MMM and the Nauvoo Expositor

[Bob Crockett]

I'm wondering if anyone knows the original source of this quotation: "Saints were instructed to supply no provisions whatsoever to the Gentile wagon trains that continued to roll through Utah on their way to California; in a letter distributed across the territory, Mormon bishops were admonished not to let so much as a kernel of grain 'be sold to our enemies.'" The statement appears in Jon Krakauer's Under the Banner of Heaven, which I consider a less-than-reliable source. Krakauer gives attribution, but his footnoting system is almost indecipherable. So, I ask again, does the statement ring a bell with anyone? (It could be from Juanita Brooks' The Mountain Meadows Massacre.)

No, according to Brigham Young. Yes, according to George A. Smith. I think those instructions were given. So what? Brigham Young's intentions were to close down the road.

Keep in mind when you question these individual items of questionable conduct (burning forage; running off cattle; refusing to deal [no crime then]) these items were immunized by Buchanan's amnesty. Burning forage and running off cattle were criminal acts and could have led to catastrophe, but Johnston and the Mormon military commanders kept things in check. Too bad the Fanchers and Haight/Lee/Higbee could not -- and for a lesser offense, as the Fanchers retaliated for the refusal to deal. (The retaliation was no justification at all for the massacre, but the facts are the facts.)

[LeSellers]

Both 1 and 2 are certainly possibilities.

I'm wondering if anyone knows the original source of this quotation: "Saints were instructed to supply no provisions whatsoever to the Gentile wagon trains that continued to roll through Utah on their way to California; in a letter distributed across the territory, Mormon bishops were admonished not to let so much as a kernel of grain 'be sold to our enemies.'" The statement appears in Jon Krakauer's Under the Banner of Heaven, which I consider a less-than-reliable source.

Not according to Brigham Young.

Elder George A. Smith who had been at the national capital and in the eastern states for about a year, urging the claims of Utah for admission into the Union, returned to Salt Lake City in the summer of 1857, and as some members of his family lived at Parowan, and he had property interests in the southern settlements-it will be remembered that he was prominent in the founding of these settlements-he paid a visit to the south part of the territory. In his capacity of an elder in the church, and a member of the council of the twelve apostles, he gave counsel to the saints respecting the care of their grain, and the necessity of being prepared for possible emergencies. But in as much as Elder Smith went south in advance of the Arkansas emigrant company, he is the "courier" of the anti-"Mormon" writers; the one who went to instruct the southern settlements in the policy of non-intercourse with the emigrants, and refusal to sell them food supplies, both of which charges Elder Smith by affidavit specifically denies, as he also denies that he knew even of the existence of the Arkansas company until he was returning from his journey to the south, and met them at Corn Creek, fifteen miles south of Fillmore. President Young denied that the Arkansas emigrants had been ordered away from Salt Lake either by himself or any one in authority under him; or that any order had been given by him not to sell grain or to trade with the emigrant trains passing through Utah at the time. "Counsel and advice," President Young explains, "were given to the citizens not to sell grain to the emigrants to feed their stock, but to let them have sufficient for themselves if they were out. The simple reason for this was that for several years our crops had been short, and the prospect was at that time that we might have trouble with the United States army, then en route for this place, and we wanted to preserve the grain for food. The citizens of the territory were counseled not to feed grain to their own stock. No person was ever punished or called in question for furnishing supplies to the emigrants, within my knowledge."¹⁵

15. Affidavit, Brigham Young at Lee's first and also second trial, Court Record; also

Deseret News

, for 4th Aug., 1875, where the deposition is given at length. This deposition was presented at both the first and second trial of Lee, but was only admitted at the second trial.

A Comprehensive History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 4:, p.145~146

I had heard the same thing, but could find no reference to it.

Lehi

[consiglieri]

Couldn't we say the same about the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor? I'm wondering if we shouldn't say, "we really messed up on that one."

Hi, Lamanite!

I tend to see the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor differently than the MMM. Here's why:

Looking at the NE episode from the perspective of Joseph's enemies, they hoisted upon him a perfect Morton's Fork, leaving him with two alternatives, either of which would yield the same unsavory results.

1. Joseph could allow the paper to continue to publish its expose of secret (and publicly denied) Mormon leadership marital activities, which would likely have led to the destruction of the Church; or,

2. Joseph could not allow (read, "destroy) the paper to continue publishing, and bring upon himself the wrath of an outraged community, just waiting for such a spark to light the conflagration which would consume him.

There was no good choice for Joseph Smith to make in the Nauvoo Expositor situation.

I think the same cannot be said of the MMM.

I will add, however, that it seems quite possible that the actual perpetrators of the MMM may have seen themselves in such a Morton's Fork, though the reality was almost certainly far different.

At bottom, though, and regardless of how the MMM perpetrators may have seen their situation, I must acknowledge a difference between destroying a printing press and destroying the lives of so many human beings.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Jeff K.]

I find myself agreeing with Consig on those points. I am reading "The Economist" whose headline this week is "Israel Under Seige". Stoppping the flotilla for instance was a no win situation for Israel (don't stop it and small arms get through, stop it and you will be condemned), and in the same sense the Expositor was in a similar no win situation.

The Mountain Meadow Massacre did not exist within a no win scenario, but as Consig said, the perperators may have seen it that way.

[USU78]

I find myself agreeing with Consig on those points. I am reading "The Economist" whose headline this week is "Israel Under Seige". Stoppping the flotilla for instance was a no win situation for Israel (don't stop it and small arms get through, stop it and you will be condemned), and in the same sense the Expositor was in a similar no win situation.

Excellent parallel. In both instances there were individuals/groups who greatly desire the death/destruction of other individuals/groups, and who either precipitated or took advantage of circumstances in creating no-win scenarios. Turning public opinion against the target(s) was the first step.

The Mountain Meadow Massacre did not exist within a no win scenario, but as Consig said, the perperators may have seen it that way.

No question they thought they were doing right . . . and were absolutely wrong in doing so. At some point, though, even the most committed killer of women and children had to have had his guilt made clear. Must have been an absolutely horrifying moment.

There was a movie a few years back with Duvall and Mike Douglas. Douglas plays a guy who's lost his job and his family and has a meltdown on the freeway and begins a cross-country walkabout towards his ex- and child. At one point he asks Duvall: "You mean I'm the bad guy here?" Duvall says, "Yup." The look of incredulity on Douglas' face is priceless. He cannot accept it.

Yet how could he not know?

[Deborah]

History is full of incidents in which we question the judgments of those who were there. On the one hand it is good to look at these things to try to understand the issues so that history doesn't repeat itself. On the other, we need to tread carefully when we try to make judgments about the people involved when we don't have the whole story and may not fully understand their motivations. And looking back we never have the whole story. We have what other people may have thought about it but we don't know everything.

Until we are omniscient it seems rather futile to argue about the motivations of certain actions. We know that bad things happened. We know that people make choices that have consequences. What we don't know is what was really behind those choices. We can gather evidence and make our best guess, but those guesses will be based on where we are coming from to begin with.

Consig has outlined the dilemma with the Expositor incident. Other evidence, pulled from a study of the Joseph Smith papers project has caused those who studied it to conclude that Joseph purposely made the choice that took the focus off the church and put it on him.

The Expositor may have been the catalyst that led to the Prophet's death but it wasn't the reason for it. The cause wasn't even plural marriage. At that point Joseph and the saints had become too powerful an influence in the state. I don't think we understand today how important Nauvoo was. It was the second largest city in the state and had been built in a short time out of a wilderness. Imagine the power of a people who could do this. I think we need to look at the bigger picture of what was going on at the time, not just focus on this one incident which it seems many like to do.

[Analytics]

Looking at the NE episode from the perspective of Joseph's enemies, they hoisted upon him a perfect Morton's Fork, leaving him with two alternatives, either of which would yield the same unsavory results.

1. Joseph could allow the paper to continue to publish its expose of secret (and publicly denied) Mormon leadership marital activities, which would likely have led to the destruction of the Church; or,

2. Joseph could not allow (read, "destroy) the paper to continue publishing, and bring upon himself the wrath of an outraged community, just waiting for such a spark to light the conflagration which would consume him.

Could you explain why you think allowing the Expositor to publish its position would have lead to the

[Jeff K.]

It wasn't the general membership that was attacking the church, it was the mobs outside, that had been attacking it, and with the pseudo credibility of Law on a newspaper, the cacaphony for destruction would only get worse.

[Analytics]

I don't think so. I suppose if you have some sort of weird subjective definition of "religious beliefs" it is possible.

You have to keep in mind that the 1844 martyrdom was preceded by John C. Bennett's book in 1842 which characterized the problem as being an abuse of religious authority, making fun of Mormon doctrine, beliefs, the endowment and, yes, "spiritual wifery," the very topic mentioned once in the Expositor.

Joseph Smith was arrested for the destruction of the Expositor. However, the only permissible remedy for the destruction of private property by a City Council was a "takings" suit from improper condemnation. It wasn't a criminal matter. Joseph Smith was immunized, even under 19th Century law, for the City Council's decision.

And then, when Ford's authorities found that that charge wouldn't keep Smith jailed, they charged him with treason for invoking martial law. Yet, the chartered City of Nauvoo had the power to do so, and Smith was immunized from that decision as well.

So, a lot of forces came together to keep him jailed, and they were almost all based upon the claim of misuse of religious authority. I would say that the enemies of the Prophet quit unwittingly followed the pattern set in large degree with the arrest of Jesus Christ. Arrested for one charge; that wouldn't stick; executed on another. And, basically, arrested for "treason", claiming to be greater than Caeser. I'm sure the Pharisees wouldn't call his execution a "religious" matter, but a treasonous matter.

Interestingly, that is the very reason Buchanan ordered the army west. That is the very reason the Salt Lake Tribune came into existence. That is the reason the Godbeite faction apostatized. Again, the claim was that no man, Joseph Smith or Brigham Young, could claim to be prophets and exercise patriarchal authority over followers. It was, well, "unAmerican."

History repeated itself for Reed Smoot, George Romney and Mitt Romney ("unAmerican" to follow a patriarchal authority), although far be it from me to claim to be a Mitt supporter.

Are you serious?

What you have to look at are the events that outraged his Illinois neighbors. He didn

[Bob Crockett]

Consig has outlined the dilemma with the Expositor incident. Other evidence, pulled from a study of the Joseph Smith papers project has caused those who studied it to conclude that Joseph purposely made the choice that took the focus off the church and put it on him.

I disagree.

If that theory were true, Joseph Smith wouldn't have used the City Council to get the job done. He was reported as saying: " would rather die tomorrow and have the thing smashed, than live and have it go on, for it is exciting the spirit of mobocracy amongst the people, and bringing death and destruction among us." He just wanted to bring mob violence down, nothing more, nothing less. No grand plan.

The City Council's directions were to "pi the type," a typesetter's phrase lost to use today, but back then it referred to a common tactic of busting into a newspaper office and scattering the type to protest its publication. What the Nauvoo City Council did was commonplace -- not lawful -- but not a surprise and not the first. The editors were murdered; the place wasn't burned down.

[Analytics]

It wasn't the general membership that was attacking the church, it was the mobs outside, that had been attacking it, and with the pseudo credibility of Law on a newspaper, the cacaphony for destruction would only get worse.

Of course I disagree. The Expositor didn

[LeSellers]

At that point Joseph and the saints had become too powerful an influence in the state. ... I think we need to look at the bigger picture of what was going on at the time, not just focus on this one incident which it seems many like to do.

While this is true, I believe it is misleading.

Thomas Sharp, editor of the Warsaw Signal, was in political opposition to the Saints, and had started his attacks on the Church in general (and on Joseph in particular) by 1841, aIr. He continued on the same path until his "powder and ball" editorial in June 1844. He did see the Saints as a monolithic bloc, and, like most people of a particular political bent, could not accept that those who differed with him could be rational or knowledgeable. Ergo, the Saints must have been under some sort of mind control (by Joseph, etc.).

However, as I said, the proximate cause is not always the ultimate cause. Joseph and Hyrum were martyred for their beliefs, whether their murderers knew it or not. Satan was their motivator, working in his accustomed stealth mode, using evil men as pawns, employing nefarious persuasive techniques, drawing others in their wake in a stampede of railroading and mob mentality.

Whether Sharp or any of the others (Smith, Voras, Wills, Gallaher, etc.) were in theocratic opposition consciously is unimportant, although I believe that many of them were. The fact is that they were working in league with Lucifer, doing his work, just as Pilate and Herod were, in their own minds, doing political work in arranging the Crucifixion.

Lehi

[Bob Crockett]

Are you serious?

I wasn't joking. I think it naive, really, to just adopt hook line and sinker the anti-Mormon screed that Joseph Smith was killed for his political views. I think you need, in a discriminating fashion, to review the newspapers and books published against the Church at the time.

You can't segregate the religious persecution from the political issues, much as you'd like to do so. The newspapers and books at the time are filled with attacks on the Mormons' faith.

Typical is this newspaper article, of November 15, 1843, from the Warsaw Signal, mocking the Saints and their Temple:

The Temple at Nauvoo. -- To any one acquainted with the vast amount of funds and labor bestowed upon this boasted monument of falsehood and infamy, and unacquainted with the manner of its expenditure, it may seem strange that the progress of the edifice is so slow. We have good authority for the assertion, that there have been donations for the Temple, in money, labor and property, near and abroad, sufficient in amount to have finished, from its foundation to its roof, a much [more expensive building], yet its walls are [not complete]...

[A party] of emigrants lately arrived at that place. If they have any money among them, we suppose it will be filched from them for the use of the Temple -- that is, to support the Prophet and the Priesthood.

This article shows how the Saints were ridiculed for pursuing their religious object, but at the same time, Sharpe talks about how the Saints are being bilked by the project. The contemporary newspapers are filled with such mockery.

[Analytics]

I wasn't joking. I think it naive, really, to just adopt hook line and sinker the anti-Mormon screed that Joseph Smith was killed for his political views. I think you need, in a discriminating fashion, to review the newspapers and books published against the Church at the time.

You can't segregate the religious persecution from the political issues, much as you'd like to do so. The newspapers and books at the time are filled with attacks on the Mormons' faith.

I

[paulpatter]

. . . . It almost sounds like you are conceding that Joseph Smith destroyed the expositor because he was afraid of what would happen if the general membership of the Church learned the truth.

You're "on" to something. Polygamy was secretly practiced by close associates of Joseph Smith, including Heber C. Kimball and Brigham Young. Moreover, polygamy was illegal in Illinois. Hence, it was important to keep the practice hidden from the general membership of the Church as well as the state.

When word got out, Joseph Smith initially denied that some Saints were practicing polygamy.

All of which is--unfortunately--old news.

[Jeff K.]

Just because there were newspaper articles that mock Mormonism doesn

[Jeff K.]

You're "on" to something. Polygamy was secretly practiced by close associates of Joseph Smith, including Heber C. Kimball and Brigham Young. Moreover, polygamy was illegal in Illinois. Hence, it was important to keep the practice hidden from the general membership of the Church as well as the state.

When word got out, Joseph Smith initially denied that some Saints were practicing polygamy.

All of which is--unfortunately--old news.

To begin with the persecution began long before polygamy became common knowledge or was revealed to Joseph Smith.

As to polygamy

Keeping the doctrine private was also necessary because the enemies of the Church would have used it as another justification for their assault on the Saints. Orson Hyde looked back on the Nauvoo days and indicated what the consequences of disclosure would have been:

In olden times they might have passed through the same circumstances as some of the Latter-day Saints had to in Illinois. What would it have done for us, if they had known that many of us had more than one wife when we lived in Illinois? They would have broken us up, doubtless, worse than they did.[2]

It is thus important to realize that the public preaching of polygamy

[consiglieri]

It almost sounds like you are conceding that Joseph Smith destroyed the expositor because he was afraid of what would happen if the general membership of the Church learned the truth.

You noticed that, did you?

[Deborah]

Whether Sharp or any of the others (Smith, Voras, Wills, Gallaher, etc.) were in theocratic opposition consciously is unimportant, although I believe that many of them were. The fact is that they were working in league with Lucifer, doing his work, just as Pilate and Herod were, in their own minds, doing political work in arranging the Crucifixion.

I don't disagree. But the political situation may have been the "justifiable" means by which Satan accomplished his purposes. Of course those who were working for the destruction of Joseph and the church would deny that Satan was influencing them, just as those who work against the church today deny the same.

[Deborah]

I disagree.

That may be so but that doesn't mean you are right.

[Jeff K.]

If Monson made political decisions commensurate with Joseph Smith

[Jeff K.]

You noticed that, did you?

Then what you notice what isn't necessarily there. How would you differentiate between letting the non member public know and letting the membership know, since both would become aware at roughly the same time.

When polygamy became known, was there a mass exodus from the church later? On the other hand, was polygamy used as a key excuse to continue the persecution of the Saints? Was the key reason for all of the splinter groups personality? Polygamy? or Succession? I would say that the succession question drove the largest splinter group, and personalities most of the others, polygamy never played the major roll in a split. I certainly haven't seen the evidence when comparing the Re-organized, versus the Ridgonites or the Strangites.

You may assume, that was Joseph Smith's primary fear or motivation (not quite shared by Brother Brigham), but the facts seem to dispute the presumption.

[mrmendoza]

Hi, everybody, have you missed me?

As to the original OP I am under the impression that it was a major political mistake to take out the Expositor the way it was done. Afterall it directly lead to the Prophets death! As to wheather or not he was justified in his action, he believed that he was, and I believe that he was also. When you consider all that had happened to him throughtout his life it's a wonder that he had not just had the place burned down, but that was not his way of doing things! Politicaly, it was a mistake that ultimatly lead to his murder! While I know that there those who believe that killing someone for destroying their property is justified I don;t happen to agree with that notion.

I could say more on the subject of Joseph's political activities, but it would only drag this out into a disscusion on politics so I wont do that. I believe that Joseph was called of God from the councils of heaven before the creation of the world. I suppose it was also decreed that he was to be a martyr in that same council!

Mike

[Bob Crockett]

I

[Bob Crockett]

That may be so but that doesn't mean you are right.

Keep rolling those eyes down to my explanation.