MMM and the Nauvoo Expositor

[paulpatter]

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?

It is well known--an established fact--that the Saints suffered persecution "in and around Nauvoo" (and virtually everywhere else they went) well before the illegal destruction of the Expositor. I have never said anything to the contrary.

It is also well known (but perhaps not among some LDS) that the Saints brought SOME of the troubles on themselves. This fact in no way justifies the horrors visited upon the Saints, but it needs to be acknowledged in the interest of historical accuracy.

[Scott Lloyd]

It is also well known (but perhaps not among some LDS) that the Saints brought SOME of the troubles on themselves. This fact in no way justifies the horrors visited upon the Saints, but it needs to be acknowledged in the interest of historical accuracy.

Somebody making a similar claim about the Baker/Fancher wagon train in 1857 southern Utah could expect to be pilloried.

[Molloch]

Somebody making a similar claim about the Baker/Fancher wagon train in 1857 southern Utah could expect to be pilloried.

I agree.

[paulpatter]

Somebody making a similar claim about the Baker/Fancher wagon train in 1857 southern Utah could expect to be pilloried.

That's probably true, although I think it must be admitted that the wagon train received a less-than-friendly reception when they entered Utah territory (they were, for example, denied the opportunity to buy supplies).

[Black Moclips]

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.

Abnormally narrow? Maybe within the Church, but not in general. I think any reasonable person can look at the facts of this issue and come away with the opinion that Joseph Smith was killed for other than religious beliefs. Certainly his religious beliefs played a part in the motivations for his actions, but he was very heavily involved in politics as well. If all he ever became was head of the church, I don't see him being killed. Just like our presidents now. They deal 99.9% with the spiritual. (cough, prop 8, cough). No one wants to kill modern day apostles and prophets. Why? Because they don't get involved in trying to control the economy, the militia, the bank, and the press. So while I think the church still would have suffered persecution, I don't see Joseph being killed. I think his political ambitions, culminating in the destruction of the press, caused it. Now, maybe you think that is a completely crazy, abnormally narrow way to look at it. Personally, I don't think so.

Here is an interesting opinion on the reasons for the destruction of the Expositor:My link

[Scott Lloyd]

That's probably true, although I think it must be admitted that the wagon train received a less-than-friendly reception when they entered Utah territory ...

Are you certain of that? My impression is that they didn't really encounter trouble until they got further south.

(they were, for example, denied the opportunity to buy supplies).

I don't think that's altogether accurate. Evidently they were charged exorbitant prices. But this might be attributable to market conditions; i.e. there was a scarcity occasioned by the threat of an invasionary force of U.S. army soldiers marching toward the territory.

[Black Moclips]

See my sig line.

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.

Interesting quote. I would underscore the NOBODY in that quote, rather than single out anti-mormons and critics. In every issue I've ever looked at regarding the church, I've always had to review the opposing argument to see what the other side so conveniently left out.

[Jeff K.]

Items may indeed have been overpriced. Utah was still struggling to develop some cash reserves and the gold rush in CA was still a powerful draw. Two seperate positions are possible.

1-A struggling Utah had limited supplies to sell and therefore only sold at a dear price, or chose carefully to whom they sold to (ie only friendly travelers versus all travelers).

2-The cost of goods in CA were incredibly high due to the gold rush, and Utah chose to reflect the demand costs by selling with inflated prices.

Either one could be deemed as a "not willing to sell" reason.

[selek]

Items may indeed have been overpriced. Utah was still struggling to develop some cash reserves and the gold rush in CA was still a powerful draw. Two seperate positions are possible.

1-A struggling Utah had limited supplies to sell and therefore only sold at a dear price, or chose carefully to whom they sold to (ie only friendly travelers versus all travelers).

2-The cost of goods in CA were incredibly high due to the gold rush, and Utah chose to reflect the demand costs by selling with inflated prices.

Either one could be deemed as a "not willing to sell" reason.

There's also:

3- The United States has effectively declared war on Utah, which will disrupt any hope of timely resupply.

What we have is all there is for a long time to come, so we'd better make it last.

That, too, is a strong reason not to sell...

[selek]

Items may indeed have been overpriced. Utah was still struggling to develop some cash reserves and the gold rush in CA was still a powerful draw. Two seperate positions are possible.

1-A struggling Utah had limited supplies to sell and therefore only sold at a dear price, or chose carefully to whom they sold to (ie only friendly travelers versus all travelers).

2-The cost of goods in CA were incredibly high due to the gold rush, and Utah chose to reflect the demand costs by selling with inflated prices.

Either one could be deemed as a "not willing to sell" reason.

There's also:

3- The United States has effectively declared war on Utah, which will disrupt any hope of timely resupply.

What we have is all there is for a long time to come, so we'd better make it last.

That, too, is a strong reason not to sell...

[Scott Lloyd]

Interesting quote. I would underscore the NOBODY in that quote, rather than single out anti-mormons and critics. In every issue I've ever looked at regarding the church, I've always had to review the opposing argument to see what the other side so conveniently left out.

It's not a quote. Those are my own words, based on my observation that adversarial critics are by far the bigger offenders and, hence, hypocrites in accusing the Church of focusing on some things and omitting others.

And if I may say so, you are guilty of the same thing in your summation of why you think Joseph Smith was not a martyr.

[Black Moclips]

And if I may say so, you are guilty of the same thing in your summation of why you think Joseph Smith was not a martyr.

Huh? I was just giving my opinion, and a brief reason why. Nothing in what I wrote requires nor implies a comprehensive treatment of the subject.

(Where is the Whisky Tango Foxtrot Emoticon when you need it?)

[paulpatter]

Are you certain of that? My impression is that they didn't really encounter trouble until they got further south.

Yes, you're correct--in the Cedar City area.

: I don't think that's altogether accurate. Evidently they were charged exorbitant prices. But this might be attributable to market conditions; i.e. there was a scarcity occasioned by the threat of an invasionary force of U.S. army soldiers marching toward the territory.

The site "Mountain Meadows Massacre" (http://mountainmeadowsmassacre.com/) includes this statement: "Cedar City was the last stop before California. In Cedar City, the Fancher party attempted to buy grain and supplies but was refused by the local Mormons due to the Mormons' suspicion of aiding potential enemies."

Other sources allude to a similar "policy."

[Scott Lloyd]

The site "Mountain Meadows Massacre" (http://mountainmeadowsmassacre.com/) includes this statement: "Cedar City was the last stop before California. In Cedar City, the Fancher party attempted to buy grain and supplies but was refused by the local Mormons due to the Mormons' suspicion of aiding potential enemies."

Other sources allude to a similar "policy."

I doubt the accuracy of that. I think there's a more reliable account -- based on substantial documentation -- in the Turley/Walker/Leonard book.

[Scott Lloyd]

Huh? I was just giving my opinion, and a brief reason why.

Yeah, and leaving out essential information and context in the process in a way that serves your purpose, which is to deny the martyrdom of Joseph Smith.

In journalism, we call this slanting.

[USU78]

"Cedar City was the last stop before California. In Cedar City, the Fancher party attempted to buy grain and supplies but was refused by the local Mormons due to the Mormons' suspicion of aiding potential enemies."

The policy [note absence of quotation marks] was part of the martial law policy adopted by the territorial governor. The policy was communicated with all or substantially all of the Mormon settlements in the Great Basin. In short, grain and other foodstuffs were to be conserved against the anticipated guerrilla and evacuations that were being planned from the very beginning (between end July 1857 and September 1857).

If you're going to take to the hills, you take all the food you can. You don't have anything to spare for those passing through.

The "aiding potential enemies" is a wholly invented interpolation, which ignores the greater issue then at hand: the Expeditionary Forces making their way already through Nebraska Territory.

[staccato]

The policy [note absence of quotation marks] was part of the martial law policy adopted by the territorial governor. The policy was communicated with all or substantially all of the Mormon settlements in the Great Basin. In short, grain and other foodstuffs were to be conserved against the anticipated guerrilla and evacuations that were being planned from the very beginning (between end July 1857 and September 1857).

If you're going to take to the hills, you take all the food you can. You don't have anything to spare for those passing through.

The "aiding potential enemies" is a wholly invented interpolation, which ignores the greater issue then at hand: the Expeditionary Forces making their way already through Nebraska Territory.

Nevermind.

[Scott Lloyd]

The policy [note absence of quotation marks] was part of the martial law policy adopted by the territorial governor. The policy was communicated with all or substantially all of the Mormon settlements in the Great Basin. In short, grain and other foodstuffs were to be conserved against the anticipated guerrilla and evacuations that were being planned from the very beginning (between end July 1857 and September 1857).

If you're going to take to the hills, you take all the food you can. You don't have anything to spare for those passing through.

The "aiding potential enemies" is a wholly invented interpolation, which ignores the greater issue then at hand: the Expeditionary Forces making their way already through Nebraska Territory.

This is a good summation of the matter.

The Mountain Meadows site that paulpatter linked us to includes a link of its own to the September 2007 Ensign magazine article written by Richard Turley. In that article, Turley explains the matter in this way:

As the [u.S. Army] troops were making their way west in the summer of 1857, so were thousands of overland emigrants. Some of these emigrants were Latter-day Saint converts en route to Utah, but most westbound emigrants were headed for California, many with large herds of cattle. The emigration season brought many wagon companies to Utah just as Latter-day Saints were preparing for what they believed would be a hostile military invasion. The Saints had been violently driven from Missouri and Illinois in the prior two decades, and they feared history might repeat itself.

Church President and territorial governor Brigham Young and his advisers formed policies based on that perception. They instructed the people to save their grain and prepare to cache it in the mountains in case they needed to flee there when the troops arrived. Not a kernel of grain was to be wasted or sold to merchants or passing emigrants. The people were also to save their ammunition and get their firearms in working order, and the territory

[Black Moclips]

Yeah, and leaving out essential information and context in the process in a way that serves your purpose, which is to deny the martyrdom of Joseph Smith.

In journalism, we call this slanting.

LOL! Please let me know what essential information and context I left out when expressing my opinion. In fact, being the journalist you are, please express my opinion for me, so I can know what an UN-slanted opinion looks like.

[Scott Lloyd]

LOL! Please let me know what essential information and context I left out when expressing my opinio

You altogether ignored the fact that Joseph's involvement in politics stemmed from the oppression his people had endured and from the denial of their civil liberties as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. He ran for president of the United States, for example, after it became clear that the prevailing political parties and candidates were either to weak or unwilling to protect the rights of his people or to redress his grievances. His leadership in civic affairs was to help stabilize and strengthen the Latter-day Saint community to make it less vulnerable to mob oppression.

You grant Joseph the right to be president of the Church but would deny him the right to exercise his right as a citizen of the United States to do things that might safeguard the religious liberty of his people. Because he did exercise the right of citizenry -- and was killed for it -- you would deny that he is a martyr.

In fact, being the journalist you are, please express my opinion for me, so I can know what an UN-slanted opinion looks like.

I think you know what you're doing.

[Bob Crockett]

Abnormally narrow? Maybe within the Church, but not in general. I think any reasonable person can look at the facts of this issue and come away with the opinion that Joseph Smith was killed for other than religious beliefs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Pahoran]

Start a MMM thread and wait for someone to say..." Yeah but those guys were mean and were going to kill them and blah blah the army blah blah eating up all the good food blah blah we had to kill women and children."

I think you'd be waiting a very long time.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Lamanite]

I think you'd be waiting a very long time.

Regards,

Pahoran

Are you kidding me? Hang on man...

edit: Ok...I'm starting a thread. If I'm wrong then great, I'll be happier if I lose. In the MMM thread try not to skew the results by mentioning this post.

Here we go....

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Pahoran]

I

[paulpatter]

Items may indeed have been overpriced. Utah was still struggling to develop some cash reserves and the gold rush in CA was still a powerful draw. Two seperate positions are possible.

1-A struggling Utah had limited supplies to sell and therefore only sold at a dear price, or chose carefully to whom they sold to (ie only friendly travelers versus all travelers).

2-The cost of goods in CA were incredibly high due to the gold rush, and Utah chose to reflect the demand costs by selling with inflated prices.

Either one could be deemed as a "not willing to sell" reason.

Both 1 and 2 are certainly possibilities.

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