MMM and the Nauvoo Expositor

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 06 June 2010 - 04:18 PM, said:

Yes and one is contextually false while the other is not.

It is impossible for either of your hypothetical statements to be "contextually false while the other is not," because you have not given a hypothetical set of facts to evaluate these statements. Because there is no factual scenario about the isolated statements, "He spanked a child/He beat a child," there is no context into which these statements can be put.

That is false. A statement can indeed ve accurate with the facts set to be evaluated, just as the Expositer did. Both statements as you yourself stated could be the same act, but one is contextually false and the other is not. You are now contradicting yourself.

Quote

You play with a fallacy or implausibility that when you see something is wrong, you claim that others would not see it as wrong and therefore it is not wrong

Huh?

I said that I would not see "spanking" as per se wrong, but there are many other people who do feel this way. For another example: http://nospank.net

What you said here doesn't make any sense.

Sorry, I am not sure how to simplify it anymore for you. Perhaps you can have other people spoon feed it for you.

Quote

The expositor chose to put any and all acts in the worst possible light, and did so specifically to enflame and incite to riot those who were already seeking an excuse to menace the community.

All right. Put Joseph Smith's practicing "spiritual wifery" and hiding it from his actual wife (Emma), most of the Church, and the general public, and publicly denying that he was practicing plural marriage, in a good light.

Your argument also directly contradicts what the Expositor said.

Resolved 15th, That in all our controversies in defence of truth and righteousness the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty through God to the pulling down of the strong holds of Satan; that our strifes are not against flesh, blood, nor bones; but against principalities and power, against spiritual wickedness in high places and therefore we will not use carnal weapons save in our own defence

.

[Lamanite]

That was a wonderful thought. So, you took nothing and made something of it. Perhaps creation ex nihilo is true after all. LOL

I've had kind of a rough day and your joke made me laugh so hard that my wife woke up from a nap. LOL

Brilliant. Classic. And Priceless!

Big UP!

Lamanite

PS-- I think we really did argue once about Clarence Thomas. I wish we had a political forum cuz I'd like to get your take on the "9" right now. I'm not just a little concerned.

[Darth J]

That is false. A statement can indeed ve accurate with the facts set to be evaluated, just as the Expositer did. Both statements as you yourself stated could be the same act, but one is contextually false and the other is not. You are now contradicting yourself.

The Expositor incident has a set of facts so that context can be evaluated.

In your in-a-vacuum spanked/beat statements:

Who is "he"?

Who is the "child"?

What did "he" do to the "child" that is being alternatively characterized as "spanking" or "beating"?

What relevance does this have to anything?

Sorry, I am not sure how to simplify it anymore for you. Perhaps you can have other people spoon feed it for you.

I do not doubt that you are not sure how to explain what you said.

You expect a single quote (given your penchant for taking things out of context) to absolve you? Sorry, it doesn't hold water given the attacks.

What single quote? Absolve me from what? Where have you ever demonstrated one thing I took out of context, let alone a "penchant"? What attacks?

Do you have any intention of ever supporting any of your assertions?

You should know better. Frankly the Expositor could be talking about you. Making it non sequitur

What?

Sigh, you are just another anti Mormon troll....

But Jeff, when I started on this board and was defending the Church, you also called me an anti-Mormon troll. It is very difficult not to see your definition of "anti-Mormon troll" as anything except "someone who says something about the Church that you don't like."

My son has scripture mastery tonight.

You should read them sometime, it might help you find your way.

Would that include D&C 135:1 as a "contextually true" statement?

[paulpatter]

(The following is a continuation of my earlier response, which I had to cut short.)

: Oaks opined it, based upon his private interpretation of the law. It was never determined in a court of law.

You insist on characterizing Oaks' finding as an opinion. It was not his opinion; it was, in truth, his citation of a law. . .a law that expressly forbade the destruction of property based on nuisance abatement, and one that was in force in 1844. Even if he had not made specific reference to the law in his article, a reasonable person would be inclined to give credence to a former law professor, university president, and Utah Supreme Court justice. I suggest you disabuse yourself of the fantasy that Dallin Oaks was giving his opinion about the case; he was not.

: Oaks' opinion was just that- a private opinion offered in a law review. This was not a "finding", and in fact, Smith's actions in the destruction of the press have never been adjudicated in a court of law.

Hence, according to you, if I cite an on-the-books law stipulating that embezzlement is a crime (pick any state), I am giving an opinion. Do you realize that's what you are saying. . .that's your utterly unsupportable position? Joseph Smith acted illegally; he broke the law. Period.

: You're throwing around a lot of legal terminology which you clearly don't understand.

I do know the difference between an opinion and the citation of a law.

: Others have adequately pointed out that your interpretation of Oak's position is problematic.

The only "position" he took was to cite and explain a law.

: Your retreat from your earlier claim that Oaks condemned the destruction of both the copy and the press is equally telling.

I'm not going to research what I may have written, but of what relevance is it? The fact you cannot explain away the Nauvoo City Council's violation of a law--a violation authorized by Joseph Smith--is what's salient.

: Hmmmm.....perhaps the incessant, continuous, uninterrupted, on-going, endless, bounteous, over-flowing, vast, consuming, and all-pervading indifference you've demonstrated to that very pressue? Perhaps your ongoing efforts to shift responsibility for the murders from the perpetrators to Joseph?

Nice try, but running off at the mouth won't carry the day.

: I have never presented myself as infallible or error free. Kindly do not impute to me an arrogance I do not posess (the amount I already suffer is sufficient), thank you.

You have a rich imagination.

: I don't pretend to know more about law that Dallin Oaks- just more about the logical flaws in your argument and your distortion of Oaks' position.

The "distortion of Oaks' position" is of your making. He didn't give an opinion; he cited and explained a law.

: More obvious, of course, is the fact that neither Joseph nor Hyrum were available to even STAND trial, having been murdered in cold blood by the very mob you're trying to excuse. . . . Because that's precisely what you've been trying to do. By using the destruction of the Expositor as cause (and therefore justification) for pre-meditated murder, you have been arguing that Joseph and company "had it coming". . . . By arguing that sparing the Expositor might have spared Joseph's life, you're arguing that culpability for those murders lies on his head instead of those of Thomas Ford and the mobbers.

Are you familiar with a country western ballad called Desperado?

I have indicated that I disagree with his opinion. Only a court of law can determine that he actually "erred".

You're free to disagree with his "opinion." You're also free to disagree with me if I tell you that aliens danced in my living room last night.

: In summation, however:

1. You have admitted that the plot to murder Joseph was already well-in-hand before the destruction of the press.

2. You have admitted that the murder plot existed independently of the destruction of the press- and therefore have admitted that the destruction of the Expositor was only incidental to the conspirators.

3. Because it was incidental to the murder plot, it cannot have been the cause of Joseph's murder.

4. Having conceded (however unwillingly) that the destruction of the Expositor was the cause of the murders, you have undermined the primary argument for labelling the considered action to destroy the press a mistake.

5. A mistake is "an action or decision that is wrong. An error".

6. You have not proven that the action was wrong. You have not proven it was an error.

7. Given that the destruction of the press (however unwise) was:

• well-considered and deliberate,
• carried out by law enforcement personnel in the performance of their duty, and
• that it has never been adjudicated as "wrong" in a court of law,

8. you can offer only opinion that it was wrong. Such opinion is inherently subjective, and is NOT binding.

I have numbered what you apparently view as your triumphful piece de resistance to facilitate my responses.

1. True. So what?

2. First clause is true; second clause is false (I have provided references, which you have not).

3. Wrong (based on the false premise you state in the second clause of #2).

4. It led directly to the murders. As for your second clause, I don't "get" your meaning.

5. I didn't know that. Can you elaborate?

6. Yes I have--in Dallin Oaks' citation of the applicable law.

7. You don't reach a conclusion here. What's your point?

8. I, with Dallin Oaks, offer the citation of a law in force in 1844 with direct application to the case.

: Until you offer something more than opinion, you have not made your case, and have not proven the destruction of the Expositor to be a mistake.

Was it unwise? Perhaps.

Was it inflammatory? Definitely.

Did it raise already heightened passions and further inflame the countryside against the Mormons? Certainly.

Did it give the mob an excuse to do what they'd been planning to do all along? Beyond the vale of reasonable disagreement. . . . Was it a mistake? Not proven.

Is that your best shot?

: The Defense rests.

I'm underwhelmed.

[Darth J]

And, let's fill the board up with it.

Oh...wait a minute...some people have been doing just that for quite awhile now.

Thanks, -Wade Emglund-

We should just put everything on the shelf.

Because the only thing that is relevant is that the Church is true.

You're welcome, -Darth J

[Lamanite]

We should just put everything on the shelf.

Because the only thing that is relevant is that the Church is true.

You're welcome, -Darth J

There's room on my shelf. I've cleared some things out recently.

Yeah Buddy!

Big UP!

Lamanite

[wenglund]

We should just put everything on the shelf.

Because the only thing that is relevant is that the Church is true.

You're welcome, -Darth J

That may work for some people. But, for others, the only thing that is relevant is that the Expositor was true.

To each their own "religion".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bob Crockett]

Most LDS legal scholars looking at the issue find nothing inherently inaccurate about what the Expositor said; however, there are differences of opinion as to whether the suppression of the press was appropriate. There are variations on the theme -- which should Smith be arrested when it was a vote of a lawfully-constituted city council? In those days, how could a mayor voting on a city council be guilty of a crime based upon an otherwise lawful vote, etc.

Certainly it became the major justification for Joseph Smith's arrest, but it wasn't the crime for which he was denied bail. That alleged crime was treason, or the declaration of martial law.

Neither destruction of the press nor declaration of martial law would likely have led to capital punishment, and that it is what it was, because Ford connived at it.

Folks like lawyer Darth make a big deal over laws dealing with defamation and the First Amendment when these themes were very undeveloped at the time, overlooking the fact that Gov. Ford called back the state militia and exposed Joseph Smith to the Carthage Greys.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 06 June 2010 - 06:19 PM, said:

That is false. A statement can indeed ve accurate with the facts set to be evaluated, just as the Expositer did. Both statements as you yourself stated could be the same act, but one is contextually false and the other is not. You are now contradicting yourself.

The Expositor incident has a set of facts so that context can be evaluated.

In your in-a-vacuum spanked/beat statements:

Who is "he"?

Who is the "child"?

What did "he" do to the "child" that is being alternatively characterized as "spanking" or "beating"?

No, the Expositor does NOT provide sufficient information for an absolute understanding. Those who are anti Mormons will of course take the position you have, and they will interpret things within their context. You on the other hand seem to believe that somehow sufficient information was provided.

My example, like that of the child reflects how you can incite people by taking things out of context, and how you have done in the past, by carefully editing the response and saying "who me". It is a action you always seem to fall back to.

William Law chose to put things in the most dangerous light possible for Joseph Smith. William Law chose to destroy Joseph Smith an anyway possible, including frivolous lawsuits and defamation of character. You seem to think he was accurate. I do not. It is a reflection on where we both stand in regards to Joseph Smith.

Quote

You expect a single quote (given your penchant for taking things out of context) to absolve you? Sorry, it doesn't hold water given the attacks.

What single quote? Absolve me from what? Where have you ever demonstrated one thing I took out of context, let alone a "penchant"? What attacks?

Do you have any intention of ever supporting any of your assertions?

Taking things out of context again? I suggest you reread your post and my response.

Quote

Sigh, you are just another anti Mormon troll....

But Jeff, when I started on this board and was defending the Church, you also called me an anti-Mormon troll. It is very difficult not to see your definition of "anti-Mormon troll" as anything except "someone who says something about the Church that you don't like."

Sorry Darth, again, it doesn't hold water. An anti Mormon troll is someone who continuously attacks the church and its doctrines, uses fallacies and then wonders at the negative response. As an anti Mormon you pretty much do your best to once again assassinate Joseph Smith. The body is dead, but to you, the character is still open season. Go ahead and defend the Expositor, it is what you want to do, and it basically characterizes who you are.

[Jeff K.]

Most LDS legal scholars looking at the issue find nothing inherently inaccurate about what the Expositor said; however, there are differences of opinion as to whether the suppression of the press was appropriate. There are variations on the theme -- which should Smith be arrested when it was a vote of a lawfully-constituted city council? In those days, how could a mayor voting on a city council be guilty of a crime based upon an otherwise lawful vote, etc.

Certainly it became the major justification for Joseph Smith's arrest, but it wasn't the crime for which he was denied bail. That alleged crime was treason, or the declaration of martial law.

Neither destruction of the press nor declaration of martial law would likely have led to capital punishment, and that it is what it was, because Ford connived at it.

Folks like lawyer Darth make a big deal over laws dealing with defamation and the First Amendment when these themes were very undeveloped at the time, overlooking the fact that Gov. Ford called back the state militia and exposed Joseph Smith to the Carthage Greys.

I appreciate your information and the manner in which you have articulated the position, it gives me pause.

From the standpoint of the Expositor doing harm.....

We last week gave some account of the dissensions and divisions which have sprung up in the holy city of Nauvoo

[Darth J]

Most LDS legal scholars looking at the issue find nothing inherently inaccurate about what the Expositor said; however, there are differences of opinion as to whether the suppression of the press was appropriate. There are variations on the theme -- which should Smith be arrested when it was a vote of a lawfully-constituted city council? In those days, how could a mayor voting on a city council be guilty of a crime based upon an otherwise lawful vote, etc.

Certainly it became the major justification for Joseph Smith's arrest, but it wasn't the crime for which he was denied bail. That alleged crime was treason, or the declaration of martial law.

Neither destruction of the press nor declaration of martial law would likely have led to capital punishment, and that it is what it was, because Ford connived at it.

Folks like lawyer Darth make a big deal over laws dealing with defamation and the First Amendment when these themes were very undeveloped at the time, overlooking the fact that Gov. Ford called back the state militia and exposed Joseph Smith to the Carthage Greys.

Where did I make a big deal about defamation and the First Amendment, Bob?

The ones who are making a big deal about defamation are (1) people on this thread taking issue with the substance of what the Expositor said, and (2) Joseph Smith, in his letter to Governor Ford.

Where did I overlook the fact that Governor Ford very much seems to have hung Joseph Smith out to dry? Was it where I said that the pre-existing animosity is not at issue, or where I said that Joseph Smith was murdered in a horrible act of mob violence?

[Darth J]

No, the Expositor does NOT provide sufficient information for an absolute understanding.

What more understanding should it have provided that would make the general public find it acceptable for Joseph Smith to be secretly practicing plural marriage?

What more understanding should it have provided to make the general public find it acceptable for government, military (the Nauvoo Legion) and ecclesiastical authority all ultimately vested in one person?

Those who are anti Mormons will of course take the position you have, and they will interpret things within their context. You on the other hand seem to believe that somehow sufficient information was provided.

Tell me what other information would have made these things palatable to the general public of that time and place----or of any time and place, for that matter.

My example, like that of the child reflects how you can incite people by taking things out of context, and how you have done in the past, by carefully editing the response and saying "who me". It is a action you always seem to fall back to.

What example? You gave two isolated statements without a factual scenario. It isn't possible to take that out of context, because there is no context. And what is the "who me"? Do you mean that I keep asking you to explain your claims about what I said and you never support those claims?

William Law chose to put things in the most dangerous light possible for Joseph Smith.

So if he was a believer in the restored gospel, then saw Joseph Smith teaching and doing things that were contrary to what William Law had been taught and believed, and if, as Bob concedes, the factual allegations were true, what should William Law have done instead?

Or to put it in a modern setting, if you found out that President Monson was secretly comporting himself the way Warren Jeffs has, what would you do?

William Law chose to destroy Joseph Smith an anyway possible, including frivolous lawsuits and defamation of character. You seem to think he was accurate. I do not. It is a reflection on where we both stand in regards to Joseph Smith.

1. What lawsuits, and what about them was frivolous?

2. You're back to defamation without explaining what factual allegations were not true.

Taking things out of context again? I suggest you reread your post and my response.

Does the Church in its official teachings about Joseph Smith's death provide sufficient information for an absolute understanding?

Sorry Darth, again, it doesn't hold water. An anti Mormon troll is someone who continuously attacks the church and its doctrines, uses fallacies and then wonders at the negative response. As an anti Mormon you pretty much do your best to once again assassinate Joseph Smith. The body is dead, but to you, the character is still open season. Go ahead and defend the Expositor, it is what you want to do, and it basically characterizes who you are.

You have never explained what the fallacy is, because you have never explained what I am taking out of context. Your displeasure at the verbiage in the Expositor does not mean that the allegations were not true.

What you are really saying is that putting the murder of Joseph Smith in historical context, and pointing out that it's a lot more complicated than "he died for his testimony" is equivalent to consenting to his murder.

I don't wonder at the negative response. I think it's interesting that people with legitimate questions about Mormonism and struggling members of the Church are treated like they are virulent anti-Mormons on this board. And I also don't wonder that questioning assumptions about cherished beliefs is seen as "attacking" the Church. I've been a Mormon my whole life; I know the drill. "Context" is a one-way street for defenders of the faith. I get it.

[Darth J]

I appreciate your information and the manner in which you have articulated the position, it gives me pause.

From the standpoint of the Expositor doing harm.....

This supports the view that the "public harm" was exposing things about Joseph Smith that he did not want publicly known.

The citizens? The context is one in which he seems to want us to presume the majority, not one citizen, not two, but "the citizens". It is contextually false to state "the citizens" without a modifier. In the same token, it would be like some of us starting a web forum and stating "the members of this forum" have begun another. It reflects Laws lack of honesty and how he did twist the information to place it in the worst light.

What should he have said instead?

And yet didn't Law at an earlier time declare Joseph Smith to be an honorable and good man? Without providing clear context, by omitting his own information and what he himself has said, he has in effect chosen to lie by omission.

At an earlier time, William Law did not know about the issues that were published in the Expositor.

Text from the Expositor

One could surmise that there was sufficient insurrection among Mormons to make an attack upon Joseph Smith without consequence plausible (consequence being the legion). It would have been a convincer for those who marginally would have rejected the risk otherwise.

But would this be based on the existence of the Expositor, or would it be based on opposition to what Joseph Smith was doing? Neither one justifies mob violence, but the Expositor specifically spoke against violence.

Jeff, do you dispute that if Joseph Smith had been honest about his practice of plural marriage and not publicly lied about practicing it, and if he had meaningfully divided up government power and ecclesiastical power, that the Expositor could not have created a public nuisance because everyone would already have known these things?

[Calm]

Jeff, do you dispute that if Joseph Smith had been honest about his practice of plural marriage and not publicly lied about practicing it, and if he had meaningfully divided up government power and ecclesiastical power, that the Expositor could not have created a public nuisance because everyone would already have known these things?

Are you claiming that the anti-mormon newspapers of Brigham Young's time did not manage to inflame feelings after plural marriage was public and Brigham Young was no longer governor?

[selek]

Darth J's portrayal of William Law as a pious man simply trying to present unpleasant truths is curious indeed.

It conveniently omits the fact that Law was in public opposition to the Prophet as early as January 1844- and conspiring to murder him from roughly the same point.

It omits the fact that as a land speculator, Law was in direct economic competition with both Joseph and the Church- and that he felt his pocket book had been hurt by efforts to reduce the Church's debt.

It omits that while Law claimed to oppose the concentration of civic and ecclesiastical power, that opposition only publically manifested itself after Law had been hurt FINANCIALLY by that 'concentration of power'.

It omits the fact that Law felt slighted first by being denied the sealing ordinances and was eventually dropped from the First Presidency and then excommunicated because of his public opposition and apostacy.

In fact, he was not determined to "restore the Church", but to destroy Joseph- and he swore an oath "before God, and all his holy angels" to expend his life, his liberty, his influence, his all to that effect.

It omits the fact that he and his fellows physically assaulted and threatened to murder two seventeen year old boys if they did not swear the same oath- and that only the fear of early exposure prevented those murders.

It omits the fact that although the marshal and his deputies destroyed only the press, Law and his partners set fire to the building and then blamed the Mormons.

It omits the fact that Law had Joseph indicted for perjury and adultery at Carthage- in an attempt to lure him out where he could be murdered on the road. When Joseph appeared hale and whole and demanded trial, Law wimped and refused to press charges.

It omits the fact that- having been deprived of his high post in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints due to apostacy, Law immediately turned around and started his own- which failed in short order due to disaffection and disloyalty among his few followers.

It omits the fact that despite all of the above, Joseph and the Church made at least three attempts to reconcile with Law, but he wrathfully or stubbornly rebuffed each one.

It omits the fact that- having been a long-time conspirator to commit murder and having already attempted to assasinate Joseph at least once-

Law was placed by two separate witnesses as having been at Carthage on the morning of the murders and among the mob who did the deed- and only his diary corroborates his alibi.

No- William Law was NOT a good man pushed beyond all reason- he was a tragic figure- a former Saint hell-bent upon revenge and vindication through cold-blooded murder.

He was willing to see good men murdered, a people and a city destroyed, and the Constitution trampled by a blood-crazed mob rather than admit he might have been wrong.

There is blood on Law's hands- and not just that of the Prophet and of the Patriarch.

Law's efforts to repeal the Nauvoo Charter and to orchestrate the dismantling of Nauvoo worked- and left the Saints defenseless against the mobs.

Law knew what the mobs were doing, what they were capable of, and what they had threatened- and was still willing to leave the Saints defenseless and prostrate before them in order to see Joseph destroyed.

[selek]

The other salient point that Darth J and Paul Patter hope no one will notice is this:

If Joseph and the destruction of the press were the source of the troubles, why is it that the rapes, murders, arson and pillaging in and around Nauvoo all began many months BEFORE the destruction of the Expositor and continued even AFTER the Mormons were driven from their homes and into the howling wilderness in the dead of winter?

[Nemesis]

Sigh, you are just another anti Mormon troll.... My son has scripture mastery tonight.

You should read them sometime, it might help you find your way.

JeffK klnock off the name calling. It destroys your argument.

Nemesis

[wenglund]

Darth J's portrayal of William Law as a pious man simply trying to present unpleasant truths is curious indeed.

It conveniently omits the fact that Law was in public opposition to the Prophet as early as January 1844- and conspiring to murder him from roughly the same point.

It omits the fact that as a land speculator, Law was in direct economic competition with both Joseph and the Church- and that he felt his pocket book had been hurt by efforts to reduce the Church's debt.

It omits that while Law claimed to oppose the concentration of civic and ecclesiastical power, that opposition only publically manifested itself after Law had been hurt FINANCIALLY by that 'concentration of power'.

It omits the fact that Law felt slighted first by being denied the sealing ordinances and was eventually dropped from the First Presidency and then excommunicated because of his public opposition and apostacy.

In fact, he was not determined to "restore the Church", but to destroy Joseph- and he swore an oath "before God, and all his holy angels" to expend his life, his liberty, his influence, his all to that effect.

It omits the fact that he and his fellows physically assaulted and threatened to murder two seventeen year old boys if they did not swear the same oath- and that only the fear of early exposure prevented those murders.

It omits the fact that although the marshal and his deputies destroyed only the press, Law and his partners set fire to the building and then blamed the Mormons.

It omits the fact that Law had Joseph indicted for perjury and adultery at Carthage- in an attempt to lure him out where he could be murdered on the road. When Joseph appeared hale and whole and demanded trial, Law wimped and refused to press charges.

It omits the fact that- having been deprived of his high post in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints due to apostacy, Law immediately turned around and started his own- which failed in short order due to disaffection and disloyalty among his few followers.

It omits the fact that despite all of the above, Joseph and the Church made at least three attempts to reconcile with Law, but he wrathfully or stubbornly rebuffed each one.

It omits the fact that- having been a long-time conspirator to commit murder and having already attempted to assasinate Joseph at least once-

Law was placed by two separate witnesses as having been at Carthage on the morning of the murders and among the mob who did the deed- and only his diary corroborates his alibi.

No- William Law was NOT a good man pushed beyond all reason- he was a tragic figure- a former Saint hell-bent upon revenge and vindication through cold-blooded murder.

He was willing to see good men murdered, a people and a city destroyed, and the Constitution trampled by a blood-crazed mob rather than admit he might have been wrong.

There is blood on Law's hands- and not just that of the Prophet and of the Patriarch.

Law's efforts to repeal the Nauvoo Charter and to orchestrate the dismantling of Nauvoo worked- and left the Saints defenseless against the mobs.

Law knew what the mobs were doing, what they were capable of, and what they had threatened- and was still willing to leave the Saints defenseless and prostrate before them in order to see Joseph destroyed.

This so much needed to be said, and I very much appreciate you doing so. I have always found it a bit upside-down that some people have picked the Expositor as the hill of moral indignation upon which to take a stand and wage battle, and this in spite of the mountains of injustices to the saints surrounding the distruction of the press.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Jeff K.]

Good points Selek.

Can one lie by omission? Or are we to believe the ignorance of the questioner so great, that he was naturally deceived by his own lack of knowledge? What does that say of the credibility of someone who continually implies the worst views possible of Joseph Smith and then retreats claiming he didn't say something while all the while implying it?

Law was willing to do anything to undermine Joseph Smith and the church for what solidly appears to be a combination of the motivations of economics and hate. He hated losing his position, he hated that he was accused of adultry and denited sealing, he hated the man that stood in his way of gaming the system. Law also wanted the control of land and money, law did not like being stymied from creating a richer and more affluent Law position. Does the questioner ignore all of this and claim the Expositor to be nothing more than a "much needed" paper? Does the questioner ignore the context of the time and then cry he was only searching for the truth?

In legal circles there is the issue of full disclosure in which all information pertinent is shared, all are informed of everything that has an impact on judgement. And yet are we to believe that in someone's claim to dialogue that somehow these salient facts were not known? If they were deliberately ignored it reflects a certain lack of desire to know the truth, and more of a desire to destroy the truth.

Not a good thing in my opinion.

[Black Moclips]

Darth J's portrayal of William Law as a pious man simply trying to present unpleasant truths is curious indeed.

It conveniently omits the fact that Law was in public opposition to the Prophet as early as January 1844- and conspiring to murder him from roughly the same point.

It omits the fact that as a land speculator, Law was in direct economic competition with both Joseph and the Church- and that he felt his pocket book had been hurt by efforts to reduce the Church's debt.

It omits that while Law claimed to oppose the concentration of civic and ecclesiastical power, that opposition only publically manifested itself after Law had been hurt FINANCIALLY by that 'concentration of power'.

It omits the fact that Law felt slighted first by being denied the sealing ordinances and was eventually dropped from the First Presidency and then excommunicated because of his public opposition and apostacy.

In fact, he was not determined to "restore the Church", but to destroy Joseph- and he swore an oath "before God, and all his holy angels" to expend his life, his liberty, his influence, his all to that effect.

It omits the fact that he and his fellows physically assaulted and threatened to murder two seventeen year old boys if they did not swear the same oath- and that only the fear of early exposure prevented those murders.

It omits the fact that although the marshal and his deputies destroyed only the press, Law and his partners set fire to the building and then blamed the Mormons.

It omits the fact that Law had Joseph indicted for perjury and adultery at Carthage- in an attempt to lure him out where he could be murdered on the road. When Joseph appeared hale and whole and demanded trial, Law wimped and refused to press charges.

It omits the fact that- having been deprived of his high post in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints due to apostacy, Law immediately turned around and started his own- which failed in short order due to disaffection and disloyalty among his few followers.

It omits the fact that despite all of the above, Joseph and the Church made at least three attempts to reconcile with Law, but he wrathfully or stubbornly rebuffed each one.

It omits the fact that- having been a long-time conspirator to commit murder and having already attempted to assasinate Joseph at least once-

Law was placed by two separate witnesses as having been at Carthage on the morning of the murders and among the mob who did the deed- and only his diary corroborates his alibi.

No- William Law was NOT a good man pushed beyond all reason- he was a tragic figure- a former Saint hell-bent upon revenge and vindication through cold-blooded murder.

He was willing to see good men murdered, a people and a city destroyed, and the Constitution trampled by a blood-crazed mob rather than admit he might have been wrong.

There is blood on Law's hands- and not just that of the Prophet and of the Patriarch.

Law's efforts to repeal the Nauvoo Charter and to orchestrate the dismantling of Nauvoo worked- and left the Saints defenseless against the mobs.

Law knew what the mobs were doing, what they were capable of, and what they had threatened- and was still willing to leave the Saints defenseless and prostrate before them in order to see Joseph destroyed.

To coin a phrase, some truths are not very useful. I'm sure one could analyze the descriptions of Joseph's life in all of the church manuals and compose a large list of "It omits..." as well.

Personally, when I think martyr, I think of the apostles of old, who when faced with denying their faith or death, chose death. I don't think of Joseph Smith's death in the same way though. He didn't have a "deny or die" moment so to speak. There were too many other reasons and issues in play in his death. Murder, yes. Martyrdom, no. IMHO of course.

[wenglund]

To coin a phrase, some truths are not very useful. I'm sure one could analyze the descriptions of Joseph's life in all of the church manuals and compose a large list of "It omits..." as well.

Personally, when I think martyr, I think of the apostles of old, who when faced with denying their faith or death, chose death. I don't think of Joseph Smith's death in the same way though. He didn't have a "deny or die" moment so to speak. There were too many other reasons and issues in play in his death. Murder, yes. Martyrdom, no. IMHO of course.

To coin another phrase, certain people can sure raise some petty quibbles. IMNSHO of course.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Jeff K.]

What makes the ancient apostles so easily the definition of martyrdom is that we don't know all the motivations of those who had them killed. Our only context is provided by one side and not the other. It is not that I do not believe they were martyred, but rather a direct comparison of Joseph Smith with the martyrdom of Peter, or Paul is not fair because we are unaware of the full set of circumstances involved.

What if part of the motivation for Paul's death was the motivation of a christian sect that felt circumcision was still necessary for conversion to the (at that time) still Jewish sect called Christianity? Does that lessen Pauls death? What if there was a monetary dispute involved behind the scenes, ie Paul's family owed an influential Roman family income? Would that reduce Paul's martyrdom?

I note that Jesus was in effect killed because of the incitement of those who were angered by his position. In other words, they charged Jesus was attempting to overthrow the Emperor by calling himself a King. Now some would tell you that the charge was legitimate, arguing that Christ did indeed call himself king. In a way, it is the same with saying the writings of the Expositor were not in error. But such a defense, either of Christ's conviction and death, or Joseph Smith's death and the Expositor/Law impact ignores the context of what was going on, and ignores or destroys the martyrdom that came about.

[Scott Lloyd]

To coin a phrase, some truths are not very useful. I'm sure one could analyze the descriptions of Joseph's life in all of the church manuals and compose a large list of "It omits..." as well.

See my sig line.

Added: I might change my sig line at some point in the future, so I'll embed it here in the text:

Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders.

Personally, when I think martyr, I think of the apostles of old, who when faced with denying their faith or death, chose death. I don't think of Joseph Smith's death in the same way though. He didn't have a "deny or die" moment so to speak. There were too many other reasons and issues in play in his death. Murder, yes. Martyrdom, no. IMHO of course.

You have an abnormally narrow definition of martyr. A martyr is one who refuses to renounce his faith/ideals/principles as a price for being allowed to remain alive. It doesn't mean he willingly accepts death. At any point from the First Vision onward, Joseph could have renounced his claims and given up his beliefs. Had he done so, he would not have found himself facing death. He refused.

[thesometimesaint]

Just because you yourself are willing to face death, doesn't mean that you are willing to accept the death of others around you. JS was still a martyr.

[Scott Lloyd]

Just because you yourself are willing to face death, doesn't mean that you are willing to accept the death of others around you. JS was still a martyr.

Indeed. And a heroic one at that. By leaping from the window of the jail, he drew the fire of the mob and probably saved the lives of John Taylor and Willard Richards.