MMM and the Nauvoo Expositor

[Calm]

Do you think maybe we could say, "Man, in retrospect there was probably a waaaaaaaay better way to handle that situation!" (am I supposed to put a question mark somewhere?)

I'm of the opinion that if we could admit to the former declarative then would could easily say, "We made a mistake", and leave it at that.

Big UP!

Lamanite

It would be interesting to know what would have happened if the property hadn't been destroyed, unfortunately that's not knowledge we can find out in the here and now...perhaps the Lord will fill in those types of what if gaps for us when our lives are under review come judgment day.

I think there at least one big difference between the crackdown on polygamy by the US government and the crackdown on the Expositer by the Nauvoo gov (headed by JS). In the first case, there was no long term attempt to incite violence against the US government, the crackdown was for another purpose than attempting to control violence; in the second, the intent was to prevent violence even if it turned out to be a failure in that regard. So it appears in one that the government had the intent of instigating violence, in the second the government had the intent of preventing violence. While neither position automatically qualifies the government's actions as legal or moral or intelligent, it does indicate that it is probably not a good idea to try and equate them in such a fashion.

[Analytics]

You dispute that this was noble civil disobedience, comparable to Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr.?

That Utah-era polygamy was noble civil disobedience? That's hard say. In general, I subscribe to the morality of Emerson as described in "Self Reliance" and follow the light that I see, and allow others to do the same. I would say their civil disobedience was "civil disobedience" comparable to Warren Jeffs and Tom Green. From my vantage point, Gandhi and King were actually enlightened. These modern-era polygamists are quite confused.

[Darth J]

It would be interesting to know what would have happened if the property hadn't been destroyed, unfortunately that's not knowledge we can find out in the here and now...perhaps the Lord will fill in those types of what if gaps for us when our lives are under review come judgment day.

I think there at least one big difference between the crackdown on polygamy by the US government and the crackdown on the Expositer by the Nauvoo gov (headed by JS). In the first case, there was no long term attempt to incite violence against the US government, the crackdown was for another purpose than attempting to control violence; in the second, the intent was to prevent violence even if it turned out to be a failure in that regard. So it appears in one that the government had the intent of instigating violence, in the second the government had the intent of preventing violence. While neither position automatically qualifies the government's actions as legal or moral or intelligent, it does indicate that it is probably not a good idea to try and equate them in such a fashion.

Are you talking about the crackdown on LDS polygamy in the Utah territory by the federal government, or the crackdown on FLDS polygamy in Texas by the state government?

[AddamS]

You wouldn't think that the LDS believer's position would tend to be that the Church is always right?

No, I don't think that is accurate.

It has been my experience that most faithful LDS believers seem to believe the church's leaders were nearly always right in their choices from the point of view of the time frame those choices were made.

[Darth J]

That Utah-era polygamy was noble civil disobedience? That's hard say. In general, I subscribe to the morality of Emerson as described in "Self Reliance" and follow the light that I see, and allow others to do the same. I would say their civil disobedience was "civil disobedience" comparable to Warren Jeffs and Tom Green. From my vantage point, Gandhi and King were actually enlightened. These modern-area polygamists are quite confused.

You're not doing it right, Analytics. Let me explain:

1. When the LDS Church was practicing polygamy up until the early 1900's and promised it would stop practicing polygamy but did it anyway for 14 years after making that promise, and the federal government acted to stop this illegal practice, the Church was being persecuted.

2. When Tom Green and Warren Jeffs practice polygamy and teach that they are continuing the practices taught by and demonstrated by Joseph Smith, and they are tried and convicted in Utah because of their illegal practices, they deserve it because they are criminals.

LDS polygamists breaking the law = civil disobedience

Mormon fundamentalist polygamists who are not in the LDS Church breaking the law = criminals

3. Secretly practicing plural marriage behind your wife's back, and hiding it from the public and most members of the Church is civil disobedience, as we learn here:

http://en.fairmormon..._Smith/Polygamy

http://www.fairlds.o...ion.html#head03

[Darth J]

No, I don't think that is accurate.

It has been my experience that most faithful LDS believers seem to believe the church's leaders were nearly always right in their choices from the point of view of the time frame those choices were made.

Have you seen anyone here taking the position that Joseph Smith was wrong, either legally or morally, to have the Expositor destroyed?

EDIT: Among faithful LDS believers, I mean?

[Lamanite]

In my OP I made a correlation between the MMM and the Expositor. My intent was to compare the modern interpretation of those events as Latter Day Saints and not the events themselves.

In the case of the MMM we are generally unified in our response that the slaughter of innocent men, women, and children is inexcusable.  We may provide historical facts and a rich context for how the event ultimately transpired, but I think we are beyond making excuses for it.

In the case of the Nauvoo Expositor, I think we have a lot of growing to do before we say, "Maybe there was a better way to have handled the situation.  I think we made a mistake back then."

Am I being too simplistic?  I'm loving the discussion. I couldn't wait for someone to bring up Boggs and civil law.. Good stuff. Thanks guys!

Big UP!

Lamanite

edit: Hi Cal. Loved the first sentence of your response!

[AddamS]

Have you seen anyone here taking the position that Joseph Smith was wrong, either legally or morally, to have the Expositor destroyed?

EDIT: Among faithful LDS believers, I mean?

This kind of illustrates my point.

While there don't seem to be many folks that would say the action was wrong at the time, I don't believe many of these same folks would be in support of the government destroying a modern periodical that reveals sacred information or disparages the LDS church. This response holds true in the instances of many other issues including polygamy, denying African Americans the priesthood, etc...

[Darth J]

In my OP I made a correlation between the MMM and the Expositor. My intent was to compare the modern interpretation of those events as Latter Day Saints and not the events themselves.

In the case of the MMM we are generally unified in our response that the slaughter of innocent men, women, and children is inexcusable.  We may provide historical facts and a rich context for how the event ultimately transpired, but I think we are beyond making excuses for it.

In the case of the Nauvoo Expositor, I think we have a lot of growing to do before we say, "Maybe there was a better way to have handled the situation.  I think we made a mistake back then."

Am I being too simplistic?  I'm loving the discussion. I couldn't wait for someone to bring up Boggs and civil law.. Good stuff. Thanks guys!

Big UP!

Lamanite

edit: Hi Cal. Loved the first sentence of your response!

It's not a matter of growing up. It is a matter of the Church's teachings.

Joseph Smith was killed by mob violence after he had a press destroyed that exposed his practice of plural marriage. He shot some of the mob members with a pistol that had been given to him in jail, and he tried to use a Masonic distress call to have the mob spare him.

But that is not a faith-promoting narrative. The faith-promoting narrative is the one the Church has adopted: that Joseph Smith was a martyr for his testimony of the Book of Mormon.

Which hymn verse are you going to hear in sacrament meeting: "Praise to his memory, he died as a martyr", or, "Praise to his memory, he died because he incited mob violence by destroying a newspaper that exposed his practice of plural marriage"?

What did Jeffrey R. Holland say in the October 1999 general conference? They were willing to die rather than deny the divine origin and the eternal truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. Is that really an accurate assessment of why Joseph and Hyrum died?

What has been canonized in D&C 135?

To seal the testimony of this book and the Book of Mormon, we announce the martyrdom of Joseph Smith the Prophet, and Hyrum Smith the Patriarch.

Is that really an accurate assessment of why they died?

Joseph Smith had been teaching and testifying about the Book of Mormon for 14 years, give or take, when he was killed. It wasn't the sudden realization of, "Hey! He's talking about that gold bible!" that led to his death.

That doesn't mean that he deserved to die or that he wasn't murdered in a horrible act of mob violence. He didn't, and he was. But the Church officially teaches something other than the actual circumstances as the cause of his death.

[Lamanite]

It's not a matter of growing up. It is a matter of the Church's teachings.

Joseph Smith was killed by mob violence after he had a press destroyed that exposed his practice of plural marriage. He shot some of the mob members with a pistol that had been given to him in jail, and he tried to use a Masonic distress call to have the mob spare him.

But that is not a faith-promoting narrative. The faith-promoting narrative is the one the Church has adopted: that Joseph Smith was a martyr for his testimony of the Book of Mormon.

Which hymn verse are you going to hear in sacrament meeting: "Praise to his memory, he died as a martyr", or, "Praise to his memory, he died because he incited mob violence by destroying a newspaper that exposed his practice of plural marriage"?

What did Jeffrey R. Holland say in the October 1999 general conference? They were willing to die rather than deny the divine origin and the eternal truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. Is that really an accurate assessment of why Joseph and Hyrum died?

What has been canonized in D&C 135?

To seal the testimony of this book and the Book of Mormon, we announce the martyrdom of Joseph Smith the Prophet, and Hyrum Smith the Patriarch.

Is that really an accurate assessment of why they died?

Joseph Smith had been teaching and testifying about the Book of Mormon for 14 years, give or take, when he was killed. It wasn't the sudden realization of, "Hey! He's talking about that gold bible!" that led to his death.

That doesn't mean that he deserved to die or that he wasn't murdered in a horrible act of mob violence. He didn't, and he was. But the Church officially teaches something other than the actual circumstances as the cause of his death.

I don't know that I've been taught anything by the Church about this subject. At least not anything substantive. This facet of the issue is of no concern to me right now.

Joseph is a prophet and died for a great many reasons. None of which I want to discuss right now, but yes, "Praise to the Man" would express my feelings sufficiently, while a stronger word that exists right before worship would do even better.

But the issue I've described has everything to do with my "growing up." The very phrase screams development and conversion. To become like the Savior is a way of growing up and leaving childish things behind. To be sure, my viewing this event as a mistake has everything to do with me "growing up."

And in my enlightened state of being, I've decided to allow others the freedom to grow in different directions. LOL Now I'm killing myself. But seriously, they really screwed up and this event reflects how dumb we sometimes are. This event had far reaching consequences, but none so far as to escape the abilities of omniscience and omnipotence, thus the work rolls forward, despite our best efforts to assist it.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Glenn101]

It's not a matter of growing up. It is a matter of the Church's teachings.

Joseph Smith was killed by mob violence after he had a press destroyed that exposed his practice of plural marriage. He shot some of the mob members with a pistol that had been given to him in jail, and he tried to use a Masonic distress call to have the mob spare him.

But that is not a faith-promoting narrative. The faith-promoting narrative is the one the Church has adopted: that Joseph Smith was a martyr for his testimony of the Book of Mormon.

Which hymn verse are you going to hear in sacrament meeting: "Praise to his memory, he died as a martyr", or, "Praise to his memory, he died because he incited mob violence by destroying a newspaper that exposed his practice of plural marriage"?

What did Jeffrey R. Holland say in the October 1999 general conference? They were willing to die rather than deny the divine origin and the eternal truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. Is that really an accurate assessment of why Joseph and Hyrum died?

What has been canonized in D&C 135?

To seal the testimony of this book and the Book of Mormon, we announce the martyrdom of Joseph Smith the Prophet, and Hyrum Smith the Patriarch.

Is that really an accurate assessment of why they died?

Joseph Smith had been teaching and testifying about the Book of Mormon for 14 years, give or take, when he was killed. It wasn't the sudden realization of, "Hey! He's talking about that gold bible!" that led to his death.

That doesn't mean that he deserved to die or that he wasn't murdered in a horrible act of mob violence. He didn't, and he was. But the Church officially teaches something other than the actual circumstances as the cause of his death.

This is going over old territory once again, but your assertions that he destruction of the Expositor was what began the mob violence that led to the deaths of Joseph Smith et al is unfounded, i.e. not based upon the facts. The people who were in that mob were not from Nauvoo, where the action had taken place. They were mostly from Warsaw. Joseph also was not being held for the destruction of the Expositor. He was charged with treason for mustering up the Nauvoo Legion (in order that he be held without bail).

The fact that Joseph Smith fired a pistol in defense of himself and his friends against a mob of some 150 people is hardly surprising. But he has been reviled consistently by some for that. Strange. And that also makes him a martyr not to some. But it does not matter what those some do think. He is a martyr to the LDS who believe in his prophetic calling.

As for the op of this thread, looking back upon the scene from our perspective, some LDS may feel that the events were a mistake. I think one poster hit it on the head talking about us looking at the scene from our armchairs. We have so many "armchair quarterbacks" who seem to know better than the apostles and prophets in every era. But they are not apostles and prophets for some reason or other. They are not in the hot seats.

Glenn

[paulpatter]

. . . . NO! I have never viewed the Nauvoo Expositor destruction as anything but a justifiable action of the Mayor and City council and that it was done in a lawful manner and according to the Nauvoo charter.

Kudos to Lamanite for a superb OP. We were not a perfect people in Joseph Smith's day and we are not a perfect people today. An unwillingness to admit to error is, among other things, an indication of insecurity.

As for your claim that the destruction of the Expositor was a "justifiable action," consider the following from two LDS authors: "The council had acted legally in its right to abate a nuisance, though contemporary legal opinion allowed only the destruction of published issues of an offending paper, not destruction of the printing press itself [emphases added]. The city fathers had not violated the constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press, though they had probably erred in violating property rights" [underlining added] (The Story of the Latter-day Saints, James B. Allen and Glen M. Leonard, p. 192). Allen and Leonard subsequently state the following: "The brashness and swiftness of the city council's retaliatory action against the Expositor and the easy release from trial of those responsible gave those plotting against the Prophet's life ammunition for their scheme" [underlining added] (p. 193).

As we know, it all ended up at Carthage. Hence, not only was the Expositor's destruction unjustifiable, it culminated in the murders of Joseph and Hyrum.

: I for one would never concede to the Anti-Mormon bigots that this was an illegal or unwarranted act. They would never concede that Joseph and Hyrum were martyred by a mod of evil and vicious apostates and enemies of the Prophet, so why should I make such an unjust concession?

Why are you unable to see that while your second statement is true, your declaration that the press's destruction wasn't "illegal or unwarranted" is not true. Moreover, that aside, the city council's action led directly to the deaths of Joseph and Hyrum. Destroying the press was, in short, a horrendous error with horrendous results.

We need to be honest about our historicity if we are to earn broadly based respect.

[Lightbearer]

Kudos to Lamanite for a superb OP. We were not a perfect people in Joseph Smith's day and we are not a perfect people today. An unwillingness to admit to error is, among other things, an indication of insecurity.

Insecurity just because I do not faun all over the enemies of the Church? Just because I refuse to view history through the eyes of apostates and traitors?

As we know, it all ended up at Carthage. Hence, not only was the Expositor's destruction unjustifiable, it culminated in the murders of Joseph and Hyrum.

Yes among other things it did culminate in their murders. But here again we are blaming the victims or at least trying to justify murder for assumed property rights violations. If they had not destroyed the press it would have stirred up the mob and possibly ended in a massacre of the Saints in Nauvoo. I will always stand with the Church and it's "interpretation of history" instead of Anti-Mormon drivel that is got up to defame the prophet and the Church.

Why are you unable to see that while your second statement is true, your declaration that the press's destruction wasn't "illegal or unwarranted" is not true. Moreover, that aside, the city council's action led directly to the deaths of Joseph and Hyrum. Destroying the press was, in short, a horrendous error with horrendous results.

We need to be honest about our historicity if we are to earn broadly based respect.

Are you accusing me or the Church of being dishonest? I do not care if I have the respect of Anti-Mormon scandal moungers. I do not care if the Apostates and critics hold me in derision, they always will unless I denounce my belief in the Church and the Prophet Joseph Smith, which I will never do!The fact is the case was never tried, except by the fiendish mob who gleefully shed the blood of two holy prophets and even now they are continuously slandered by those who are too cowardly to defend their good names. There was a conspiracy to kill the prophet, not just a rowdy bunch outraged by the destruction of a press... it was much deeper than that, the enemies were not just non-Mormons, it was the apostates and Judas like traitors that ensighted the mob as well as sectarian ministers who shouted "three cheers for those shot" to death the prophet of God. You may try to swallow this revisionist history but I cannot stomach it.

[Lamanite]

Insecurity just because I do not faun all over the enemies of the Church? Just because I refuse to view history through the eyes of apostates and traitors?

edit: Violation of board rules and stuff.

[selek]

Sorry Lamanite.

That struck a sore spot.

Thank you for 'moderating' your accusation.

[Lamanite]

Insecurity just because I do not faun all over the enemies of the Church? Just because I refuse to view history through the eyes of apostates and traitors?

Yes among other things it did culminate in their murders. But here again we are blaming the victims or at least trying to justify murder for assumed property rights violations. If they had not destroyed the press it would have stirred up the mob and possibly ended in a massacre of the Saints in Nauvoo. I will always stand with the Church and it's "interpretation of history" instead of Anti-Mormon drivel that is got up to defame the prophet and the Church.

Are you accusing me or the Church of being dishonest? I do not care if I have the respect of Anti-Mormon scandal moungers. I do not care if the Apostates and critics hold me in derision, they always will unless I denounce my belief in the Church and the Prophet Joseph Smith, which I will never do!The fact is the case was never tried, except by the fiendish mob who gleefully shed the blood of two holy prophets and even now they are continuously slandered by those who are too cowardly to defend their good names. There was a conspiracy to kill the prophet, not just a rowdy bunch outraged by the destruction of a press... it was much deeper than that, the enemies were not just non-Mormons, it was the apostates and Judas like traitors that ensighted the mob as well as sectarian ministers who shouted "three cheers for those shot" to death the prophet of God. You may try to swallow this revisionist history but I cannot stomach it.

I'm kind of in a kool transitional phase right now, so I'm being sincere when I ask, do you ever think you're just going way past courteous adult conversation? I mean, you seem pretty upset. Maybe I'm wrong.

Anyway, I think you're wrong about the admission of guilt in the destruction of the press somehow translating into apostate/traitor mindset that spawned revisionist history akin to Judas traitors that ensighted [sic] the mob.

Perhaps, my love for the Prophet subconsciously motivates my desire to place blame on others. Or perhaps, like I've said before, our brethren just messed up.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Lamanite]

...

Please don't close the thread. I've really enjoyed the conversation. I'll edit my post.

[Scottie]

First Scottie, now Lamanite.

What in the world did I do????

[paulpatter]

Insecurity just because I do not faun all over the enemies of the Church? Just because I refuse to view history through the eyes of apostates and traitors?

You make the error of assuming I was accusing you of being insecure; in fact, I was making an overarching observation about one indicator of insecurity, particularly in the context of organizational behavior. I don't know to whom your second sentence refers, but if it's me, you compound your error.

: Yes among other things it did culminate in their murders. But here again we are blaming the victims or at least trying to justify murder for assumed property rights violations.

Huh? ". . .trying to justify murder for assumed property rights violations"? How did you come up with that? BTW, the "property rights violations" were real--not "assumed."

: If they had not destroyed the press it would have stirred up the mob and possibly ended in a massacre of the Saints in Nauvoo.

You have it backwards. By destroying the press they did stir up the mob to such an extent that Governor Ford "believed. . .the only way to settle the Expositor charges would be a trial at Carthage, the country seat" (The Story of the Latter-Day Saints, Allen and Leonard, p. 193). We all know how that ended.

: I will always stand with the Church and it's "interpretation of history" instead of Anti-Mormon drivel that is got up to defame the prophet and the Church.

Facts that run counter to what you choose to believe do not constitute "Anti-Mormon drivel."

: Are you accusing me or the Church of being dishonest? I do not care if I have the respect of Anti-Mormon scandal moungers. I do not care if the Apostates and critics hold me in derision, they always will unless I denounce my belief in the Church and the Prophet Joseph Smith, which I will never do!The fact is the case was never tried, except by the fiendish mob who gleefully shed the blood of two holy prophets and even now they are continuously slandered by those who are too cowardly to defend their good names. There was a conspiracy to kill the prophet, not just a rowdy bunch outraged by the destruction of a press... it was much deeper than that, the enemies were not just non-Mormons, it was the apostates and Judas like traitors that ensighted the mob as well as sectarian ministers who shouted "three cheers for those shot" to death the prophet of God. You may try to swallow this revisionist history but I cannot stomach it.

With all due respect, I think you lose control here. Take a deep breath followed by a critical analysis of what you have written.

[selek]

What in the world did I do????

Don't play innocent with me, Scottie.

You KNOW what you did.

We've got you on three cameras, have two eye-witnesses, and the DNA evidence to make it stick.

However, if you return the budgeriega, the chocolate bar, and the two-hundred-and-eighty-three feet of dental floss, I'm willing to overlook it.

This time.

[rockslider]

Please don't close the thread. I've really enjoyed the conversation. I'll edit my post.

Leave you guys alone for a day, and you're being eaten by your own again.

And I thought this site did not allow temple content (check out that smiley!)

[Scottie]

Don't play innocent with me, Scottie.

You KNOW what you did.

We've got you on three cameras, have two eye-witnesses, and the DNA evidence to make it stick.

However, if you return the budgeriega, the chocolate bar, and the two-hundred-and-eighty-three feet of dental floss, I'm willing to overlook it.

This time.

Well, I used the dental floss to get the chocolate bar out of my teeth..... but I guess if you want them back, I can do that....

[Darth J]

This is going over old territory once again, but your assertions that he destruction of the Expositor was what began the mob violence that led to the deaths of Joseph Smith et al is unfounded, i.e. not based upon the facts. The people who were in that mob were not from Nauvoo, where the action had taken place. They were mostly from Warsaw. Joseph also was not being held for the destruction of the Expositor. He was charged with treason for mustering up the Nauvoo Legion (in order that he be held without bail).

The fact that Joseph Smith fired a pistol in defense of himself and his friends against a mob of some 150 people is hardly surprising. But he has been reviled consistently by some for that. Strange. And that also makes him a martyr not to some. But it does not matter what those some do think. He is a martyr to the LDS who believe in his prophetic calling.

As for the op of this thread, looking back upon the scene from our perspective, some LDS may feel that the events were a mistake. I think one poster hit it on the head talking about us looking at the scene from our armchairs. We have so many "armchair quarterbacks" who seem to know better than the apostles and prophets in every era. But they are not apostles and prophets for some reason or other. They are not in the hot seats.

Glenn

Hmmm. Here's what I got from the FAIR wiki:

Despite the fact that the Expositor's suppression was legal, the destruction of the press appeared high-handed to Church critics, and other newspapers began to call for the Mormons

[Sleeper Cell]

Hmmm. Here's what I got from the FAIR wiki:

The Nauvoo municipal court released Joseph on a writ of habeas corpus ... Thus cleared, Joseph Smith (as mayor) took his seat as judge over the municipal court, and cleared all others charged the day following his own release. This recurrent mix of religious, executive, and judicial power again infuriated the anti-Mormons. ...

However, Joseph and Hyrum were jailed by a writ issued by Robert F. Smith, a Methodist minister, justice of the peace, and captain of the Carthage Greys militia.

http://en.fairmormon...auvoo_Expositor

Emphasis added.

[handys003]

I'm still waiting for an apology for "Buchanan's Blunder". While we are at it let's just make sure we get the USA to make Amends to the Hawaiian Kingdom also!