Anti-Mormon Lies In The Nauvoo Expositor

[escott3564]

I am in the process of reading the actual article that got the Nauvoo Expositor destroyed. It is actually a fascinating read:

http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs/exposit1.htm

So far, I haven't actually come up with anything that is either "anti-Mormon" or a lie.

Joseph Smith DID practice polygamy.

Joseph Smith DID coerse potential brides by ensuring themselves and their families salvation.

William Law WAS excommunicated in a secret session without his prior knowledge.

Is there anyone denying these facts?

I would like to know what the sepcific anti-Mormon lies were that were told in the Nauvoo Expositor. As far as I am aware, the authors of the Expositor were also LDS and strong believers in the gospel. What they took issue with was how Joseph Smith was conducting himself and how he was running the Church at that moment.

[Nevo]

I am in the process of reading the actual article that got the Nauvoo Expositor destroyed.

So far, I haven't actually come up with anything that is either "anti-Mormon" or a lie.

I've posted this before, but I consider the following to be lies*:

• Joseph Smith is a man of vicious principles.
  
• Joseph Smith "has established an inquisition," resulting in "specimens of injustice of the most pernicious and diabolical character that ever stained the pages of the historian." If left unchecked, it "will prove more formidable and terrible...than even the Spanish inquisition."
  
• Joseph Smith is guilty of "many of the most dark and damnable crimes that ever darkened human character."
  
• Joseph Smith refuses to allow criminals to be brought to justice.
  
• Joseph Smith's grasping for power "find no parallel in history."
  
• Joseph Smith is "one of the blackest and basest scoundrels that has appeared upon the stage of human existence since the days of Nero, and Caligula."
  
• Joseph Smith is "spreading death, devastation and ruin throughout [the country] like a tornado."
  

lie (n) 1a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker 2 : something that misleads or deceives

Edited August 14, 2013 by Nevo

[stemelbow]

I've posted this before, but I consider the following to be lies:

• Joseph Smith is a man of vicious principles.
  
• Joseph Smith "has established an inquisition," resulting in "specimens of injustice of the most pernicious and diabolical character that ever stained the pages of the historian." If left unchecked, it "will prove more formidable and terrible...than even the Spanish inquisition."
  
• Joseph Smith is guilty of "many of the most dark and damnable crimes that ever darkened human character."
  
• Joseph Smith refuses to allow criminals to be brought to justice.
  
• Joseph Smith's grasping for power "find no parallel in history."
  
• Joseph Smith is "one of the blackest and basest scoundrels that has appeared upon the stage of human existence since the days of Nero, and Caligula."
  
• Joseph Smith is "spreading death, devastation and ruin throughout [the country] like a tornado."
  

All good points, I'd say.

Also they started off by claiming to be more than they were--perhaps an effort to beef up their credibility?

"As for our acquaintance with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, we know, no man or set of men can be more thoroughly acquainted with its rise, its organization, and its history, than we have every reason to believe we are"

Of course they knew Joseph was far more acquainted with its rise, its organization, and its history. They also knew others were more acquainted with it, being that others experienced far more of the beginning events.

[David T]

So basically, most of the "lies" were mostly, well, rhetorical hyperbole, overstated predictions, and personal opinion.

Is it anyone's informed opinion that Law was reporting anything he didn't believe to be true, IE, 'lying', or was it a mixture of inconvenient truths mingled with some fear-mongering rhetoric based on further overblown (mis)interpretations of events?

Edited August 14, 2013 by David T

[Scott Lloyd]

Most people who are professionally involved in communications or journalism, as I am, understand quite well that deception perpetrated through selective, slanted and out-of-context presentation of "facts" and argumentative interpretation can be just as damaging, if not more so, than deception spread through outright falsehood. As I see it, the former is very much the case with the Expositor.

Edited August 14, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

So basically, most of the "lies" were mostly, well, rhetorical hyperbole, overstated predictions, and personal opinion.

Inflammatory and unjust rhetoric in a tinderbox such as that which characterized western Illinois as pertaining to the Mormons in the 1840s could justifiably be regarded as a nuisance, one that arguably should have been abated.

Edited August 14, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[David T]

Inflammatory and unjust rhetoric in a tinderbox such as that which characterized western Illinois as pertaining to the Mormons in the 1840s could justifiably be regarded as a nuisance, one that arguably should have been abated.

Oh, I completely agree. And I think this is what's important to recognize. Not simply that Law was 'lying'. He probably didn't think he was. But that didn't mean the rhetoric wasn't extremely dangerous given the context. (Much like, well, Rigdon's famous Missouri Salt Sermon and July 4th Oration. Both of which were decidedly not helpful in calming the storm, and most likely contributed to fueling it more than helping.)

Edited August 14, 2013 by David T

[CA Steve]

Is the OP asking about libelous accusations or does the term lies include disagreeable opinions?

[halconero]

So basically, most of the "lies" were mostly, well, rhetorical hyperbole, overstated predictions, and personal opinion.

Is it anyone's informed opinion that Law was reporting anything he didn't believe to be true, IE, 'lying', or was it a mixture of inconvenient truths mixed with some fear-mongering based on overblown (mis)interpretations of events?

I agree, but the thing with such hyberbole is that it mentally "primes" the reader to view actual facts in the light the author wants them to be read.

Example: In a vicious display of unpatriotic action, a former government employee revealed classified documents of a sensitive nature after fleeing to a country known for its poor human rights record.

Vicious, unpatriotic and a country with poor human rights primes the reader to view the subject in a negative light.

The actual incident might read something closer to:

A former government employee revealed documents showing that the government has been increasing its domestic spying network after leaving the US.

See? There is no priming in either a negative or positive light. The reader might form his own opinion, but I doubt it would be heavily swayed by the language of the report.

[David T]

I agree, but the thing with such hyberbole is that it mentally "primes" the reader to view actual facts in the light the author wants them to be read.

Example: In a vicious display of unpatriotic action, a former government employee revealed classified documents of a sensitive nature after fleeing to a country known for its poor human rights record.

Vicious, unpatriotic and a country with poor human rights primes the reader to view the subject in a negative light.

The actual incident might read something closer to:

A former government employee revealed documents showing that the government has been increasing its domestic spying network after leaving the US.

See? There is no priming in either a negative or positive light. The reader might form his own opinion, but I doubt it would be heavily swayed by the language of the report.

I'm not disagreeing. The OP question I understand what not what was the inflammatory rhetoric, but what were the lies. It's an important distinction to make, even though the end result (causing a dangerous uprising/riot) may still be the same.

Edited August 14, 2013 by David T

[Scott Lloyd]

Is the OP asking about libelous accusations or does the term lies include disagreeable opinions?

Libel is defamation in written form.

Here's a fairly standard legal definition of defamation:

Any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person's reputation; decreases the respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held; or induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person.

Edited August 14, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[David T]

Any intentional false communication...

So if Law believed based on his experiences he was being accurate, the paper, even while being a catalyst for disaster, would still not fit the technical definition of libel, correct?

Edited August 14, 2013 by David T

[stemelbow]

Is the OP asking about libelous accusations or does the term lies include disagreeable opinions?

Is it a disagreeable opinion to claim that no one, including Joseph himself, could possibly be more acquainted with the religions rise, organization and history than the authors? I don't think that's an opinion. That seems to be nothing short of outright lie to me. How could they possibly think they are more acquainted with it all than Joseph? Did they receive the priesthood? Did they translate text? receive recorded revelation? Expierence visists from God the Father, Jesus and many others? Their claim simply can't be justified, it seems to me.

[boulder257]

So if Law believed based on his experiences he was being accurate, the paper, even while being a catalyst for disaster, would still not fit the technical definition of libel, correct?

I don't think this is the case. For instance, I may believe my neighbor is a drug dealer, but I'll get sued if I put that in writing. Believing it is not the only criteria. You have to be able to evidence it to some degree.

[David T]

Is it a disagreeable opinion to claim that no one, including Joseph himself, could possibly be more acquainted with the religions rise, organization and history than the authors? I don't think that's an opinion. That seems to be nothing short of outright lie to me. How could they possibly think they are more acquainted with it all than Joseph? Did they receive the priesthood? Did they translate text? receive recorded revelation? Expierence visists from God the Father, Jesus and many others? Their claim simply can't be justified, it seems to me.

They believed their experiences, knowing Joseph, being told things by Joseph, reading and talking with things from those who were with Joseph from the beginning made them pretty well informed. This is what is being expressed. I think this is a bit of a silly point to cling onto as being an example of one of the lies. They believed they were in the inner circle, and that they knew everything anyone else knew.

[David T]

I don't think this is the case. For instance, I may believe my neighbor is a drug dealer, but I'll get sued if I put that in writing. Believing it is not the only criteria. You have to be able to evidence it to some degree.

I don't believe expressing an honest misunderstanding that defames based on misunderstood (but present) evidence or experience is technically libel. I believe it has to be shown that it was not based on actual evidence or understanding, and was actually conjured up out of nowhere to be action-worthy. Otherwise, freedom of the press and concepts of free speech are meaningless.

[halconero]

I'm not disagreeing. The OP question I understand what not what was the inflammatory rhetoric, but what were the lies. It's an important distinction to make, even though the end result (causing a dangerous uprising/riot) may still be the same.

Gotcha, I hear what you're saying.

As for the libel? That's a tricky one. I think "intentional false communication" can be read in two ways:

1) Communication that is known to be false to the author, and is still written anyways.

Or

2) Communication believed to be true by the author, while it is actually false, and is still written anyways.

[why me]

I am in the process of reading the actual article that got the Nauvoo Expositor destroyed. It is actually a fascinating read:

http://www.solomonsp...cs/exposit1.htm

So far, I haven't actually come up with anything that is either "anti-Mormon" or a lie.

Joseph Smith DID practice polygamy.

Joseph Smith DID coerse potential brides by ensuring themselves and their families salvation.

William Law WAS excommunicated in a secret session without his prior knowledge.

Is there anyone denying these facts?

I would like to know what the sepcific anti-Mormon lies were that were told in the Nauvoo Expositor. As far as I am aware, the authors of the Expositor were also LDS and strong believers in the gospel. What they took issue with was how Joseph Smith was conducting himself and how he was running the Church at that moment.

I think that we need to see all this in context. The Mormons were just booted out of Missouri where they faced persecution. Joseph Smith was in prison just a few years before for 'treason' sentenced to death. They go to Nauvoo for peace and for the ability to practice their faith in surroundings that would be secure. Suddenly we have a newspaper being founded within Nauvoo to stir up the pot not just among the Mormons but also among the non Mormons. Also, just a few miles away there is Thomas Sharp's newspaper that is printing articles against the Mormons, stirring up the people against the Mormons. What should the Mormons have done? Also, we need to remember that Mormon newspapers were looted and burned in Missouri if I am not mistaken. And we have now established that the articles in the expositor were inflammatory.

[why me]

So if Law believed based on his experiences he was being accurate, the paper, even while being a catalyst for disaster, would still not fit the technical definition of libel, correct?

But it could be considered a public menace and as such, closed down. Hate speech seems not to have been a crime back then.

[David T]

But it could be considered a public menace and as such, closed down.

Agreed. But again, I haven't seen anyone try to argue otherwise, myself included.

[David T]

I think that we need to see all this in context. The Mormons were just booted out of Missouri where they faced persecution. Joseph Smith was in prison just a few years before for 'treason' sentenced to death. They go to Nauvoo for peace and for the ability to practice their faith in surroundings that would be secure. Suddenly we have a newspaper being founded within Nauvoo to stir up the pot not just among the Mormons but also among the non Mormons. Also, just a few miles away there is Thomas Sharp's newspaper that is printing articles against the Mormons, stirring up the people against the Mormons. What should the Mormons have done? Also, we need to remember that Mormon newspapers were looted and burned in Missouri if I am not mistaken. And we have now established that the articles in the expositor were inflammatory.

Again, I think most everyone here agrees with this assessment.

[stemelbow]

They believed their experiences, knowing Joseph, being told things by Joseph, reading and talking with things from those who were with Joseph from the beginning made them pretty well informed. This is what is being expressed. I think this is a bit of a silly point to cling onto as being an example of one of the lies. They believed they were in the inner circle, and that they knew everything anyone else knew.

K. I disagree of course. I can't see how they can possibly be so acuainted, knowing what Joseph saw and heard.

"As for our acquaintance with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, we know, no man or set of men can be more thoroughly acquainted with its rise, its organization, and its history, than we have every reason to believe we are"

I think its more than fair to say they knew surely that Joseph, for one, is far more acuqainted. And its fair to say they knew others were more acquainted as well. It seems clear to me they were lying in hopes to establish themselves as more credible than they were. But you think it's silly for others to disagree with you, I guess. Oh well. Nothing to discuss here.

Also, this isn't so much about knwoing more. That wasn't their claim, so much as being more acquainted with the histor, rise and organization. I'd agree with you if they claimed to know as much as any other regarding it. But that was not thier claim. You seem to have misread.

Edited August 14, 2013 by stemelbow

[boulder257]

I don't believe expressing an honest misunderstanding that defames based on misunderstood (but present) evidence or experience is technically libel. I believe it has to be shown that it was not based on actual evidence or understanding, and was actually conjured up out of nowhere to be action-worthy. Otherwise, freedom of the press and concepts of free speech are meaningless.

But that is exactly what I am saying, there has to be evidence there even if it is misunderstood. I can't write a post about you that says you are a murdered without having something to back that up. I think we are saying the same thing, just in different ways.

[boulder257]

err, murdered is supposed to be murderer. I have no idea how to edit my posts on here.

[Calm]

err, murdered is supposed to be murderer. I have no idea how to edit my posts on here.

3 more posts (25) and you will be able to edit and start new topics in this forum. Edited August 14, 2013 by calmoriah