MMM and the Nauvoo Expositor

[Deborah]

I think it's rather useless to ask a group or a nation to make an apology for something done long before any of the present parties were alive. The apology is in the change in a group or nation's policy or attitude, and learning from one's mistakes. For example the U.S. treatment of the American Indian was atrocious, but we no longer do those things.

In saying this I'm not even implying that the "church" has anything to apologize for. In both cases discussed in this thread the acts were carried out by individuals, not the church. Even the Expositor wasn't a church action but a city council action. I know our critics would like to make BY the culprit in MMM but even if such were true it would be his responsibility, not the church's. In any case the individuals involved in MMM had a choice and we know one man did refrain from participating and tried to get others to stop.

[Jeff K.]

Well said.

I wonder at these incessant demands for apology from such familiar quarters.

Some people will look for any excuse to demean or deride the church and its history, often unfairly, even stretching culpability ad infinitum implying a smaller act somehow justifies a murderous response (all the while using implication while denying they actually said it). Blaming victims in order to undermine them is an old lawyers trick but serves no true moral purpose. And if there is no moral purpose, then why make the nefarious claims? Could it be people think so little of themselves that their only chance at feeling somehow superior is to make historical presumptions in order to drag someone else down? The demand for some sort of apology isn't the end of it, it never is. Should an apology be given, well then it is used as an admission of some sort, and then that becomes molded into a cudgel which becomes another weapon to further beat down the church or people in the church.

It is unfortunate, but perhaps the only outlet for those who have long since left the spirit behind and grasped upon something, anything to justify the emptiness.

The question is whether or not a city council has the right to close down a newspaper that is making the lives of a church community dangerous for its members?

Frankly, having read the Expositor, it should have destroyed on grounds of murdering the English language and killing literacy with its over the top floresque writing.

But by our laws today, such a paper could not be destroyed even as it endangered the community. In Europe today, such a paper could indeed be destroyed if shown to be a danger to the community. In the time of the Expositor, it may or may not have been destroyed if viewed as a danger to the community. So from my perspective there is no real true final arbiter as to whether or not what was done was correct or not. If we aren't sure, do we say "excuse me" as a matter of formality, like accidently brushing an individual against the wall as we walk past? A kind of open ended apology signifying that we haven'tnecessarily done anythign wrong, but just in case, here are some empty words to mollify you?

Do they want an apology because things could have been handled better? As my child says "duh". Things can always be handled better, especially in a rough frontier where a new religion is growing and faced with hostile neighbors of other religious stripes who have continuously been open in their attacks and assaults on Mormons of the time. Handled better, yes. Wrong? in aspects only, but not enough to justify murder by a mob.

To state that the Expositor incident was responsible for Joseph Smiths death (implying some sort of equivalency) is akin to stating that wearing a dress is sufficient to bear responsibility for rape. There can be no justification, and while a press can be replaced and paid for which may have been destroyed due to an error of legal interpretation, heinous murder by a mob of men who were outnumbered and at the mercy of the group, cannot not, in any case be justified.

At least from what I have seen.

[Lightbearer]

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

I apologize for butting into your thread, I will cease to do so in the future.

[Lightbearer]

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.

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."

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.

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

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

The only error I made is stating what I really think, I shall watch that in the future. There is really no purpose for this board, as I can see it. Dialogue is not the real purpose, just taking pot shots at the Church is. Sometimes I wonder why I even bother. Yes I was pretty upset, and I despise Anti-Mormon DRIVEL... I guess I will add this topic to the list of those I will in future ignore because nobody really cares what I think.

[ERayR]

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

I agree. I think that when Godd wants the "armchair quarterbacks" to make the calls he will replace the GA"s with the "armchair quarterbacks" .

[Spurven Ten Sing]

Well said.

I wonder at these incessant demands for apology from such familiar quarters.

Some people will look for any excuse to demean or deride the church and its history, often unfairly, even stretching culpability ad infinitum implying a smaller act somehow justifies a murderous response (all the while using implication while denying they actually said it). Blaming victims in order to undermine them is an old lawyers trick but serves no true moral purpose. And if there is no moral purpose, then why make the nefarious claims? Could it be people think so little of themselves that their only chance at feeling somehow superior is to make historical presumptions in order to drag someone else down? The demand for some sort of apology isn't the end of it, it never is. Should an apology be given, well then it is used as an admission of some sort, and then that becomes molded into a cudgel which becomes another weapon to further beat down the church or people in the church.

It is unfortunate, but perhaps the only outlet for those who have long since left the spirit behind and grasped upon something, anything to justify the emptiness.

The question is whether or not a city council has the right to close down a newspaper that is making the lives of a church community dangerous for its members?

Frankly, having read the Expositor, it should have destroyed on grounds of murdering the English language and killing literacy with its over the top floresque writing.

But by our laws today, such a paper could not be destroyed even as it endangered the community. In Europe today, such a paper could indeed be destroyed if shown to be a danger to the community. In the time of the Expositor, it may or may not have been destroyed if viewed as a danger to the community. So from my perspective there is no real true final arbiter as to whether or not what was done was correct or not. If we aren't sure, do we say "excuse me" as a matter of formality, like accidently brushing an individual against the wall as we walk past? A kind of open ended apology signifying that we haven'tnecessarily done anythign wrong, but just in case, here are some empty words to mollify you?

Do they want an apology because things could have been handled better? As my child says "duh". Things can always be handled better, especially in a rough frontier where a new religion is growing and faced with hostile neighbors of other religious stripes who have continuously been open in their attacks and assaults on Mormons of the time. Handled better, yes. Wrong? in aspects only, but not enough to justify murder by a mob.

To state that the Expositor incident was responsible for Joseph Smiths death (implying some sort of equivalency) is akin to stating that wearing a dress is sufficient to bear responsibility for rape. There can be no justification, and while a press can be replaced and paid for which may have been destroyed due to an error of legal interpretation, heinous murder by a mob of men who were outnumbered and at the mercy of the group, cannot not, in any case be justified.

At least from what I have seen.

-gulp- -gulp-

[Lamanite]

I agree. I think that when Godd wants the "armchair quarterbacks" to make the calls he will replace the GA"s with the "armchair quarterbacks" .

So having an opinion on the MMM or the Expositor event is not allowed?

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Analytics]

For those of you who think that we shouldn

[thesometimesaint]

Analytics:

Bull pucky. The WHOLE purpose was to get JS onto Missouri to MURDER him. Missouri succeeded.

[Deborah]

Analytics, CFR. You are way off base. Joseph could have called the militia to defend him and in fact told them to stay out of it to protect the rest of the saints. They may have had legitimate arrest warrants but the charges were bogus. It's ridiculous to think that if Joseph and the saints had cooperated they would have "retained the good will of their neighbors in Illinois." The goal was the destruction of Joseph and the church.

The Joseph Smith papers, and particularly careful scrutiny of the legal documents and supporting documentation from other sources, are revealing the hounding of the prophet with these frivolous lawsuits that had no grounds and in most cases for which he was totally acquitted.

[Walden]

There is really no purpose for this board, as I can see it. Dialogue is not the real purpose, just taking pot shots at the Church is. Sometimes I wonder why I even bother. Yes I was pretty upset, and I despise Anti-Mormon DRIVEL... I guess I will add this topic to the list of those I will in future ignore because nobody really cares what I think.

Funny how perspective can alter one's view of things. I would agree about the lack of purpose for this board and that dialogue is not the real purpose. From my perspective, as many pot shots that are taken at the church, there seems to be just as many TBMs who just come here to extend fast and testimony meeting. If I wanted to hear TBM testimonies, I would visit my local LDS ward.

[Jeff K.]

Perhaps I

[Jeff K.]

Funny how perspective can alter one's view of things. I would agree about the lack of purpose for this board and that dialogue is not the real purpose. From my perspective, as many pot shots that are taken at the church, there seems to be just as many TBMs who just come here to extend fast and testimony meeting. If I wanted to hear TBM testimonies, I would visit my local LDS ward.

Has nothing to do with the thread. But the baseless accusations and frivolous attacks made by anti Mormons in various guises here are not nearly as numerous as the attackers.

[thesometimesaint]

PrattCat:

I'm sure the nice folks at RfM would just love your testimony against the Church.

[Analytics]

Analytics, CFR. You are way off base. Joseph could have called the militia to defend him and in fact told them to stay out of it to protect the rest of the saints. They may have had legitimate arrest warrants but the charges were bogus. It's ridiculous to think that if Joseph and the saints had cooperated they would have "retained the good will of their neighbors in Illinois." The goal was the destruction of Joseph and the church.

The Joseph Smith papers, and particularly careful scrutiny of the legal documents and supporting documentation from other sources, are revealing the hounding of the prophet with these frivolous lawsuits that had no grounds and in most cases for which he was totally acquitted.

Regarding the CFR, read Thomas Ford's narrative in A History of Illinois.

My position is that if you sincerely want to understand what the non-Mormons were thinking in Illinois, Thomas Ford offers persuasive insight into their perspective. Joseph Smith and the Saints got along very well in Illinois until Joseph got involved in state politics Chicago-style and started pushing the power of the Nauvoo charter beyond the limits.

[thesometimesaint]

Analytics:

http://en.fairmormon.org/City_of_Nauvoo/City_charter

The Nauvoo Charter granted great power to the city, but it was not unique in this respect

[Darth J]

/snip

I specifically said that the already-existing animosity between Mormons and non-Mormons is not in dispute.

But since you are also quoting from this entry in the FAIR wiki, is FAIR's statement that, "[t]he Expositor incident led directly to the murder of Joseph and Hyrum" accurate or not?

Or are you using one part of the wiki entry to prove that another part of the wiki entry is wrong?

Or are you just determined to say that I am wrong because Joseph Smith must have died for his testimony, and not for setting a chain of events in motion when he ordered the destruction of a newspaper that exposed his secret practice of polygamy?

[Darth J]

I agree. I think that when Godd wants the "armchair quarterbacks" to make the calls he will replace the GA"s with the "armchair quarterbacks" .

Does this mean that we can now expect LDS apologists to stop saying that church leaders were speculating/speaking as men when their teachings conflict with a particular apologetic theory, and/or that church leaders have interpreted the Book of Mormon and other scriptures incorrectly?

[Darth J]

Well said.

I wonder at these incessant demands for apology from such familiar quarters.

Some people will look for any excuse to demean or deride the church and its history, often unfairly, even stretching culpability ad infinitum implying a smaller act somehow justifies a murderous response (all the while using implication while denying they actually said it). Blaming victims in order to undermine them is an old lawyers trick but serves no true moral purpose. And if there is no moral purpose, then why make the nefarious claims? Could it be people think so little of themselves that their only chance at feeling somehow superior is to make historical presumptions in order to drag someone else down? The demand for some sort of apology isn't the end of it, it never is. Should an apology be given, well then it is used as an admission of some sort, and then that becomes molded into a cudgel which becomes another weapon to further beat down the church or people in the church.

It is unfortunate, but perhaps the only outlet for those who have long since left the spirit behind and grasped upon something, anything to justify the emptiness.

The question is whether or not a city council has the right to close down a newspaper that is making the lives of a church community dangerous for its members?

Frankly, having read the Expositor, it should have destroyed on grounds of murdering the English language and killing literacy with its over the top floresque writing.

But by our laws today, such a paper could not be destroyed even as it endangered the community. In Europe today, such a paper could indeed be destroyed if shown to be a danger to the community. In the time of the Expositor, it may or may not have been destroyed if viewed as a danger to the community. So from my perspective there is no real true final arbiter as to whether or not what was done was correct or not. If we aren't sure, do we say "excuse me" as a matter of formality, like accidently brushing an individual against the wall as we walk past? A kind of open ended apology signifying that we haven'tnecessarily done anythign wrong, but just in case, here are some empty words to mollify you?

Do they want an apology because things could have been handled better? As my child says "duh". Things can always be handled better, especially in a rough frontier where a new religion is growing and faced with hostile neighbors of other religious stripes who have continuously been open in their attacks and assaults on Mormons of the time. Handled better, yes. Wrong? in aspects only, but not enough to justify murder by a mob.

To state that the Expositor incident was responsible for Joseph Smiths death (implying some sort of equivalency) is akin to stating that wearing a dress is sufficient to bear responsibility for rape. There can be no justification, and while a press can be replaced and paid for which may have been destroyed due to an error of legal interpretation, heinous murder by a mob of men who were outnumbered and at the mercy of the group, cannot not, in any case be justified.

At least from what I have seen.

Dear Jeff,

1. Granted, many people have demanded apologies for the Mountain Meadows Massacre over the years, and the Church has in fact issued an apology. But are you claiming that there have been incessant demands for an apology for the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor? If you are claiming that there have been demands for an apology over this incident, can you provide us with an example?

2. "To state that the Expositor incident was responsible for Joseph Smiths death (implying some sort of equivalency) is akin to stating that wearing a dress is sufficient to bear responsibility for rape." So when the FAIR wiki concludes that the Expositor incident led directly to the deaths of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, is FAIR wrong? Is an LDS apologist group trying to blame the victim?

3. Who here has said that Joseph Smith deserved to die or that his murder was justified?

[AIT]

After reading a lot of the posts in this thread I've been disappointed that there has been little discussion of the actual contents of the Expositor newspaper itself.

I encourage everyone to read it, or re-read it, as the case may be. I think this simple act will serve to clear up many misconceptions about it and those who printed it.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Nauvoo_Expositor

[Darth J]

After reading a lot of the posts in this thread I've been disappointed that there has been little discussion of the actual contents of the Expositor newspaper itself.

I encourage everyone to read it, or re-read it, as the case may be. I think this simple act will serve to clear up many misconceptions about it and those who printed it.

http://en.wikisource...auvoo_Expositor

That's why I keep asking for someone to explain what specific, factual allegations in it were not true.

[AIT]

That's why I keep asking for someone to explain what specific, factual allegations in it were not true.

Ok.

I find it interesting that a few people that I've known over the years who express interest in Church history only read what others have written about the Expositor and have never actually read it or can even have a rough grasp of its contents. They only speak about the destruction of the press, the Nauvoo charter, etc. Mind you, I'm no historian, I've never read the Nauvoo charter, or studied the Expositor in depth, but at least I can say that I've read through most of it and can recognize when it's being mis-characterized.

[Analytics]

Analytics:

http://en.fairmormon.org/City_of_Nauvoo/City_charter

The Nauvoo Charter granted great power to the city, but it was not unique in this respect

[thesometimesaint]

Analytics:

There was nothing special in Nauvoo Charter. JS did nothing that a number of elected officials around the country didn't do, including destroying a public nuisance.

[Jeff K.]

Dear Jeff,

1. Granted, many people have demanded apologies for the Mountain Meadows Massacre over the years, and the Church has in fact issued an apology. But are you claiming that there have been incessant demands for an apology for the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor? If you are claiming that there have been demands for an apology over this incident, can you provide us with an example?

2. "To state that the Expositor incident was responsible for Joseph Smiths death (implying some sort of equivalency) is akin to stating that wearing a dress is sufficient to bear responsibility for rape." So when the FAIR wiki concludes that the Expositor incident led directly to the deaths of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, is FAIR wrong? Is an LDS apologist group trying to blame the victim?

3. Who here has said that Joseph Smith deserved to die or that his murder was justified?

The attacks upon the church using the Nauvoo Expositor as a cudgel is simply part of the "road trip" people who hate Mormons use all the time, even the self hating Mormons who seem to have joy in undermining the church.

I suggest you reread the Fair wiki article and this time without your normal anti Mormon slant. There are those who would see the Expositor as being responsible for mob incitement, and then there are those (like yourself) who see the mob incitement as a result of the town council action. Perhaps the difference is too subtle for some whose slant is so one sided they cannot see.

Who here has implicated Joseph Smith deserved to die, or died as a result of his actions (put your hand down we already know).