The Expositor: Libelous of the deepest dye?

[mrmendoza]

I interpret these historical events in a much more nuanced way than you do. You approach this all from a black-and-white perspective.

In some ways you're right, a lot of us see it all in a black or white/all or nothing point of view!To us Joseph was either a prophet of the Living God, or he was a phony! The BOM is completly true, (not the same as inerrant!) or it is false! How then can we think of him in the manner with which he has been described in the Expositor! Remember, no one is holding a gun to our heads, telling us that we will either believe him or die! (Although there have been cases where our people have had guns pointed at them and told to denounce him or die!)We believe in his calling by the testimony of the holy spirit. We do not accept that he ever did anything willfully wrong, or sought to harm any man. There have been countless stories of how some, who had turned against him at one time or another, were recieved back into full fellowship by the Prophet, when they simply came and asked for his forgiveness! That doesn't sound like the tyrant that some on this board have called him!

You think that Joseph Smith was the most honest, peaceful, righteous, wise, prudent, patriotic, and courageous leader that ever walked the land.

All that, except that I personally think he wasn't always as prudent as would have done him good. We all know that he was a man, but do we all know that he was a prophet? Men make mistakes, God rectifies them. Men fail, God can turn failure to sucsess!(sic)

I think that you, personally are trying very hard to not engage in polimics. Your views, critical as they may seem to many of us, pretty much live up to your username, Analytics. But as I've said before, if you don't believe that Joseph is a true Prophet , and all that goes with that, your analysis can only be that of a man. You will only see Joseph as a man, and all his actions will be suspect! We see him as Gods chosen instrument, to bring a restoration of all things. We see him as a man too, only we see him as a man of God!

Mike

[Analytics]

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

What? Are you really claiming that Joseph Smith didnâ??t promise Cyrus Walker that heâ??d vote for him in exchange for legal help? Unbelievable.

I interpret this particular event exactly as B. H. Roberts does, as recorded in Comprehensive History of the Church. When Joseph Smith promised Cyrus Walker his vote in exchange for legal services, The Whigs had good reason to believe that Smith would deliver the Mormon vote.

When Hyrum Smith said he had a â??revelationâ? that the saints should vote for Walkerâ??s opponent, the Saints voted as a block according to that revelation. The Whigs were infuriated and felt betrayed.

I happen to belong to the school of thought that Joseph Smith and the Saints would have gotten along better in Illinois without "vote trading" (as The Encyclopedia of Mormonism calls it), and without co-presidents of the church annoucning revelations on how the Saints should vote. Because I happen to think that, do you think that "given the opportunity I would have been in that mob of blackened faces beating down the doors of Carthage Jail?" From what I'm gathering in this thread, that's the way Mormons view anybody who dares question the wisdom of any of Joseph Smith's political decisions.

[Analytics]

...I think that you, personally are trying very hard to not engage in polimics. Your views, critical as they may seem to many of us, pretty much live up to your username, Analytics. But as I've said before, if you don't believe that Joseph is a true Prophet , and all that goes with that, your analysis can only be that of a man. You will only see Joseph as a man, and all his actions will be suspect! We see him as Gods chosen instrument, to bring a restoration of all things. We see him as a man too, only we see him as a man of God!

That's a kind post, Mike, thank you. Given our disagreements about his religious truth-claims, we're bound to view these events quite differently.

Leaving aside as much of the religious claims as we can, the question remains about how skillfully he navigated the political environment of the day. I happen to think he made a lot of mistakes in this regard and there are ample grounds for valid criticism.

When judging historical characters, I try to give them the benefit of the doubt and believe that they are sincere regarding their stated religious beliefs and are acting with good intentions. When I extend this courtesy to the editors of the Expositor, it's easy for me to envision that they were sincere in their criticism of Joseph Smith's politics, were sincerely trying to defend the integrity of the church, and were really upset because they were being maligned for doing so.

[wenglund]

I'm scratching my head wondering what so important to the naysayers today that would cause them to reach back 160 years, selectively pick this single SECULAR event from among multiple destructions of presses by civil authorities and mobs, the legality and prudence of which is open to reasonable disagreement, though well long past being moot (this isn't even close to being a problem with the Church today), and get all exercised about it on an LDS message board?

Is it not enough for them that Joseph offered to reimburse the cost for the destroyed property? Is it not enough for them that Joseph and Hyrum paid with their lives?

Apparently not. It seems the only thing that may appease the critics is for them to persistently drag the good name of the prophet through the muddy court of public opinion for years on end--and this while thinking themselves in a position to lecture us about morals and ethics and fairness and "truth". Ironically, the same vindictive and destructive spirit that gave rise to the Expositor still florishes nowdays.

How pathetic!

I would think that if one is going to get their 21st Century sensibilities in an uproar, it would be over things under one's control and things one can actually do something about and bring about positive change. In other words, one would think that the critics would be better served looking in the mirror and assessing the efficacy of their own current actions and attitudes, rather than ruminating overly harshly about things of the distant past that can't be changed and are not at all a problem in our own time.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Analytics]

I'm scratching my head wondering what so important to the naysayers today that would cause them to reach back 160 years, selectively pick this single SECULAR event from among multiple destructions of presses by civil authorities and mobs, the legality and prudence of which is open to reasonable disagreement, though well long past being moot (this isn't even close to being a problem with the Church today), and get all exercised about it on an LDS message board...

Hi Wade,

Personally, I take the view that it is important to understand history in order to better understand ourselves. After all, historical events are what brought us here.

If history is an important and valid activity and if Mormonism is important, it is important to understand why several prominent leaders of the church and of the Nauvoo community decided to publish a paper that accused the prophet/judge/mayor/general of abusing his power and of practicing polygamy; itâ??s important to understand why Joseph Smith urged the city council to destroy the paper, and itâ??s important to understand why this action on his part infuriated so many of his neighbors who otherwise were law-abiding Americans with 19th Century sensibilities. Understanding these events helps us understand ourselves.

You are right that the church no longer has the problems it did thenâ??by and large the church stays out of politics, doesnâ??t harbor people who secretly practice polygamy against its publicly understood laws, and doesnâ??t use political muscle to shut down opposing voices. Itâ??s wonderful that the institution of the church has learned from the mistakes of its past. Likewise, if we all carefully study the other mistakes people made in the past, we can avoid making similar mistakes ourselves.

That being the case, I wonder what your purpose is here. Why the bitter criticism on your part about people who interpret the historical events differently than you? Wouldnâ??t your time be better spent looking in the mirror and evaluating the efficacy of your own current actions and attitudes?

[wenglund]

Personally, I take the view that it is important to understand history in order to better understand ourselves. After all, historical events are what brought us here.

The way you selectively hone in on negative aspects of LDS history (a faith-tradition you have rejected), and dogmatically put the most uncharitable spin on it, tells me much about you. At the very least it tells me that there is little chance of deriving value in discussing this way out-dated issue with you.

And, no, this is not about you simply having a different point of view from me. Rather, it is about you having an unreasonable and unedifying point of view on an ancient subject that has been hashed and rehashed in a manner that advances nothing and offers nothing of value to me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mrmendoza]

What? Are you really claiming that Joseph Smith didnâ??t promise Cyrus Walker that heâ??d vote for him in exchange for legal help? Unbelievable.

I remember hearing about this incidence, my understanding was that Joseph needed legal councel about something he been aressted about, and Cyrus Walker offered his services, but only if Joseph promised to vote for him in the next upcoming election. Joseph never promised the Mormon vote, only his, as payment for his legal services, which Joseph obviously needed! Personally I think it was an underhanded thing that Mr. Walker was asking of him, and if he thought that his attempt to railroad Joseph, into gaurentying(sic) the Mormon "block vote" he had no right to to the vote, or the office! But unfortunitly for Joseph, while he did keep his word to vote for Walker, both parties comsidered it some kind of trick on his part, and he pretty much lost the backing of both parties!

The problem here is much the same as the criticism about so many other things that was happening back then. Joseph had previously said that while he cared nothing about any particular party, that he and his people would vote for those who would uphold the religious rights of the LDS people! What most critics don't seem to realize (Or refuse to see!) is that JS and his people had just escaped the clutches of Missouri, where they had been mobbed and run out and threatened with extermination! It only stood to reason that they would vote for whoever would help them secure their rights and freedom!

This deal with Cyrus Walker was not some shady plot that Joseph conspired in, he was desperate, so agreed to Walkers demands to secure his freedom! This is not some "hidden history" that the church has ever covered up at least not to my knowledge. It probably isn't in the SS history book simply it's not germaine to the purpose of SS.

Mike

[Analytics]

The way you selectively hone in on negative aspects of LDS history (a faith-tradition you have rejected), and dogmatically put the most uncharitable spin on it, tells me much about you. At the very least it tells me that there is little chance of deriving value in discussing this way out-dated issue with you.

And, no, this is not about you simply having a different point of view from me. Rather, it is about you having an unreasonable and unedifying point of view on an ancient subject that has been hashed and rehashed in a manner that advances nothing and offers nothing of value to me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

What Iâ??m promoting is empathetically looking at the divergent concerns, fears, and paradigms of Joseph Smith, the mainstream members of the church, the publishers of the Expositor, Governor Ford, and the Warsaw Signal crowd. Because I donâ??t dogmatically view the publishers of the Expositor, Governor Ford, and the mob as a single homogenous group that â??thirsted for Joseph Smith's bloodâ? for the same reason that â??the chief priests wanted to kill Jesus Christâ?, Iâ??m accused of being in favor of his murder and have been told that I â??would have been in that mob of blackened facesâ? had I been given the chance.

And now you are accusing me of dogmatically putting the most negative spin on it with an unreasonable and unedifying point of view. What could be more ironic?

But I'll tell you what. Since you think you are in a position to lecture me about how to be a fair, non-dogmatic, charitble historian, why don't you show me how that's done by giving me a reasonable, edifying, non-dogmatic version of the events of 1844 that gives William Law and Thomas Ford as much empathy as you think I should give Joseph Smith.

[mrmendoza]

Leaving aside as much of the religious claims as we can, the question remains about how skillfully he navigated the political environment of the day. I happen to think he made a lot of mistakes in this regard and there are ample grounds for valid criticism.

I would think he navigated the politics of the day about as skillfully as anyone with his bacground! And yes it can be said that there is ample ground for criticism, but under the circumstances surrounding him at the time, I don't think that they are really valid.

When judging historical characters, I try to give them the benefit of the doubt and believe that they are sincere regarding their stated religious beliefs and are acting with good intentions. When I extend this courtesy to the editors of the Expositor, it's easy for me to envision that they were sincere in their criticism of Joseph Smith's politics, were sincerely trying to defend the integrity of the church, and were really upset because they were being maligned for doing so.

Much has been said about Josephs breaking the law of the church, for obeying the commandment regarding plural marrage. What nobody seems to have noticed here is that Joseph was in effect presenting the new revelation to the leaders of the church at Nauvoo. He had already presented it to the Quorum of 12, and they had (Reluctently) recieved it as the word of the Lord. He was now presenting it to the Nauvoo councel (Or maybe the councel of fifty, I'm not sure which.) in preperation to present it to the people, but they turned against him and instead of helping him to present it to the people, put an evil spin on the whole thing and sought to destroy both him and the church, while claiming as does Areabird that they only want the truth! They weren't really trying to defend the integrity of the church, they were trying to prevent new revelation, that they personally couldn't stomach (To much meat ,not enough milk!)! And if they felt that they had been maligned for it, it surly didn't keep them from doing their own maligning of Joseph!

Mike

[Lightbearer]

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.

Nuanced? What a smug elitist expression used to talk down to others that do not swallow the tripe you serve up to cast doubt and dishonor on a Prophet of God. I do not expect you to accept Joseph Smith as a prophet, but please do not be condesending to everyone who disagrees with your pompus selfimportant conclusions.

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 listen to yourself! You act as if you are talking down to a child. I know full well different people have different opinions about Joseph Smith. What reasons did they hate him? He was a threat to them, no? So was Jesus to the chief priests. They were afraid of his political as well as religious power, so said the Jews against Christ. Not the exact same reasons, but very similar and stirred up by that same spirit of hatred and perjudice that incites people today to bitter hatred and persecution.

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.

21st century psychobabble. I know they are humans, and I also know the evil that men can do under the influence of demons or the evil spirits that get into the hearts of men.

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.

Nobody ever said Joseph Smith made no mistakes, in fact the biggest one I could see is his trusting men that were less than noble in their purposes. He gave them the benifit of the doubt, something that many on this board are unwilling to do for him.

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 do not care why you do not see this in a black and white fashion, I suppose because you suscribe to the Anti-Mormon position that Joseph Smith could do nothing right that he was a fraud and a "cult leader" only bent on his own evil agenda. But you are dead wrong, you do not know him, you never knew him. You view through the dark glass of unbelief and can never understand the motives of those who hated him had.

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

Really? Is that why you keep pouncing back at anyone who disagrees with your "nuanced" view? And of course you are assuming I do not believe in turning the other cheek? Another not so subtle disparagement of the stupid Mormon that believes in the "black and white" of the events leading up to the murder of the Prophet.

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.

Boy you seem to have all the answers, you really think that if they all had followed your great wisdom and insight that this tragic set of events could have been avoided? Then you are the one that is naive, Joseph and his enemies were on a collision course, the main reason was because of who and what he was, a prophet of God. Joseph could not change his course any more than his enemies could. He was on his way to martyrdom from the moment he walked out of the sacred grove. It was just a matter of time.

[Analytics]

I suppose because you suscribe to the Anti-Mormon position that Joseph Smith could do nothing right that he was a fraud and a "cult leader" only bent on his own evil agenda. But you are dead wrong, you do not know him, you never knew him. You view through the dark glass of unbelief and can never understand the motives of those who hated him had....

I never said nor implied that I "suscribe to the Anti-Mormon position that Joseph Smith could do nothing right that he was a fraud and a "cult leader" only bent on his own evil agenda." Just because you see things in a black and white way and seeth with hate for people who see things differently doesn't mean I do.

And of course you are assuming I do not believe in turning the other cheek? Another not so subtle disparagement of the stupid Mormon that believes in the "black and white" of the events leading up to the murder of the Prophet.

Actually, I was merely defending myself against your accusations that I was cheering on a group of 19th century murderers. I thought you'd be happy to hear that I wasn't in favor of murder. Silly me.

Boy you seem to have all the answers, you really think that if they all had followed your great wisdom and insight that this tragic set of events could have been avoided? Then you are the one that is naive, Joseph and his enemies were on a collision course, the main reason was because of who and what he was, a prophet of God. Joseph could not change his course any more than his enemies could. He was on his way to martyrdom from the moment he walked out of the sacred grove. It was just a matter of time.

I do see it that way; I happen to believe that a big reason why the church now gets along with mainstream society is because it got rid of polygamy and got out of politics. I'm sorry if my na

[MormonApologist]

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.

But you can't focus on whether the decision to destroy the press was based on sound reasoning and not done primarily based on emotion since both of these two would have factored into the decision to order the destruction of the press. You cannot remove people from the time that they lived in and apply the standards of reason and solid facts in retrospect. If the argument was being made that the decision to destroy the press was inspired then you could expect to have such an assertion to be backed up by solid facts and reasoning but that isn't an argument that I have seen made even though it would be a plausible argument with some merit to it.

"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.

You conveniently left out quotes which don't support your thesis but which are pertinent to this discussion including those dealing with the case of Jeremiah Smith which are reference in the Expositor and which distorted the real events surrounding this incident and ignored the legal authority of the Nauvoo Municipal Court to grant writs of habeas corpus:

"[Marshal]T.B. Johnson being called by the court answered that he did not acknowledge the jurisdiction of this court; that his writ was only to keep [Jeremiah] Smith until he could get another writ for him; that Mr. Hickock had a writ from Judge Pope, and he considered Mr. Smith his prisoner, and he attended this court as a matter of courtesy; and if anyone offered resistance, he was instructed by the Government to give their names, &c., and wrote the names of the court, &c...T.B. Johnson said he did not come to make a speech; but was instructed to arrest the man. He intended to make no defense. He was an agent of the United States. 'Your writ of habeas corpus had nothing more to do with this case than with a man in the moon. I have not been able to get authority, and did not come to make defense."

The writ of habeas corpus is intended to protect the rights of a person and is a way for a duly authorized court to demand that custody of a person who is being held against their will by any agent of the government be turned over to the custody of the court. In the case of Jeremiah Smith it was clear to the Nauvoo Municipal Court that [Marshal] T.B. Johnson held the court in contempt, did not feel that he had to honor their orders and made a lot of threats implying that he would resort to other methods regardless of the outcome of the case of United States v. Jeremiah Smith, on Habeas Corpus. The Expositor lied about the case, libeled the parties involved including Jeremiah Smith and attempted to hide behind freedom of the press to subvert the democratic processes and judicial proceedings of the City of Nauvoo.

What the Expositor failed to mention about the case was that Jeremiah Smith had already been tried for the crime he was being arrested for and that T.B. Johnson threatened to "bring the dragoons in order to get Jeremiah Smith." This guy basically said he didn't recognize the authority of Nauvoo Courts, threatened to use force to overcome a lawful writ and order of the Court which resulted in Joseph Smith issuing a warrant for his arrest for threatening the peace of the city but Jeremiah Smith finally submitted to the federal government only to have his case UPHELD by the federal court. So Joseph Smith and the Nauvoo Court weren't in the wrong and their ruling contrary to the claims of the Expositor was the correct one.

If you look at this and the other claims made by the Expositor you have to conclude that they attempted to hide behind the free press to subvert and threaten the peace of Nauvoo. The claims by Joseph Smith and others that the Expositor were part of a conspiracy to kill Joseph Smith becomes more believable based on the fact that he was killed.

[MormonApologist]

If history is an important and valid activity and if Mormonism is important, it is important to understand why several prominent leaders of the church and of the Nauvoo community decided to publish a paper that accused the prophet/judge/mayor/general of abusing his power and of practicing polygamy; itâ??s important to understand why Joseph Smith urged the city council to destroy the paper, and itâ??s important to understand why this action on his part infuriated so many of his neighbors who otherwise were law-abiding Americans with 19th Century sensibilities. Understanding these events helps us understand ourselves.

It's also important to understand why city officials and Joseph Smith as a city official would not stand the libels against city officials and to make threats to the peace of the city and allow them to hide behind a free press as they did so especially since anyone could purchase a press and call it a newspaper. You have to remember this wasn't like destroying the New York Times or some other major newspaper. This was the destruction of a private press of a group of individuals who had repeatedly threatened the peace of the city and who accused every member of the city government of corruption, tyranny and desiring to kill them. Imagine the Provo City Council and State of Utah standing idly by today as the Daily Herald accused every member of the City Government of planning on killing them, destroying their property and claiming that the Courts of the City were violating the law and constitution for enforcing the very same. Then imagine that the city was in the right and that the federal courts uphold their decision in a specific case after the newspaper had published all those things. Today the city and city officials would have legal recourse to sue them for libel but at the time of Nauvoo's destruction of the Expositor press such options were not readily available and the recourse cities, states and the federal had against runaway presses published out of someone's upper room in their house was to order their destruction before they could be sold to someone else who would start printing another paper while the courts were still pursuing the first.

You are right that the church no longer has the problems it did thenâ??by and large the church stays out of politics, doesnâ??t harbor people who secretly practice polygamy against its publicly understood laws, and doesnâ??t use political muscle to shut down opposing voices. Itâ??s wonderful that the institution of the church has learned from the mistakes of its past. Likewise, if we all carefully study the other mistakes people made in the past, we can avoid making similar mistakes ourselves.

There is absolutely no evidence that the Church ever used political muscle to shut down opposing voices. To print claims that a city, state or federal government is planning to kill its citizens, does not mete out justice fairly and allows criminals to inhabit our cities, states and to ravish our wives and daughters is not freedom of speech. To provide as examples of such occurrences of injustices the fair dispensation of law to specific cases is not only an attack on the public peace but also on those private citizens who have become the tool of a press to attack the government and to make a political point. Not only did Nauvoo City officials have claim of libel against the Expositor but so did Jeremiah Smith who the specifically accused of being a scoundrel and criminal even though he was exonerated by the Nauvoo Municipal Court and later by the federal courts themselves.

Those who are suggesting that the destruction of the Expositor press was a mistake are clearly in the wrong. A simple fine would do nothing to stop the Expositor from leading the people of Nauvoo and Illinois to believe that the Nauvoo City government was violating the constitution, the law and was actually planning on killing people. If you don't like what is being done there are courts and a democratic process and that includes appealing any decisions made by a city government. Had Nauvoo allowed the Expositor to continue in their intended goal it could be likely that some person who was mentally unstable who read what they had to write would decide to gun down members of what the Expositor labeled a tyrannical city government in front of their wives and children. That is not freedom of the press. That is what the City Council meant when they said that the Expositor posed a nuisance and threat to the peace of the city.

That being the case, I wonder what your purpose is here. Why the bitter criticism on your part about people who interpret the historical events differently than you? Wouldnâ??t your time be better spent looking in the mirror and evaluating the efficacy of your own current actions and attitudes?

His attitude is based on your tone and your attitude which is condescending and rude. As he has already pointed out in another post. This issue has been debated time and again and it's you who are demanding that everyone accepts your interpretation of history or face the accusation that they are bitter critics of anyone who disagrees with their interpretation. His reaction to your comments don't necessarily make him a bitter critic of people who interpret historical events differently then him. That's an overly broad generalizations of what he has said and his response to what you have said. You have the right to interpret historical events however you see fit but you don't have the right to be free from criticism when you do and you labeling any criticism of you as "bitter" does not make it so. In saying this I am likely to be accused of the same thing as Wade but I am not bitter towards you or anyone instead I am passionate about the rights of people to be safe in the persons from libelous statements which could lead to their injury or death.

[Analytics]

It's also important to understand why city officials and Joseph Smith as a city official would not stand the libels against city officials and to make threats to the peace of the city....

Thanks for weighing in. I disagree with you about the historical context of Nauvoo, what the paper actually said, and what its editors' motivations were. This is my last post on this thread, so Iâ??m going to summarize my position. You may then have the final word.

While the Nauvoo Expositor definitely needed to cool down some of the rhetoric, it was exactly correct on the main issues:

1- Joseph Smith was in fact practicing polygamy in flagrant violation of the laws of the church as understood by the churchâ??s members. This was a huge scandal because Joseph Smith denied involvement in polygamy and slandered William Law as making this up.

2- Being a secret wife in this way was at best emotionally trying and worst was emotionally devastating. It is valid to see the plural â??wivesâ? as victims and to draw attention to the tragic consequences of the secret polygamy that was going on.

3- Joseph Smith did in fact violate the churchâ??s procedures in the way he excommunicated William Law. It appears he did this because what William Law said about Joseph Smith was true, and Joseph Smith didnâ??t want to allow him to defend himself with the truth.

4- By branding William Law as an apostate and accusing him as being a liar for telling the membership the truth about Joseph Smithâ??s polygamy, Joseph Smith was slandering William Law.

5- Ultimately, the special privileges of the Nauvoo city charter did the Saints more harm that good and it should have been revoked.

I believe the Nauvoo Expositor was a good-faith American effort to use the freedom of the press to promote reform in the city and church. While they were trying to hold Joseph Smith accountable and have him removed from power, I donâ??t believe they were trying to stir up mobocracy, frontier justice, or violence against Joseph Smith, much less against the city or against the Saints. While I defend them because I think the concerns they expressed were fundamentally valid, I condemn the mob violence that ensued and seriously doubt that they calculated the events to work out as they did.

If there were disagreements over what they said, then due process should have been followed.

Those issues aside, was it a prudent act by the city council to destroy the press? Given the immediate explosion of outrage throughout the county and its result, its bizarre that youâ??d argue that Smith made the decision that was in the best interests of his city and church. If the course of action was so clear-cut, I wonder why you think it was only the Mormon members of the city council who voted to destroy the press.

For your consideration on whether the most prudent course of action is to allow a press to publish inflammatory things or to take the inflammatory course of action of destroying it, I offer a quote from a historian who has been credited as, â??possessing an unrivaled sensitivity to the dynamics of frontier lifeâ? and whose history book is still in print 150 years after it was written. In regards to these actions by the Nauvoo City Council, he said,

As this proceeding touched the liberty of the press, which is justly dear to any republican people, it was well calculated to raise a great flame of excitement. And it may well be questioned whether years of misrepresentation by the most profligate newspaper could have engendered such a feeling as was produced by the destruction of this one press. It is apparent that the Mormon leaders but little understood, and regarded less the true principles of civil liberty. A free press well conducted is a great blessing to a free people; a profligate one is likely soon to deprive itself of all credit and influence by the multitude of falsehoods put forth by it. But let this be as it may, there is more lost to rational liberty by a censorship of the press by suppressing information proper to be known to the people, than can be lost to an individual now and then by a temporary injury to his character and influence by the utmost licentiousness.

With that, I exit this thread.

[cjcampbell]

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

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?

Yes, you really said that. No, I am not interested in killing anyone. I wish you peace and happiness in all your endeavors.

[MormonApologist]

Thanks for weighing in. I disagree with you about the historical context of Nauvoo, what the paper actually said, and what its editors' motivations were. This is my last post on this thread, so Iâ??m going to summarize my position. You may then have the final word.

Here's my final word to accurately describe you. TROLL. Now go away and bask in knowing that you condescended to allow me to have the last word. Come back when you can have an honest and open discussion with other people without resorting to passive aggressive tactics that everyone can see through. As for the rest of your post. Why would I waste my time responding to someone who likes to play stupid games. If this discussion was going on in my kitchen I would have the last word all right when I kick you out of my house but fortunately I have the luxury of not having to deal with that here.

[wenglund]

What Im promoting is empathetically looking at the divergent concerns, fears, and paradigms of Joseph Smith, the mainstream members of the church, the publishers of the Expositor, Governor Ford, and the Warsaw Signal crowd. Because I dont dogmatically view the publishers of the Expositor, Governor Ford, and the mob as a single homogenous group that thirsted for Joseph Smith's blood for the same reason that the chief priests wanted to kill Jesus Christ, Im accused of being in favor of his murder and have been told that I would have been in that mob of blackened faces had I been given the chance.

And now you are accusing me of dogmatically putting the most negative spin on it with an unreasonable and unedifying point of view. What could be more ironic?

But I'll tell you what. Since you think you are in a position to lecture me about how to be a fair, non-dogmatic, charitble historian, why don't you show me how that's done by giving me a reasonable, edifying, non-dogmatic version of the events of 1844 that gives William Law and Thomas Ford as much empathy as you think I should give Joseph Smith.

Were I and other faithful LDS to have visited discussion boards devoted to William Law and Thomas Ford and raised the outdated issue of the Expositor and sided exclusively with Joseph Smith and the Nauvoo Counsel, and had we also brought up other valueless negative points of ancient history and proferred nothing really positive regarding Law and Ford (while absurdingly assuming we are being fair and balanced in doing so), and each time been unyielding in our position, and this with the intent of bashing Law and Ford and those who may revere them, then you may have a point. I haven't, and so you don't.

Here is the bottom line. Joseph's life was predominately devoted to edifying mankind and exalting souls. His thoughts and energies and desires were focused on helping people become their very best selves, and this by bringing them to Christ and enabling them to become like Christ. And, as a result of his efforts, millions of people have been uplifted, grown in character, and been blessed by increased joy and love.

As for me, my intents in participating on this board is to protect and encourage this same goodness and good cause. I am not here to dwell on the negative aspects of anyone's history (including Law and Ford). I am not here to beat down and degrade people for their past. Rather, I am about building now for a brighter future, turning hearts and minds from stubbling blocks of the past and focusing instead on what works and what matters and what will make our lives better.

As I see it, though, the purpose of the Expositor, and by and large your participation here, has quite the opposite effect in mind.

Granted, there may be other aspects of your life, and maybe even the bulk of your life, that is devoted to bettering mankind. But, unfortunately, we on this board don't get to see it. All we seem to be treated to is a negative bias that tears down rather than builds up.

Now, if you want to make me a deal, how about agreeing to balance your participation here by offering points of view that will improve our lives and make us better people, and I will try harder to do the same in return. What do you say?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Areabird]

Were I and other faithful LDS to have visited discussion boards devoted to William Law and Thomas Ford and raised the outdated issue of the Expositor and sided exclusively with Joseph Smith and the Nauvoo Counsel, and had we also brought up other valueless negative points of ancient history and proferred nothing really positive regarding Law and Ford (while absurdingly assuming we are being fair and balanced in doing so), and each time been unyielding in our position, and this with the intent of bashing Law and Ford and those who may revere them, then you may have a point. I haven't, and so you don't.

Here is the bottom line. Joseph's life was predominately devoted to edifying mankind and exalting souls. His thoughts and energies and desires were focused on helping people become their very best selves, and this by bringing them to Christ and enabling them to become like Christ. And, as a result of his efforts, millions of people have been uplifted, grown in character, and been blessed by increased joy and love.

As for me, my intents in participating on this board is to protect and encourage this same goodness and good cause. I am not here to dwell on the negative aspects of anyone's history (including Law and Ford). I am not here to beat down and degrade people for their past. Rather, I am about building now for a brighter future, turning hearts and minds from stubbling blocks of the past and focusing instead on what works and what matters and what will make our lives better.

As I see it, though, the purpose of the Expositor, and by and large your participation here, has quite the opposite effect in mind.

Granted, there may be other aspects of your life, and maybe even the bulk of your life, that is devoted to bettering mankind. But, unfortunately, we on this board don't get to see it. All we seem to be treated to is a negative bias that tears down rather than builds up.

Now, if you want to make me a deal, how about agreeing to balance your participation here by offering points of view that will improve our lives and make us better people, and I will try harder to do the same in return. What do you say?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Right. But you didn't answer his question. What is your version fo the events?

[Areabird]

Here's my final word to accurately describe you. TROLL. Now go away and bask in knowing that you condescended to allow me to have the last word. Come back when you can have an honest and open discussion with other people without resorting to passive aggressive tactics that everyone can see through. As for the rest of your post. Why would I waste my time responding to someone who likes to play stupid games. If this discussion was going on in my kitchen I would have the last word all right when I kick you out of my house but fortunately I have the luxury of not having to deal with that here.

Please list the passive aggressive tactics that Analytics used. Make sure to include the examples where he was responding to consdescending remarks from other posters on this thread. I assume if you are going to call him out you have examples to back it up.

Analytics has been by far the most reasoned, logical voice on this entire thread.

[justdreamin]

I'm scratching my head wondering what so important to the naysayers today that would cause them to reach back 160 years, selectively pick this single SECULAR event from among multiple destructions of presses by civil authorities and mobs, the legality and prudence of which is open to reasonable disagreement, though well long past being moot (this isn't even close to being a problem with the Church today), and get all exercised about it on an LDS message board?

Is it not enough for them that Joseph offered to reimburse the cost for the destroyed property? Is it not enough for them that Joseph and Hyrum paid with their lives?

Apparently not. It seems the only thing that may appease the critics is for them to persistently drag the good name of the prophet through the muddy court of public opinion for years on end--and this while thinking themselves in a position to lecture us about morals and ethics and fairness and "truth". Ironically, the same vindictive and destructive spirit that gave rise to the Expositor still florishes nowdays.

How pathetic!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

What I find more pathetic, is how rude and arrogant some of the "apologists" can be about an historical event, whether or not it has been discussed to death, that is literally the fork in the road, distinguishing the RLDS doctrine from the LDS doctrine (post 1831,or whatever the actual year was, that Joseph began the practice of having "relationships" with women other than Emma.) The actual destruction of the Expositor is, I think, less important than why the paper was published, what it had to say, why Joseph was particularly sensitive to this publication when he had been slandered for years by various presses in all of the places he lived, and why he felt that its distruction was his only choice.

If, in fact, the allegations against him were true, then the church as we know it would not exist. Only dwelling on the goodness and happiness of the church, whether it's true or not, invalidates the restoration. If the allegations were false, and plural marriage was a true revelation, then it's all good! I personally would still like to know as much as possible about the events that transpired.

On a personal note, I was not blessed with the gift of faith. I have other spiritual gifts, but try as I have, I am simply not able to believe in most things that I can't reason out in my mind. Scoff at this if you like, but I think that I am not alone in having the desire to learn as much as I possibly can, taking both sides into account, and come to a rational conclusion in my own mind that will allow me to continue to remain a member, in good standing, of the LDS church.

[ERayR]

What I find more pathetic, is how rude and arrogant some of the "apologists" can be about an historical event, whether or not it has been discussed to death, that is literally the fork in the road, distinguishing the RLDS doctrine from the LDS doctrine (post 1831,or whatever the actual year was, that Joseph began the practice of having "relationships" with women other than Emma.) The actual destruction of the Expositor is, I think, less important than why the paper was published, what it had to say, why Joseph was particularly sensitive to this publication when he had been slandered for years by various presses in all of the places he lived, and why he felt that its distruction was his only choice.

If, in fact, the allegations against him were true, then the church as we know it would not exist. Only dwelling on the goodness and happiness of the church, whether it's true or not, invalidates the restoration. If the allegations were false, and plural marriage was a true revelation, then it's all good! I personally would still like to know as much as possible about the events that transpired.

On a personal note, I was not blessed with the gift of faith. I have other spiritual gifts, but try as I have, I am simply not able to believe in most things that I can't reason out in my mind. Scoff at this if you like, but I think that I am not alone in having the desire to learn as much as I possibly can, taking both sides into account, and come to a rational conclusion in my own mind that will allow me to continue to remain a member, in good standing, of the LDS church.

What I find pathetic is the way those who would still kill Joseph Smith today if they had the chance but don't and do it figurativly. The legalities of the time has been covered but they rufuse to accept anything that will not paint Joseph in the very poorest of terms.

The action taken was legal but by the time taken enough damage had been done by the Expositer that it was two late. It accomplished it's purpose.

[justdreamin]

What I find pathetic is the way those who would still kill Joseph Smith today if they had the chance but don't and do it figurativly. The legalities of the time has been covered but they rufuse to accept anything that will not paint Joseph in the very poorest of terms.

The action taken was legal but by the time taken enough damage had been done by the Expositer that it was two late. It accomplished it's purpose.

I'm not sure why you chose my post to quote as I have NEVER said or implied the things of which you write.

Although you feel that the "legalities of the time have been covered", I'm relatively new here and I would like to read what people have to says sans personal assaults. I would also like to ask honest questions without fear of being lambasted by someone who thinks that they have all been answered before, or that he has all the answers. (Not that I think you care about what I want or think.)

[Lightbearer]

I never said nor implied that I "suscribe to the Anti-Mormon position that Joseph Smith could do nothing right that he was a fraud and a "cult leader" only bent on his own evil agenda." Just because you see things in a black and white way and seeth with hate for people who see things differently doesn't mean I do.

Almost everything you have said about Joseph Smith and the Expositor affair in this thread has indicated that you do. You claim I seeth with hate because of people seeing things differently, but you mistake, I do not hate them I pity them, I look more with sorrow than with anger at the way people can look upon the tragic death of the Prophet as some sort of political game, with feigned outrage over criticism of his killers and those who conspired to have him put to death. Who selfrightously proclaim that our sacred First Amendment rights of freedom of the press includes the right to stir up a mob to violence and to incite citizens to murder and all manner of brutality in the name of freedom of speech. Yes the Expositor had the "right" to exist, but did they have the right to figuratively shout fire in a theater? The nuisance was not just embarrassment of the Prophet or potential loss of political power. The state of Missouri had already declared Mormons enemies of the state and had pronounced an order of extermination upon the people. In fact the same thing was threatened after the death of the Prophet. They had to leave all they had and go to a desert where nobody but savages lived, and even then the great nation of the United States could not leave them alone even then! So it was much more than political and social convienence that was at stake, it was a matter of life and death. The only problem was that the Saints were "damned if they do and damned if they don't." If the prophet had done nothing then most probably they would have brought down the mobs on their heads. So they voted to stop the scandal sheet from stirring up the mobs, but it was too late the devil had already had a foothold and so it brought even more wrath upon the Church, culminating in the slaughter of the prophet and patriarch. How nuanced can something like this be?

Actually, I was merely defending myself against your accusations that I was cheering on a group of 19th century murderers. I thought you'd be happy to hear that I wasn't in favor of murder. Silly me.

Yes it is silly to defend conspirators and murderers and not expect people to assume you have similar seniments. To me the martyrdom was not some vague abstract historical event,I feel close to it. I have stood in Carthage Jail, I have walked the streets of Nauvoo, moreover I have read the words of the prophet and felt the spirit of the Lord witness to me that he was a true prophet of God. You cannot disparage such things without expecting a strong reaction.

I do see it that way; I happen to believe that a big reason why the church now gets along with mainstream society is because it got rid of polygamy and got out of politics. I'm sorry if my na

[Glenn101]

I'm not sure why you chose my post to quote as I have NEVER said or implied the things of which you write.

Although you feel that the "legalities of the time have been covered", I'm relatively new here and I would like to read what people have to says sans personal assaults. I would also like to ask honest questions without fear of being lambasted by someone who thinks that they have all been answered before, or that he has all the answers. (Not that I think you care about what I want or think.)

The legalities of the time have been discussed with varying opinions. But that is all we have, opinions. There was never a legal trial either criminal or civil to address that issue. Had Joseph not been murdered, the situation may have been setled in court and all of the evidence presented, or at least enough to allow more valid conclusions to be drawn.

Glenn

[mrmendoza]

Analytics has been by far the most reasoned, logical voice on this entire thread.

While analytics and I dissagree on many of his conclusions, I personally have found that, for a critic, he tries harder than almost any other, except for maybe Mudcat, to simply analyse the facts, as he sees them , without engageing in polimics. I might get myself into trouble with my fellow religionist for saying this, but I do think that some of you are being a little too harsh in your criticisim of his efforts!

I can't say I feel the same about you Areabird, but I do agree that ,on the critics side, I think he has tried to be reasonable and logical.

But as I've said a couple of other times before, if you and yours, don't believe that JS was a prophet of God, and all we have is the wisdom of man to Judge him by, then I can't see how we'll ever see history from the same lens!

Mike

1 THEREFORE thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou ajudgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

2 But we aare sure that the bjudgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.

3 And thinkest thou this, O man, that ajudgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the bjudgment of God? Romans 2;1-3