MMM and the Nauvoo Expositor

[Jeff K.]

The destruction of the Expositor was a short distance in successive events to Joseph Smith's death. But not the cause of Joseph Smith's death, no matter what the delight in some claiming such.

[selek]

The destruction of the Expositor was a short distance in successive events to Joseph Smith's death. But not the cause of Joseph Smith's death, no matter what the delight in some claiming such.

Indeed. There is absolutely no evidence that the ultimate outcome would have been any different had the Expositor been allowed to continue publishing.

To pretend otherwise is to demagogue the issue.

There is also no evidence, contrary to what has been alleged, that the destruction of the Expositor was a mistake- let alone one for which the Church- or any faithful Mormon should apologize.

[Darth J]

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).

So, as with every single time you have ever responded to me on this board, you yet again make accusations about what I am saying, and fail to support those accusation when asked to do so.

If the Expositor was responsible for the mob incitement, then you are of course begging two question---two questions that I already know you are not going to answer:

1. What specifically in the Expositor incited the mob violence; and

2. Which of the factual allegations in the Expositor were false, and why were they false?

[Analytics]

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.

Seriously?

In addition to be considered the prophet and oracle of God by almost all of the residents, Joseph Smith was the mayor, commander of the largest militia in the state, justice of the peace, chief justice of the municipal court, and head of the city council, thereby controlling not only all branches of government, but both sides of the church/state divide as well.

A number of elected officials across the country did that?

Joseph Smith was arrested with a valid warrant and was being extradited to Missouri. He ran into the lawyer Cyrus Walker who was running for Congress, to whom he promised the vote of the city in exchange for legal help.

A number of elected officials across the country did that?

The co-president of the church later announced that he received a revelation from God that the saints ought to vote as a block for Walker

[Darth J]

Indeed. There is absolutely no evidence that the ultimate outcome would have been any different had the Expositor been allowed to continue publishing.

To pretend otherwise is to demagogue the issue.

There is also no evidence, contrary to what has been alleged, that the destruction of the Expositor was a mistake- let alone one for which the Church- or any faithful Mormon should apologize.

There is no evidence for these things because a negative cannot be proven.

And I agree that once Joseph Smith's secret polygamy and being crowned the king of Israel on Earth were publicly exposed, there would have been a public reaction in any case.

I also already said that Joseph Smith did not deserve to die and was murdered in a horrible act of mob violence.

But there is also no evidence, contrary to what has been alleged, that the chain of events that led to Joseph Smith being put in Carthage Jail and murdered by a mob was because of his testimony of the Book of Mormon.

Since neither Jeff K. nor anyone else will do it, will you, Selek, explain why I am wrong for drawing the same conclusion as the FAIR wiki?

[Darth J]

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.

But we're back to the circular reasoning of the Expositor was a public nuisance.

What specifically among the factual allegations in the Expositor was false?

If Joseph Smith had been open and honest about his practice of polygamy, and his being crowned king of Israel on Earth by his followers, then the Expositor would not have been a public nuisance, because everyone would have already known it. Right?

[Analytics]

But we're back to the circular reasoning of the Expositor was a public nuisance.

What specifically among the factual allegations in the Expositor was false?

If Joseph Smith had been open and honest about his practice of polygamy, and his being crowned king of Israel on Earth by his followers, then the Expositor would not have been a public nuisance, because everyone would have already known it. Right?

If Joseph Smith would have been open and honest, the Expositor wouldn't have been published because there wouldn't have been anything to expose.

[paulpatter]

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.

That is true, at least in some measure. However, those who claim that the destruction of the press proper was "justified," are just plain wrong. In fact, it was illegal. You can't vandalize a neighbor's sports car because you think he drives it too fast in your neighborhood.

[selek]

That is true, at least in some measure. However, those who claim that the destruction of the press proper was "justified," are just plain wrong. In fact, it was illegal. You can't vandalize a neighbor's sports car because you think he drives it too fast in your neighborhood.

No- but the city council can impound or confiscate it.

But presentism fallacies aside- at the time it WAS legal for the Nauvoo City Council to do just what it did.

When the "crime" occured, it was not in fact a "crime" at all- but a legitimate, duly-authorized act of government- just as were Abraham Lincoln's revocation of habeus corpus and the expelling/exile from the country of sitting U.S. senators sympathetic to the Southern cause, and just as was Frankin Roosevelt's rounding up and internment of Japanese-Americans.

By our modern standards, Lincoln's and Roosevelt's actions were gross abuses of power- but they were perfectly lawful at the time.

[USU78]

I think I've figured it out!

The lesson of the Expositor incident is, if a mayor screws up and an individual suffers an economic loss as a result of it, the people from the county seat 30 miles away should assassinate the mayor and his brother . . . and later should start shelling the now dead mayor's town.

[selek]

I think I've figured it out!

The lesson of the Expositor incident is, if a mayor screws up and an individual suffers an economic loss as a result of it, the people from the county seat 30 miles away should assassinate the mayor and his brother . . . and later should start shelling the now dead mayor's town.

Of course, the fact that the Warsaw and Carthage mobs started raping, pillaging, and burning the outer reaches of Nauvoo weeks and months before the destruction of the Expositor just shows how quick on the uptake and enlightened those folks were!

[Jeff K.]

So, as with every single time you have ever responded to me on this board, you yet again make accusations about what I am saying, and fail to support those accusation when asked to do so.

If the Expositor was responsible for the mob incitement, then you are of course begging two question---two questions that I already know you are not going to answer:

1. What specifically in the Expositor incited the mob violence; and

2. Which of the factual allegations in the Expositor were false, and why were they false?

Sigh, I need to stop feeding trolls. I have already shown you how your slant on a Fair source was so out of bounds as to be ridiculous, presuming cause and effect regarding the Expositor and now you seek another venue for your disdain.

First off, the Expositor sough mob incitement, we know that, but it was part of a series of anti Mormon events with the rule of law being ignored and persecution being brought against the saints. So your statement of mob incitement regarding the Expositor is false in that you present it as the only incitement.

"I spanked a child"

"He beat a child"

What specifically in the latter statement would incite people to be angry with me?

Try and not be so trollish in your posts. We all know you are on a fishing expedition, it remains fairly clear, even in your shallow waters.

[Jeff K.]

If Joseph Smith would have been open and honest, the Expositor wouldn't have been published because there wouldn't have been anything to expose.

The Expositor wasn't a key cause. It was an effect of hatred. The mobs, long before Joseph Smith was attacked by the paper, had already been gathering, the Expositor was simply a convenience. Open and honest with mobs is a rather naive standard that has produced more lynchings than it has saved people. The mob doesn't care.

[Calm]

To be sure, my viewing this event as a mistake has everything to do with me "growing up."

The more I learn about the overall situation, the more I believe that anything they could have done would have ended up with at least some negative consequences. How 'wrong' those negative consequences would be is likely a subjective stance. Sometimes we look at someone and it looks like he 'can do no wrong'. I think this may have been a situation where JS could 'do no right'. Before we make a judgment on just how 'wrong' his behaviour was, we would need to make an evaluation of what realistic options he had to take, that others would allow him to take and what effects or lack thereof these options would have had. We can't just judge from the results without knowing what else influenced those results and what other realistically potential results there could have been.

I don't think we have enough information to make that kind of evaluation...at least with results that weren't overwhelmingly influenced by our own biases.

We can only judge by what results occurred and in the long run, Joseph's actions overall help keep violence away from his people long enough so that they were able to survive the next wave of violence that might have completely destroyed them as a community if it had happened earlier.

[paulpatter]

No- but the city council can impound or confiscate it.

There's a mountain-sized difference between impounding/confiscating personal property and utterly destroying it.

: But presentism fallacies aside- at the time it WAS legal for the Nauvoo City Council to do just what it did.

Not according to the two LDS authors I cited in an earlier post: "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 Story of the Latter-day Saints, Allen and Leonard, p. 192.

And not according to B. H. Roberts: "The legality of the action of the Mayor and City Council was, of course, questionable, though some sought to defend it on legal grounds; but it must be conceded that neither proof nor argument for legality are convincing" (History of the Church, Introduction to v. 6, p. XXXVIII).

And not according B. H. Roberts again: "The destruction of libelous 'prints and papers' can scarcely be held to sustain the action of destroying a 'printing press'" (History, v. 7, p. 91, footnote).

And not according to the Utah Law Review: ". . .there was no legal justification in 1844 for the destruction of the Expositor press as a nuisance" (Summer 1965, pp. 890-891).

BYU Today adds: ". . .when Joseph Smith ordered the actual destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor printing press he provided his enemies with a clearly legitimate means of arresting him for violation of the law [emphasis added]. They seized upon this to inflame the public even more, and this led directly to the assassination [emphasis added]. Some people may be disturbed by the suggestion that Joseph Smith acted illegally in this instance, but it is important to understand that under the tense pressure of the times, he too, may have made a mistake" (BYU Today, March 1976, p. 10).

[selek]

There's a mountain-sized difference between impounding/confiscating personal property and utterly destroying it.

The difference is only a matter of degree. In either case, you are deprived of your property by action of government.

Not according to the two LDS authors I cited in an earlier post: "The council had acted legally in its right to abate a nuisance,

In short, the council acted legally.

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 Story of the Latter-day Saints, Allen and Leonard, p. 192.

If memory serves, the limitation against destruction of the press was decided long after the destruction of the Expositor press, not before. It was determined that destruction of the press itself was excessive after the fact- and in another, similar case.

And not according to B. H. Roberts: "The legality of the action of the Mayor and City Council was, of course, questionable,

"Questionable"- not "illegal". There is a difference.

"Illegal" implies a clear violation of the law. "Questionable" means just that- the law is uncertain, is open to question, and a court will have to examine and decide whether a violation of the law took place.

though some sought to defend it on legal grounds; but it must be conceded that neither proof nor argument for legality are convincing" (History of the Church, Introduction to v. 6, p. XXXVIII).

In the esteemed Roberts' opinion.

Other scholars- including legal scholars- disagree with his assessment.

And not according B. H. Roberts again: "The destruction of libelous 'prints and papers' can scarcely be held to sustain the action of destroying a 'printing press'" (History, v. 7, p. 91, footnote).

A ruling made well after the fact, IIRCm, and subject to considerable hindsight.

And not according to the Utah Law Review: ". . .there was no legal justification in 1844 for the destruction of the Expositor press as a nuisance" (Summer 1965, pp. 890-891).

Again, a decision and ruling which came well after the fact.

BYU Today adds: ". . .when Joseph Smith ordered the actual destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor printing press he provided his enemies with a clearly legitimate means of arresting him for violation of the law [emphasis added].

Yes, he did provide them justification for the arrest- but the question of whether or not the destruction of the press was actually illegal had not yet been settled.

There was no question whether or not Joseph ordered the destruction of the press. The question was whether or not such conduct was illegal. It had not been deemed so at the time.

It also made absolutely no difference in the eventual outcome.

They seized upon this to inflame the public even more, and this led directly to the assassination [emphasis added].

It has yet to be demonstrated, however, that the destruction of the press was in any way causal to that assassination.

Some people may be disturbed by the suggestion that Joseph Smith acted illegally in this instance, but it is important to understand that under the tense pressure of the times, he too, may have made a mistake" (BYU Today, March 1976, p. 10).

And they, too, are entitled to their opinion.

Mine is that the destruction of the press may have been a foolish provocation. It might have been unwise and even extralegal- but it does not, in my opinion, come under the definition of "a mistake".

It was a considered, debated, and deliberate act of government.

[paulpatter]

The difference is only a matter of degree. In either case, you are deprived of your property by action of government.

The difference between a first-degree burn and a second-degree burn is also a matter of degree, as is the difference between a collegiate associate's certificate and an Ivy League Ph.D. Could it be that you're playing semantic dodge ball? Re. your second sentence: "impounding" rarely results in the permanent loss of one's property. The same cannot be said about utterly destroying one's property.

: In short, the council acted legally.

Wrong. As Allen and Leonard state in their book (cited earlier) ". . .contemporaray legal opinion allowed only the destruction of published issues of an offending paper, not destruction of the printing press itself" [emphasis added].

What did Dallin H. Oaks say in the Utah Law Review (cited earlier) about this matter: ". . .[a] combination of. . .considerations seems to have been sufficient to give the Nauvoo City Council considerable basis in the law of their day for their action in characterizing the published issue of the Nauvoo Expositor as a nuisance and in summarily abating it by destruction. The characterization of the printing press as a nuisance, and its subsequent destruction is another matter. The common law authorities on nuisance abatement generally, and especially on summary abatement, were emphatic in declaring that abatement must be limited by the necessities of the case, and that no wanton or unnecessary destruction of property could be permitted [emphases added]. A party guilty of excess was liable for damages for trepass to the party injured. . .there was no legal justification in 1844 for the destruction of the Expositor as a nuisance [emphasis added]. Its libelous, provocative, and perhaps obscene output may well have been a public and private nuisance, but the evil article was not the press itself but the way in which it was being used. Consequently, those who caused or accomplished its destruction were liable for money damages in an action of trespass."

: "Questionable"- not "illegal". There is a difference. . . . "Illegal" implies a clear violation of the law. "Questionable" means just that- the law is uncertain, is open to question, and a court will have to examine and decide whether a violation of the law took place.

Yes, indeed, so it's important to include Roberts' second quotation: ". . .though some thought to defend it [press destruction] on legal grounds. . .it must be conceded that neither proof nor argument for legality are convincing" (from my previously cited source).

: In the esteemed Roberts' opinion.

This put-down, mocking reference to one of the greatest intellects in LDS history is, to say the least, unfortunate.

: Other scholars- including legal scholars- disagree with his assessment.

References?

You say that Joseph Smith's action had not been ruled as illegal when he ordered it. If destroying the press was not considered illegal, characterizing the Expositor as a "nuisance" was clearly illegal (see Dallin H. Oaks' statement, above). There is also the not-so-insignificant matter of ethical conduct and respect for property rights. Simply because you disagree with someone, you don't have the right to destroy their property. Under normal circumstances, such a matter would be referred to the courts. Inasmuch as the Nauvoo City Council was, in effect, the court, the matter was handled illegally and without a semblance of due process.

. . . .

: It has yet to be demonstrated, however, that the destruction of the press was in any way causal to that assassination.

Surely you jest. I quote again from BYU Today: "They [mob] seized upon this [press destruction] to inflame the public even more, and this led directly to the assassination" [emphasis added], (March 1976, p. 10).

. . . .

: It was a considered, debated, and deliberate act of government.

Which is precisely what makes it so egregious and so inexcusable.

[Darth J]

If Joseph Smith would have been open and honest, the Expositor wouldn't have been published because there wouldn't have been anything to expose.

Right.

[USU78]

Right.

And the folks in Warsaw and Carthage wouldn't have had any reason to rape Eliza or shoot Heber or expropriate Simeon's farm . . . before or after JSJr's assassination . . . or cannonade Nauvoo after JSJr's assassination.

Got it.

It makes so much more sense now.

All those rapes. All those murders. All those expropriations. All those cannonades. They wouldn't ever have happened if JSJr hadn't tried to cover up polygyny.

Because covering up polygyny justifies all those rapes and all those murders and all those expropriations and all those cannonades . . . and especially the assassination of JSJr.

How dare he try to cover up polygyny!

[selek]

The difference between a first-degree burn and a second-degree burn is also a matter of degree, as is the difference between a collegiate associate's certificate and an Ivy League Ph.D. Could it be that you're playing semantic dodge ball?

I am not. No need to get heated.

Re. your second sentence: "impounding" rarely results in the permanent loss of one's property. The same cannot be said about utterly destroying one's property.

Nor were the owners of the press have been permanently deprived of their property- monetary compensation (the value of the press) was paid to them, IIRC.

Wrong.

In your opinion.

As Allen and Leonard state in their book (cited earlier) ". . .contemporaray legal opinion allowed only the destruction of published issues of an offending paper, not destruction of the printing press itself" [emphasis added].

I stand by my earlier statement.

Whether destruction of the press was included in destroying the print and slips was determined AFTER the fact. Before it was determined, it was "questionable".

Dalin Oaks statement was made well after the fact, and made in full light of the subsequent rulings. It is an excellent example of hindsight in legal theory.

Yes, indeed, so it's important to include Roberts' second quotation: ". . .though some thought to defend it [press destruction] on legal grounds. . .it must be conceded that neither proof nor argument for legality are convincing" (from my previously cited source).

Again, hindsight.

This put-down, mocking reference to one of the greatest intellects in LDS history is, to say the least, unfortunate.

But not as unfortunate as your distorting my position or my intent for your own polemical purposes.

I was neither mocking nor deriding B.H. Roberts. He is indeed "esteemed" for the reasons you pointed out.

You say that Joseph Smith's action had not been ruled as illegal when he ordered it. If destroying the press was not considered illegal, characterizing the Expositor as a "nuisance" was clearly illegal (see Dallin H. Oaks' statement, above).

You're running ahead of your evidence and of the arguments of your sources.

Your use of ellipses is also very revealing.

Oaks argues that the destruction of the press is excessive- and in light of the rulings that came later, it was.

That later ruling, however, does not invalidate the judgement of the men on the scene.

Per Oaks arguments, declaring the Expositor a nuisance and stopping the printing (including destroying the printed copies was permissible and legal. It was that destruction of the press itself that he found to be wanton and unjustified.

There is also the not-so-insignificant matter of ethical conduct and respect for property rights. Simply because you disagree with someone, you don't have the right to destroy their property.

Agreed. But the press was not destroyed because the City Council "disagreed" with their neighbors. It was destroyed because of the very real fear that it would result in an escalation of the campaign of pillaging, murder, and rapine that had been both threatened and conducted against the people of Nauvoo.

Under normal circumstances,

The circumstances were NOT normal. Shots had been fired. Homes and farms had been burned, and armies raised with the express purpose of destroying Nauvoo and her people. Abuses and threats were common- and the State was doing nothing to protect the rights of the people of Nauvoo.

Circumstances were NOT normal.

Nauvoo was under seige- and in effect, on a war-time footing. The actions they took were necessary to protect their people- the same justification used to excuse both Lincoln and Roosevelt.

You can't pretend it doesn't apply just to achieve your pre-determined outcome.

such a matter would be referred to the courts. Inasmuch as the Nauvoo City Council was, in effect, the court,

False. The Nauvoo City Council was NOT the court. They were separate legal entities.

That having been said, because the matter directly involved actions by the town council, it would have (under normal circumstances) been referred to the circuit court and thence to the State- but the mob and the cowardly governor aborted due process "stillborn".

the matter was handled illegally and without a semblance of due process.

In your opinion.

If- and that's a large if- the matter were handled without due process, it was only because the principals were murdered in cold blood by armed mobs under the aegis of the State.

Surely you jest. I quote again from BYU Today: "They [mob] seized upon this [press destruction] to inflame the public even more[emphasis added], and this led directly to the assassination" , (March 1976, p. 10).

Thank you for conceding my point. The mobs were already inflamed. Armies had already been raised. Pillaging, arson, and attempted murders had already taken place. Threats against the life and limb of the Prophet and his followers were common.

The blood lust was already up, and Joseph's life already forfeit. Allowing the Expositor to continue to inflame that lust would not have saved Joseph's life, nor would it have bought the people of Nauvoo even one more night's peace.

Which is precisely what makes it so egregious and so inexcusable.

In your opinion.

So tell me...which was MORE egregious and inexcusable- the decision to destroy (and later pay for) one printing press, or the total surrender of law to mob rule and the cold-blooded murder of two innocent men?

There was no circumstance in which a lawfully organized judge and jury would have voted to execute Joseph and Hyrum for the destruction of the press.

Even assuming that you're correct about the illegality of the destruction of the press- the penalty paid- and the total surrender of the government to vigilantes was unconscionable and inexcusable.

Even assuming you're right- Joseph, Hyrum, John Taylor and many others paid a penalty out of all proportion to the "crime".

Which is more egregious- the destruction of one press, later replaced- or the cold blooded murder of two men- who's lives CANNOT be replaced?

Which poses a greater threat to society? The destruction (and subsequent compensation for) one hate-rag or the abdication of law and order in order to commit cold-blooded murder?

[maxrep12]

How about a change in the Expositor story? Since the Angel with the flaming sword commanded Joseph to practice polygamy, the Angel could have thrown him a bone here, for being obedient and all. Wouldn't it be a great moment in church history in recounting how an Angel with a flaming sledgehammer obliterated the Expositor out in the street in plain view? I guess it wouldn't have to have been the Angel necessarily. Cain was roaming those parts at the time, he could have destroyed it.

I just think Joseph didn't need to be involved.

[Jeff K.]

While I appreciate the parody, we are left with asking why the Lord didn't just kill pharoah and whisk the Israelites away.

Moses didn't need to be involved

[Skylla]

How about a change in the Expositor story? Since the Angel with the flaming sword commanded Joseph to practice polygamy, the Angel could have thrown him a bone here, for being obedient and all. Wouldn't it be a great moment in church history in recounting how an Angel with a flaming sledgehammer obliterated the Expositor out in the street in plain view? I guess it wouldn't have to have been the Angel necessarily. Cain was roaming those parts at the time, he could have destroyed it.

I just think Joseph didn't need to be involved.

I think you could make your point without the mockery.

Skylla

[Sleeper Cell]

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?

Huh?

Why the defensiveness?

I was simply observing the inconsistency of the anti-Mormons being

[paulpatter]

I was unable to reply to Selek's Post #145, despite repeated efforts to do so (a technical problem, perhaps? I don't know). Consequently, I am taking this means to summarize his statements, which are in italics, and to respond to them.

I noted that "impounding" rarely results in permanent loss of one's property." Then I added, "The same cannot be said about utterly destroying one's property."

Nor were the owners of the press [have been] permanently deprived of their property- monetary compensation (the value of the press) was paid to them, IIRC.

In fact, the owners were permanently deprived of their property because the Expositor never resumed publishing; it became extinct.

I quoted from the book by Allen and Leonard thus: ". . .contemporary legal opinion allowed only the destruction of published issues of an offending paper, not destruction of the printing press itself" [emphasis added].

I stand by my statement.

. . .

Dallin Oaks' statement was made well after the fact, and made in full light of the subsequent rulings. It is an excellent example of hindsight in legal theory.

In the Utah Legal Review (which I quoted earlier), Dallin Oaks wrote: ". . .there was no legal justification in 1844 [emphases added] for the destruction of the Expositor press as a nuisance." Selek finds himself opposing, on a point of law no less, a former law professor, former BYU president, and former Utah State Supreme Court justice, and a man who would become a general authority of the LDS Church. He also questions the judgment of B. H. Roberts and the editor of BYU Today.

It has yet to be demonstrated, however, that the destruction of the press was in any way causal to [the] assassination.

No responsible historian/scholar of whom I am aware agrees with this statement. I cited the following from the March, 1976, issue of BYU Today: "They seized upon this [press destruction] to inflame the public even more, and this led directly to the assassination [emphasis added]. Some people may be disturbed by the suggestion that Joseph Smith acted illegally in this instance, but it is important to understand that under the tense pressure of the times he too, may have made a mistake."

People and institutions make mistakes. It's an instructive, necessary part of the mortal journey. Owning up to those mistakes is a critical component of our eternal progression.