapers in his own northern states, along with destroying many printing presses and imprisoned newspaper editors and owners.

Or even the modern day censorship of the press that continues, from suppression of the Vietnam papers by Nixon's White House to President Obama telling Rush Limbaugh to shut up. Every President we have ever had has attempted to censor the press. Certainly politicians like Mayor Daley attempted to control it. The movie Citizen Kane takes as a given that politicians will control the press. Many of Joseph Smith's critics will excoriate him for destroying the Nauvoo Expositor, then turn right around and demand that books on abortion, sex education, or even novels by Mark Twain be removed from schools and libraries.

But the press brings a lot of this on itself. It was widely believed in Vietnam that news crews were giving away American positions to the enemy just so they could film a battle, which led to widespread distrust of the press by the military and even threats against reporters. The Nauvoo Expositor was very offensive and determined to incite violence against members of the Church. People were being shot. And this while memories of the Missouri extermination order were still fresh. The Expositor was not so different from Nazis publishing an anti-Semitic tract in the middle of a Jewish neighborhood. I think the leaders of the Church in Nauvoo actually showed a lot of restraint, under the circumstances. In that day and age, anyone acting like that would not only have had their press destroyed, they would have been tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail. Or shot.

[cjcampbell]

I hope you aren't including your interlocutors on this thread among those who you think are grateful that somebody got murdered. If so, that would be a wholly unfounded and despicable assumption on your part.

Just because I'm in favor of the freedom of the press and in favor of religious leaders being honest with their flocks with regards to who they consider themselves married to doesnt' mean I'm somehow also in favor of murder.

For someone who is not in favor of murder, then, you certainly have gone to great lengths to explain to us why you think Joseph Smith deserved his fate. Remember? You said that Joseph caused his own murder. Pardon us if we have the impression that given the opportunity you would have been in that mob of blackened faces beating down the doors of Carthage Jail.

[spinner]

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

(emphasis added)

Wow LeSellers, so you are de facto accusing people who criticize JS and the City Council's actions destroying the Expositor of condoning murder? Classy...

[justdreamin]

Lightbearer,

Thank you kindly for your reply and for the sake of brevity I will not copy your posts in full but would like to ask yet another question with reguards to these posts specifically:

"(D&C 121:16-23) "Cursed are all those that shall lift up the heel against mine anointed, saith the Lord, and cry they have sinned when they have not sinned before me, saith the Lord, but have done that which was meet in mine eyes, and which I commanded them. But those who cry transgression do it because they are the servants of sin, and are the children of disobedience themselves. And those who swear falsely against my servants, that they might bring them into bondage and death...Wo unto all those that discomfort my people, and drive, and murder, and testify against them, saith the Lord of Hosts; a generation of vipers shall not escape the damnation of hell."

"To put this matter more correctly before you, I here declare that the principle of plural marriage was not first revealed on the 12th day of July, 1843. It was written for the first time on that date, but it had been revealed to the Prophet many years before that, perhaps as early as 1832. About this time, or subsequently, Joseph, the Prophet, intrusted this fact to Oliver Cowdery; he abused the confidence imposed in him, and brought reproach upon himself, and thereby upon the church by "running before he was sent," and "taking liberties without license," so to speak, hence the publication, by O. Cowdery, about this time, of an article on marriage, which was carefully worded, and afterwards found its way into the Doctrine and Covenants without authority. This article explains itself to those who understand the facts, and is an indisputable evidence of the early existence of the knowledge of the principle of patriarchal marriage by the Prophet Joseph, and also by Oliver Cowdery."

First, was not Oliver Cowdery one of the Lord's anointed? Was there (or IS there, for that matter)a system of checks and balances so as not to give one Apostle unbridled power?

Second, It's my understanding that Oliver Cowdery was Assistant President at that time, and was acknowledged by the church as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, second ONLY to Joseph, and ranked higher than the first Presidency and the Quorum of the 12.

So this statement about the article on marriage finding "its way into the D&C without authority," especially as it was voted on and sustained by not only the First Presidency (maybe sans Joseph) and the body of the church, seems a far fetched explaination at best. I understand that Joseph would have had the final word, and it seems as if he had ample opportunity to remove it from the D&C but, for some unknown reason, did not. A more likey scenario (IMO)is that Joseph did indeed tell Oliver about the principle of plurality of wives, and Oliver, along with others, felt that this was not a valid revelation and attempted to steer Joseph back on course with as little "heel lifting" or public reproach as possible. Also, are we to understand this statement of Joseph F. Smith as a revelation, or as just his explaination of the conflicting revelations?

[Areabird]

Or even the modern day censorship of the press that continues, from suppression of the Vietnam papers by Nixon's White House to President Obama telling Rush Limbaugh to shut up. Every President we have ever had has attempted to censor the press. Certainly politicians like Mayor Daley attempted to control it. The movie Citizen Kane takes as a given that politicians will control the press. Many of Joseph Smith's critics will excoriate him for destroying the Nauvoo Expositor, then turn right around and demand that books on abortion, sex education, or even novels by Mark Twain be removed from schools and libraries.

But the press brings a lot of this on itself. It was widely believed in Vietnam that news crews were giving away American positions to the enemy just so they could film a battle, which led to widespread distrust of the press by the military and even threats against reporters. The Nauvoo Expositor was very offensive and determined to incite violence against members of the Church. People were being shot. And this while memories of the Missouri extermination order were still fresh. The Expositor was not so different from Nazis publishing an anti-Semitic tract in the middle of a Jewish neighborhood. I think the leaders of the Church in Nauvoo actually showed a lot of restraint, under the circumstances. In that day and age, anyone acting like that would not only have had their press destroyed, they would have been tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail. Or shot.

Clearly you have not actually read the Expositor.

[Jeff K.]

Nauvoo Expositor

You are voting for a sycophant, whose attempt for power find no parallel in history. You are voting for a man who refuses to suffer criminals to be brought to justice, but in the stead thereof, rescues them from the just demands of the law, by Habeas Corpus. You are voting for a man who stands indicted, and who is now held to bail, for the crimes of adultery and perjury; two of the graves crimes known to our laws. Query not then for whom you are voting, it is for one of the blackest and basest scoundrels that has appeared upon the stage of human existence since the days of Nero, and Caligula.

or

In the times when the peoples looked upon kings on their thrones as on a pure manifestation of the will of God, they submitted without a murmur to the despotic power of kings: but from the day when we insinuated into their minds the conception of their own rights they began to regard the occupants of thrones as mere ordinary mortals. The holy unction of the Lord's Anointed has fallen from the heads of kings in the eyes of the people, and when we also robbed them of their faith in God the might of power was flung upon the streets into the place of public proprietorship and was seized by us. MASSES LED BY LIES

[Jeff K.]

Second quote is from here

Incitement and a desire to cause great pain? Perhaps yes....

But I will let others judge the similarities and outcomes.

[Lightbearer]

Lightbearer,

Iâ??ve said what I wanted to say on this topic and Iâ??m prepared to give you the last word with regards to your defenses, rationalizations, and special-pleading. But Iâ??m not going to tolerate you ascribing to me a position I donâ??t hold and Iâ??m certainly not going to allow you to slandering me with malicious accusations of being in favor of murder.

Oh I am so sorry you will not tolerate me making an obvious conclusion when you position yourself on the side of conspirators and murderers. Because those who printed that slanderous publication were murderers or accessories before the fact. I am sure Judas protested that he was not a party to the "legal" murder of Christ. By insisting that Joseph was legally imprisoned in Carthage, does that not say he was legally placed in the hands of his killers?

I've never said that, never implied it, and never even thought it. All Iâ??ve maintained is that by defnition, a new revelation isnâ??t a law of the Church until it is presented to the church and sustained. God can reveal anything He wants and it can be totally true even if it totally contradicts what Heâ??d previously revealed. Iâ??m fine with those concepts. However, by definition something isnâ??t a law of the Church until it is announced to the Church and the Church sustains it.

I am glad that you do not approve of murder, yet in defending his killers (saying that they had just cause) is that not very close to approving their actions?

D&C 132 became the law of the church when it was read to the church in August of 1852. It may have been a true revelation before then, but that is when it became the law of the Church. That is all Iâ??m saying. Feel free to disagree with me, but please donâ??t accuse me of saying something Iâ??m not saying.

We will have to disagree on that point, and I do not accuse you of anything, you made your own inferences.

You really need to cool down the rhetoric. The mob that killed Joseph Smith were criminals, and in no way have I ever commended or justified or rationalized their crimes. I denounce mob violence.

It seems the rhetoric is flying on all sides here, I cannot help getting infuriated when I see someone attacking a Prophet of the Lord's character and basically saying about his cold blooded murder "he had it coming." I am glad to hear you say that you do not approve of the prophet's slaughter, however it seems the purpose of this entire thread (and I know you did not start it) was to justify or rationalize the crimes of those who conspired to kill the Prophet.

Just because I'm in favor of the freedom of the press and in favor of religious leaders being honest with their flocks with regards to who they consider themselves married to doesnâ??t mean I'm somehow in favor of murder.

Freedom of the press really is not the issue, do you think any news organization today could get away with such rhetoric as contained in the Expositor leveled against a public official? The time that Joseph lived in was steeped in mob violence, that was the whole intent of the Expositor to stir up a mob and drive the Saints out of Nauvoo and or kill the Prophet. They (the publishers) ultimately got their designs.

[Analytics]

For someone who is not in favor of murder, then, you certainly have gone to great lengths to explain to us why you think Joseph Smith deserved his fate. Remember? You said that Joseph caused his own murder.

Are you kidding me? Are you reading comprehension skills so low that you really think I said that?

Pardon us if we have the impression that given the opportunity you would have been in that mob of blackened faces beating down the doors of Carthage Jail.

What a bitter, hateful thing to say. I'm starting to get the impression that you still thirst to avenge the Blood of the Prophet. Given the opportunity, would you kill somebody who was in that mob? Given the opportunity, would you kill me?

[Lightbearer]

First, was not Oliver Cowdery one of the Lord's anointed? Was there (or IS there, for that matter)a system of checks and balances so as not to give one Apostle unbridled power?

Second, It's my understanding that Oliver Cowdery was Assistant President at that time, and was acknowledged by the church as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, second ONLY to Joseph, and ranked higher than the first Presidency and the Quorum of the 12.

So this statement about the article on marriage finding "its way into the D&C without authority," especially as it was voted on and sustained by not only the First Presidency (maybe sans Joseph) and the body of the church, seems a far fetched explaination at best. I understand that Joseph would have had the final word, and it seems as if he had ample opportunity to remove it from the D&C but, for some unknown reason, did not. A more likey scenario (IMO)is that Joseph did indeed tell Oliver about the principle of plurality of wives, and Oliver, along with others, felt that this was not a valid revelation and attempted to steer Joseph back on course with as little "heel lifting" or public reproach as possible. Also, are we to understand this statement of Joseph F. Smith as a revelation, or as just his explaination of the conflicting revelations?

First the Church is not a Representative Republic, it is a Kingdom, with God being the King, there are no so-called "checks and balances" the only check and balance is revelation from the Lord Himself and the united voice of the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve. Oliver Cowdery was not the Prophet, he did not have the right to preside or receive revelation for the Church (although he thought so at the time.) Where Joseph was not there was no First Presidency of the Church, the councilors cannot work independently of the President, that was the mistake Sydney Rigdon made after Joseph was killed. Oliver was also excommunicated and later asked to be restored (to the Church in Utah I might add, the one that accepted section 132) so I think as the quotes I provided the so-called "revelation" on marriage was not the voice of the Lord only Cowdery's opinion on marriage at the time.

[AndyOne]

First the Church is not a Representative Republic, it is a Kingdom, with God being the King, there are no so-called "checks and balances" the only check and balance is revelation from the Lord Himself and the united voice of the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve. Oliver Cowdery was not the Prophet, he did not have the right to preside or receive revelation for the Church (although he thought so at the time.) Where Joseph was not there was no First Presidency of the Church, the councilors cannot work independently of the President, that was the mistake Sydney Rigdon made after Joseph was killed. Oliver was also excommunicated and later asked to be restored (to the Church in Utah I might add, the one that accepted section 132) so I think as the quotes I provided the so-called "revelation" on marriage was not the voice of the Lord only Cowdery's opinion on marriage at the time.

Ever hear of common consent? The church was absolutely set up with checks and balances. No one is above scrutiny. If President Monson were found to have a second wife, he would be subject to the laws of the church as currently in effect. Whereas JS strongly denied polygamy, and used the church's own position on marriage as part of his defense, this whole "marriage section went in without JS's knowledge argument seems a little like wishful thinking. Even if it did, he sure didn't hesitate to resort to it when it was convenient in the circumstances.

[Analytics]

Oh I am so sorry you will not tolerate me making an obvious conclusion when you position yourself on the side of conspirators and murderers....

I interpret these historical events in a much more nuanced way than you do. You approach this all from a black-and-white perspective. You think that Joseph Smith was the most honest, peaceful, righteous, wise, prudent, patriotic, and courageous leader that ever walked the land.

And you think that everybody who ever took issue with his actions and decisions all simply hated him because of his righteousness and were all in a unified conspiracy to murder him.

I just donâ??t see it that way. Iâ??ve tried to explain my more nuanced perspective. Iâ??ve tried to help you understand that different groups of people had different sincere criticisms of Joseph Smith, some of which were valid. Iâ??ve tried to help you understand that they didnâ??t all hate Joseph for exactly the same reason why the Jews hated Jesus.

Just because I see them all as humans--rather than as angels and demons--and try to understand their viewpoint and have a more nuanced view doesnâ??t mean I condone their actions or reactions. I donâ??t. Just as I think Joseph Smith made mistakes, I think the various people that took issue with him made mistakesâ??huge mistakes as a matter of fact.

But rather than trying to understand why I donâ??t see this in a black-and-white fashion, youâ??ve categorized me in the black camp against the white Joseph Smith, and thus consider me a member of the homogenous group of people that hated and killed him because of his righteousness.

I'm a pacifist. I believe in resolving differences peacefully. I believe in turning the other cheek.

If given the chance, I would have counseled Joseph Smith to use a writ of Habeas Corpus to go to Springfield rather than Nauvoo, and argue that the extradition to Missouri was invalid because the alleged crime (conspiring to assassinate Boggs) didnâ??t allegedly happen in Missouri and thus wasnâ??t in their jurisdiction. If given the chance, I would have told Joseph Smith not to sell votes for legal advice. If given the chance, I would have told Joseph Smith to stay out of politics and encouraged the Saints not to vote as a block. If given the chance, I would have counseled the publishers of the Expositor to tone down the rhetoric. If given the chance, I would have counseled Joseph Smith to respond to the Expositorâ??s with words rather than with the muscle of the government. If given the chance, I would have told the people who joined the mob to cool it and seek a legal remedy for their legitimate concerns.

[T-Shirt]

So far, I have seen several critics attempt to justify what was written in the Expositor claiming that it only spoke the truth. However, I have not seen a single critic make an attempt to respond to the quotes , from the Expositor, that I posted a few pages back and try to justify them as anything more than hateful propaganda.

How about you, Areabird, are you willing to take the quotes I posted, one at a time and justify them as truthful and accurate?

Best,

T-Shirt

[T-Shirt]

If given the chance, I would have told Joseph Smith not to sell votes for legal advice.

You've made this claim before and not only were wrong about what happened, but you were unable to show where Joseph made any attempt to compel Church members to vote the way he wanted them to. In fact, in the situation you are referring to, the members, for the most part, did not vote as Joseph Smith did.

Best,

T-Shirt

[Jaybear]

So far, I have seen several critics attempt to justify what was written in the Expositor claiming that it only spoke the truth. However, I have not seen a single critic make an attempt to respond to the quotes , from the Expositor, that I posted a few pages back and try to justify them as anything more than hateful propaganda.

How about you, Areabird, are you willing to take the quotes I posted, one at a time and justify them as truthful and accurate?

But that would be completely unnecessary.

I am sure that that Wm Law, individually or through his legal counsel, mounted a vigorous defense agaisnt the cliams, before the Expositor was declared a nuisance and the order issued calling for the destruction of the press.

As Wm. Law and/or his attorney failed to persuade the trier of fact in the first instance, and chose not to appeal the ruling, and seek a stay of the destruction order pending that appeal, there is no point in relitigating the exact same issue again.

That is the beauty of the American system of jurisprudence. By giving the accused, an opportunity to hear the charges, confront the witnesses, put on evidence in their defense, and to have matters decided by a jury of his peers, and presided over by a disinterested judge, and the right to appeal any adverse ruling, there is no need to second guess whether the Expositor was libelous and ought to have been destroyed.