Anti-Mormon Lies In The Nauvoo Expositor

[WmLaw]

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.

I don't see this as a foregone conclusion. I can understand your interpretation, but another interpretation is that Law and others having been high ranking insiders within a relatively young organization, felt that they were fully acquainted with its rise, its organization, and its history. Hyperbole maybe. But defensible.

[stemelbow]

I don't see this as a foregone conclusion. I can understand your interpretation, but another interpretation is that Law and others having been high ranking insiders within a relatively young organization, felt that they were fully acquainted with its rise, its organization, and its history. Hyperbole maybe. But defensible.

k. Let's see then. Were they as fully acquainted with priesthood restoration as Joseph and Oliver? I don't see how they think they were. They weren't there. The recordings of the events are scant and by all impressions not complete. Same with Joseph's first vision, or how the translations took place. I honestly can't see their claim as defensible at all as I break it down. And their wording was suggesting no one can be more acquainted as they--meaning it wasn't possible anyone could have been more acquainted. I can't see how it can be sliced any other way. Defensible? Only if you take it very generally switching things around a little.

[why me]

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

The OP would argue otherwise. The OP wanted to make a point that the Nauvoo Expositor only told the truth and so, why close it down. Sometimes the critics or exmormons are bothered by the closing down of the newspaper.

[why me]

I don't see this as a foregone conclusion. I can understand your interpretation, but another interpretation is that Law and others having been high ranking insiders within a relatively young organization, felt that they were fully acquainted with its rise, its organization, and its history. Hyperbole maybe. But defensible.

Law felt that Joseph was a falling prophet. And he wanted to publicize the polygamy issue. And he wanted others to believe that Joseph was a fallen prophet. So, the newspaper was started.

[David T]

The OP would argue otherwise. The OP wanted to make a point that the Nauvoo Expositor only told the truth and so, why close it down. Sometimes the critics or exmormons are bothered by the closing down of the newspaper.

I don't see that as an argument made by the OP.

[Nevo]

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.

I don't see this as a foregone conclusion. I can understand your interpretation, but another interpretation is that Law and others having been high ranking insiders within a relatively young organization, felt that they were fully acquainted with its rise, its organization, and its history. Hyperbole maybe. But defensible.

Of the seven individuals named on the masthead of the Expositor, only William Law could be considered a high-ranking insider. I am not aware that any of the others had any Church rank to speak of, or were ever part of Joseph Smith's inner circle. The Higbees and Robert D. Foster had been on the outs with Joseph since the Bennett scandal in 1842. All three had been censured for immoral behavior and Chauncey Higbee was excommunicated.

[theplains]

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.

It's one thing to say that it stirred up the pot against the Mormons, but exactly what statements

in the edition of the Nauvoo Expositor were lies? The original question by the thread creator

looks to be unanswered.

Here are a few statements made:

We are earnestly seeking to explode the vicious principles of Joseph Smith, and those who

practice the same abominations and whoredoms;

We can appeal to the acts of the inquisitorial department organized in Nauvoo, by Joseph

and his accomplices, for specimens of injustice of the most pernicious and diabolical character

that ever stained the pages of the historian

Resolved 2nd, Inasmuch as we have for years borne with the individual follies and iniquities

of Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith, and many other official characters in the Church of Jesus

Christ, (conceiving it a duty incumbent upon us so to bear,)

Resolved, 3rd, That we disapprobate and discountenance every attempt to unite church and

state; and that we further believe the effort now being made by Joseph Smith for political

power and influence, is not commendable in the sight of God

Resolved 4th, That the hostile spirit and conduct manifested by Joseph Smith, and many of

his associates towards Missouri, and others inimical to his purposes, are decidedly at variance

with the true spirit of Christianity, and should not be encouraged by any people, much less

by those professing to be the ministers of the gospel of peace.

Resolved 6th, That we consider the religious influence exercised in financial concerns by

Joseph Smtih, as unjust as it is unwarranted, for the Book of Doctrine and Covenants makes

it the duty of the Bishop to take charge of the financial affairs of the Church, and of all

temporal matters pertaining to the same.

The last one seems to be a charge levelled against Joseph Smith by other Mormons. The

previous ones are a combined indictment against Joseph and other associates. The charges

do not appear to be originating from non-Mormon groups, so this did not start as an anti-Mormon

instigation.

Thanks,

Jim

[williamsmith]

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.

1. Joseph was practicing the Sealing Ordinance, so technically claiming he was practicing Polygamy would be a lie.

2. Claiming "coercion" when there was none would be a lie also.

3. I don't remember all the details of Law's drama, but I do believe he had and did make ample opportunity to make his views known, and wasn't interested in anything else, so claiming a "secret court" is over the top. Church courts still occur if the person doesn't properly appear etc., which is clearly what happened. Thus, that also is technically a lie.

Facts are not the same as the truth. Facts can be used to misrepresent and lie about what is actually true, which is clearly for these three issues what indeed occurred.

Further, your final summary opinion is far from the truth. For example, ex-mormon's while mormon begin to believe LDS Prophets and Mormon's themselves are liar's, and believe all kinds of other immoral views of us, that doesn't make them "TBM's". Neither does it for those involved in the Expositor.

[stemelbow]

Of the seven individuals named on the masthead of the Expositor, only William Law could be considered a high-ranking insider. I am not aware that any of the others had any Church rank to speak of, or were ever part of Joseph Smith's inner circle. The Higbees and Robert D. Foster had been on the outs with Joseph since the Bennett scandal in 1842. All three had been censured for immoral behavior and Chauncey Higbee was excommunicated.

That is a great addition, I must say.

"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"

They are claiming their whole group has reached the apex of acquaintance with the Church. They seem to actually claim no one could possibly be more acquainted than this group.

I maintain it seems clearly an effort to build themselves up, credibly speaking, deceptively.

[cdowis]

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

Is the unwarrented cry of "fire, fire" just an innocent expression of rhetorical hyperbole, overstated prediction in a crowded movie house?

You cannot ignore the context of such statements, to induce riots and persecution by the locals against the citizens of Nauvoo. This was a deliberate attempt to agitate the nonmormons by William Law.

Edited August 15, 2013 by cdowis

[David T]

Is the unwarrented cry of "fire, fire" just an innocent expression of rhetorical hyperbole, overstated prediction in a crowded movie house?

You cannot ignore the context of such statements, to induce riots and persecution by the locals against the citizens of Nauvoo.

If you have read further in the thread, I've made abundantly clear, repeatedly, that I agree with this. That's not really under debate.

This was a deliberate attempt to agitate the nonmormons by William Law.

Actually, he was trying also (perhaps mainly) to agitate Mormons - like himself - to alert them how, as he saw it, Joseph, as a fallen prophet, had gone dangerously off his rocker, and needed to be stopped, forcibly if necessary.

Edited August 15, 2013 by David T

[WmLaw]

Is the unwarrented cry of "fire, fire" just an innocent expression of rhetorical hyperbole, overstated prediction in a crowded movie house?

You cannot ignore the context of such statements, to induce riots and persecution by the locals against the citizens of Nauvoo. This was a deliberate attempt to agitate the nonmormons by William Law.

That's a poor analogy. In Law's case, he had felt the heat and had witnessed the flames.

[LoudmouthMormon]

What I find fascinating, is how polarized folks become on such instances. Hey folks mad at the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor press - how are you feeling about the events in Jackson County in July 1833, when they destroyed the Mormon's press?

Hey folks mad about the Mormon's press in Jackson county, how are you feeling about the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor press?

I place my feet on more practical ground. If you go around printing up stuff in the 1800's that will rile people up, don't come crying to me looking for sympathy when people get all riled up. That's still true today to a certain extent. But the retaliation will be different. We don't toss boxes of letters out the window any more - we sue for defamation/slander, try to publicly brand someone a [homophobe/bigot/zealot/hater/YourTermHere], run a boycott to impact you financially, publish names of people who support legislation, etc.

[David T]

I find it likely the issue isn't that people here are saying it wasn't being a problem or even needed to be destroyed to keep the peace,, but trying to determine if statements like this in the Gospel Doctrine Sunday School manual are accurate:

"In early June 1844, some former Church members and enemies of the work printed a newspaper, the Nauvoo Expositor, that published lies about the Prophet and other Church leaders."

Edited August 15, 2013 by David T

[stemelbow]

I find it likely the issue isn't that people here are saying it wasn't being a problem or even needed to be destroyed to keep the peace,, but trying to determine if statements like this in the Gospel Doctrine Sunday School manual are accurate:

Did Joseph Claim tthere were lies? If so, Perhaps some fo the claims which we can't be sure about are lies.

[thesometimesaint]

If I tell a hundred truths to justify a single lie, it is still a lie.

[Alan]

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. Not proven - evidence points both ways on this. I don't believe he was a polygamist.

Joseph Smith DID coerse potential brides by ensuring themselves and their families salvation. Not proven - see answer above.

William Law WAS excommunicated in a secret session without his prior knowledge. I don't know about this.

Is there anyone denying these facts? Yes, me and a few others.

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. They were apostates who started another church for which Law declared himself the prophet.

Edited August 15, 2013 by Alan

[daz2]

If we are talking about being deceptive, most people, including me, think that Joseph was very deceptive about plural marriage--denying that he was engaged in it or that the Church supported it, while he was engaged in it. Arguing that it was "sealing" not "plural marriage" reminds me of President Clinton's "it depends on the meaning of 'is'." In any event, the first apparent plural marriage occurred years before the sealing power was restored, as is discussed on another thread here.

The particular facts alleged in the article do not seem to be baseless or false. I remember the first time I read the Expositor, 30 years ago, expecting to read lies. The most outlandish things--like Joseph's secretly engaged in marrying more than one woman--were true, not false.

Yes, one can argue that the conclusions/opinions and self-descriptions are incorrect or false, but that is not the sort of "lie" I expected to find when I first read the paper.

It was a stupid, probably or possibly illegal, decision for the city council to destroy the press. And it was stupid and illegal for the Mormon's press to have been destroyed in earlier years.

Edited August 15, 2013 by daz2

[T-Shirt]

Here is a cut and paste of something I wrote a long time ago:

While the Nauvoo Exspositor certainly contained untruths, you surely understand that a public nuisance was not simply about being truthful. The Expositor was full of provocative and incendiary language. It tried to create fear among the people, which could potentially incite riots in an already delicate environment.

Nevertheless, here are some items from the Expositor that address your question:

This statement is, at best, a gross exaggeration:

Quote

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.

To this I would add, arrogant. I can think of many men and women who were more thoroughly acquainted with the Church. I donâ??t think any honest person could dispute this.

This quote shows a ridiculous attempt to show themselves as caretakers of the Church:

Quote

We have called upon him to repent, and as soon as he shewed fruits meet for repentance, we stood ready to seize him by the hand of fellowship, and throw around him the mantle of protection; for it is the salvation of souls we desire, and not our own aggrandizement.

William Law and Charles Foster had both threatened to kill Joseph Smith. Charles Foster was arrested when he charged Joseph with a pistol. The men responsible for the NauvooExpositor, William Law, Wilson Law, Robert D. Foster, Charles A. Foster, Chauncey Higbee , Austin Cowles, Francis Higbee and Charles Ivins had all been excommunicated from the Church and had all made the following vow:

"You solemnly swear, before God and all holy angels, and these your brethren by whom you are surrounded that you will give your life, your liberty, your influence, your all, for the destruction of Joseph Smith and his party, so help you God!"

These men also stated that, â??President Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet and his death was necessary to save the Church.â?

(Joseph Fielding Smith, Church History and Modern Revelation, 4 vols. [salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1946-1949], 4: 182.)

So, I add to my previous statement that this paragraph from the Expositor was not only what I said it was, but it was a bald faced lie. They did not want to extend the hand of fellowship to Joseph Smith, they wanted him dead.

This statement is intended to be nothing more than incendiary:

Quote

We are earnestly seeking to explode the vicious principles of Joseph Smith, and those who practice the same abominations and whoredoms; which we verily know and are not accordant and consonant with the principles of Jesus Christ and the Apostles

This one is a dishonest attempt at fear mongering:

Quote

We are aware, however, that we are hazarding every earthly blessing, particularly property, and probably life itself, in striking this blow at tyranny and oppression

None of these men were ever threatened with their lives, before or after publishing the Expositor. Joseph Smith was well aware of these menâ??s motives, long before the paper was printed. This was an attempt to do nothing more than paint a vicious picture of Joseph Smith that was not true. After the murder of Joseph, Robert Foster, who, according to one source, admitted to being a party to Josephâ??s death, was simply asked to leave Nauvoo. Even after the murder, he was not threatened with physical harm.

This one is a lie:

Quote

Joseph [ Smith ], who would state that if he had sinned, and was guilty of the charges we would charge him with, he would not make acknowledgment, but would rather be damned; for it would detract from his dignity, and would consequently ruin and prove the overthrow of the Church.

I am unaware of any source that would verify this statement. To the contrary, Joseph Smith admitted to be fallible, imperfect and subject to error. He is chastised, sometimes severely, in the Doctrine and Covenants for his mistakes. Maybe you can come up with something to verify this statement.

This one is a gross distortion of what Joseph actually said:

Quote

We would ask him on the other hand, if the overthrow of the Church was not inevitable, to which he often replies, that we would all go to Hell together, and convert it into a heaven, by casting the Devil out; and says he, Hell is by no means the place this world of fools suppose it to be, but on the contrary, it is quite an agreeable place; to which we would now reply, he can enjoy it if he is determined not to desist from his evil ways; but as for us, and ours, we will serve the Lord our God!

Here is what Joseph actually said in responding to his enemies who tried to destroy his character:

"I see no faults in the Church, and therefore let me be resurrected with the Saints, whether I ascend to heaven or descend to hell, or go to any other place. And if we go to hell, we will turn the devils out of doors and make a heaven of it. Where this people are, there is good society. What do we care where we are, if the society be good? I don't care what a man's character is; if he's my friendâ??a true friend, I will be a friend to him, and preach the Gospel of salvation to him, and give him good counsel, helping him out of his difficulties.

Friendship is one of the grand fundamental principles of "Mormonism"; [it is designed] to revolutionize and civilize the world, and cause wars and contentions to cease and men to become friends and brothers."

(Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 vols., introduction and notes by B. H. Roberts [salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1932-1951], 5: 517.)

The context of this statement is wrong and they embellished it to make it appear to be something more and different than it was.

More baseless fear mongering:

Quote

Lo! the wolf is in the fold, arrayed in sheep's clothing, and is spreading death and devastation among the saints:

There is absolutely no evidence that Joseph Smith was spreading death and devastation. Can you provide some?

This next one is only the beginning of a rather long paragraph that is a despicable lie:

Quote

It is a notorious fact, that many females in foreign climes, and in countries to us unknown, even in the most distant regions of the Eastern hemisphere, have been induced, by the sound of the gospel, to forsake friends, and embark upon a voyage across waters that lie stretched over the greater portion of the globe...

It goes on to explain that women are brought from England for the sole purpose of being married to Joseph Smith against their will, combined with a lot of incendiary language. Of all the women who were sealed to Joseph Smith, none of them were converts from England, or anywhere in the Eastern hemisphere. There is no record, that I am aware of, of any women from England who were forced, against their will to marry Joseph Smith, or those who were threatened with death if they refused.

End part one.

[T-Shirt]

Begin part two.

This is a lie:

Quote

Our hearts have mourned and bled at the wretched and miserable condition of females in this place; many orphans have been the victims of misery and wretchedness, through the influence that has been exerted over them, under the cloak of religion and afterwards, in consequence of that jealous disposition which predominates over the minds of some, have been turned upon a wide world, fatherless and motherless, destitute of friends and fortune; and robbed of that which nothing but death can restore.

Can you supply the names of any of these miserable, fatherless, motherless and friendless orphans?

More fear mongering, implying that they will possibly be killed for writing this:

Quote

Shall we then, however painful the sight, shrink from the contemplation of their real state? We answer, we will not, if permitted to live. As we have before stated, it is the vicious principles of men we are determined to explode. It is not that we have any private pique to settle, that has induced us to be thus plain; for we can respect and love the criminal, if there is any hope of reformation: but there is a point beyond which forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

This is not only fear mongering, but it is arrogant and hypocritical. As I already stated above, they wanted people to think their lives were in danger and that they were so brave to stand in the face of death and expose the truth. And to say they had no, “private pique to settle” is just laughable. The whole despicable plan was born of revenge. Disgusting!

This is a lie:

Quote

We believe it is inconsistent, and not in accordance with the christian religion. We do not believe that God ever raised up a Prophet to christianize a world by political schemes and intrigue.

Joseph never tried to Christianize the world by political schemes. Can you support this?

This is an untrue distortion:

Quote

It is contended that there are innumerable Gods as much above the God that presides over this universe, as he is above us; and if he varies from the law unto which he is subjected, he, with all his creatures, will be cast down as was Lucifer;

I have never seen Joseph preach that God and all his creatures could fall and be cast down together. Have you? Can you show me?

This one is an inexcusable, disgusting attempt to claim what Joseph Smith was doing was worse than the Spanish Inquisition:

Quote

It was in Rome, and about the twelfth century, when Pope Innocent III, ordered father Dominic to excite the Catholic princes and people to extirpate heretics. But it is in this enlightened and intelligent nineteenth century, and in Nauvoo -- a place professing to be the nucleus of the world, that Joseph Smith has established an inquisition, which, if it is suffered to exist, will prove more formidable and terrible to those who are found opposing the iniquities of Joseph and his associates, than even the Spanish inquisition did to heretics as they termed them.

Do you think this is a fair statement? Do you agree that Joseph’s actions were worse than the Spanish inquisition? I did not quote it, but the Expositor also compares Joseph to Nero and Caligula. Do you agree with this? Any one who feels this paragraph is reasonable and accurate is, quite frankly, pathetic and disgusting.

This is a lie:

Quote

That we consider the gathering in haste, and by sacrifice, to be contrary to the will of God; and that it has been taught by Joseph Smith and others for the purpose of enabling them to sell property at most exhorbitant (sic) prices,

This would be funny, if it wasn’t so sad. There is no question that in Kirtland and Nauvoo, there were those who were involved in speculation and took advantage of people. Are you aware that Robert Foster was one of those who was heavily involved in this practice? Can you cite references that show Joseph Smith was guilty of the same? These men were liars and hypocrites.

This one presents their unfounded belief as though it were fact:

Quote

we look upon the sending of special agents abroad to collect funds for the Temple and other purposes as a humbug practiced upon the saints by Joseph and others, to aggrandize themselves, as we do not believe that the monies and property so collected, have been applied as the donors expected, but have been used for speculative purposes, by Joseph, to [ gull ? ] the saints the better on their arrival at Nauvoo, by buying the lands in the vicinity and selling again to them at tenfold advance; and further that we verily believe the appropriations said to have been subscribed by shares for the building of the Nauvoo House to have been used by J. Smith and Lyman Wight, for other purposses (sic), as out of the mass of stock already taken, the building is far from being finished even to the base.

They even admit that this is only their opinion. They had no evidence. Do you?

Gross distortion:

Quote

That we consider all secret societies, and combinations under penal oaths and obligations, (professing to be organized for religious purposes,) to be anti-Christian, hypocritical and corrupt.

You know this is a distortion. What makes this even worse is that these men had their own secret group where they made secret oaths to kill Joseph Smith. Do you not find this to be hypocritical?

More baseless fear mongering:

Quote

That we will not acknowledge any man as king or law-giver to the church; for Christ is our only king and law-giver.

This is a distortion of the council of fifty. Joseph never claimed to be the king and law giver to the Church.

This one, once again, gives the impression that they are the leaders of the Church, despite the fact that William Law was excommunicated:

Quote

That we call upon the honest in heart, in the Church, and throughout the world, to vindicate the pure doctrines of Jesus Christ, whether set forth in the Bible, Book of Mormon, or Book of Covenants: and we hereby withdraw the hand of fellowship, from all those who practice or teach doctrines contrary to the above, until they cease so to do, and show works meet for repentance.

This is truly pathetic. This is nothing more than a case of, “You can’t fire me?¦ I quit.” It is hard to withdraw the hand of fellowship from a Church you have been excommunicated from. Are you aware that these men had already attempted to start their own Church? William Law was prophet, James Blakesley and Austin Cowles were his counselors, the Higbees and the Fosters were members of the twelve and Charles Ivins was the bishop.

They were even planning a mission to England. But, of course, these men were not bitter about having been stripped of there positions in the Church. Yeah, right.

This is, at best, a misrepresentation and, at worst, a lie:

Quote

I certify that I read the revelation referred to in the above affidavit of my husband, it sustained in strong terms the doctrine of more wives than one at a time, in this world, and in the next, it authorized some to have to the number of ten, and set forth that those women who would not allow their husbands to have more wives than one should be under condemnation before God.

Other than the President of the Church, D&C 132 specifically requires that a wife agree and approve any further wives. The way this is stated, it is untrue.

This is nothing more than ridiculous name calling and fear mongering:

Quote

It will be perceived that many of the most dark and damnable crimes that ever darkened human character, which have hitherto been to the public, a matter of rumor and suspicion, are now reduced to indisputable facts. We have reason to believe, from our acquaintance with Mr. Jackson, and our own observation, that the statements he makes are true; and in view of these facts, we ask, in the name of heaven, where is the safety of our lives and liberties, when placed at the disposal of such heaven daring, hell deserving, God forsaken villains. Our blood boils while we refer to these blood thirsty and murderous propensities of men, or rather demons in human shape, who, not satisfied with practising their dupes upon a credulous and superstitious people, must wreak their vengeance upon any who may dare to come in contact with them.

Are you willing to agree with and defend these statements?:

- the most dark and damnable crimes that ever darkened human character

- indisputable facts

- hell deserving, God forsaken villains

- blood thirsty and murderous propensities of men

- demons in human shape

- must wreak their vengeance

This is a lie:

Quote

In supporting Hyrum Smith, then are you not supporting Joseph Smith, most assuredly; pause then my countrymen, and consider cooly (sic), calmly and deliberately, what you do? Support not that man who is spreading death, devastation and ruin through out your happy country like a tornado.

Again, where is the evidence of this death and devastation? Can you provide it?

This next one is just a joke:

Quote

Joseph Smith, the candidate of another "powerful" party has two indictments against him, one for fornication and adultery, another for perjury. Our readers can make their own comments.

The indictments they are referring to were the result of charges filed by William Law himself. Upon being indicted, Joseph immediately went to Carthage and demanded an immediate trial. Law and his weasely cronies chickened out and asked for a delay in the proceedings. Joseph was allowed to go home. Shortly after this, Joseph was dead. How convenient.

According to one source:

A plot to take the Prophet's life while he was at Carthage was disclosed by two of the conspirators, Charles A. and Robert D. Foster. These men repented of their part in the proceedings and confessed to the Prophet in tears.

(William E. Berrett, The Restored Church, 7th ed. [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1953], 232.)

There are more, but frankly, I got tired of looking for them. I find it to be to be quite troubling that anyone can read this document and seriously wonder what is wrong with it.

Finally, to wrap this up, Robert Foster was charged with the murders, but unsubstantiated evidence led to his acquittal. In conversation with Abraham C. Hodge in 1845, he said, "I am the most miserable wretch that the sun shines upon. If I could recall eighteen months of my life I would be willing to sacrifice everything I have upon earth, my wife and child not excepted. I did love Joseph Smith more than any man that ever lived, if I had been present I would have stood between him and death." To this Hodge then asked, "Why did you do as you have done? You were accessory to his murder." Robert replied, "I know that, and I have not seen one moment's peace since that time. I know that Mormonism is true, and the thought of meeting (Joseph and Hyrum) at the bar of God is more awful to me than anything else."

(Susan Easton Black, Who's Who in the Doctrine and Covenants [salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1997], 91 - 92.)

Anyone care to defend these men behind the Expositor?

[Scott Lloyd]

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?

"Absence of malice" has been considered a defense in libel cases. (I have no knowledge as to whether it was a legal doctrine back in Joseph Smith's day.) There was even a movie by that title in the '70s that explored this issue. It starred Sally Field and Paul Newman.

Of course, I have long maintained that what the law allows and what ought to be done or tolerated or sustained in society are often not the same thing.

Edited August 15, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[cinepro]

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

• 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."
  

You can't lie about the future.

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

As David T pointed out, wouldn't you need to show that the author of the article knew or believed something wasn't true before we consider it a "lie"?

We can argue all day about hyperbole and 19th century newspaper rhetoric. I think the most interesting question is, to the degree that the Expositor had some truth and some lies, which were more dangerous to Mormonism? The truth, or the lies?

[stemelbow]

You can't lie about the future.

As David T pointed out, wouldn't you need to show that the author of the article knew or believed something wasn't true before we consider it a "lie"?

We can argue all day about hyperbole and 19th century newspaper rhetoric. I think the most interesting question is, to the degree that the Expositor had some truth and some lies, which were more dangerous to Mormonism? The truth, or the lies?

Probably neither truth nor lies. It was the tone and the language used that seemed most troubling. I think Joseph saw these fellows as troublemakers and ne'er-do-wells before the publication.

[foster]

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.

Wasn't the accusation "spiritual wifery"? Though, it really is a moot point, given that General Authorities acknowledge Joseph Smith practiced polygamy and polyandry. For purposes of analysis of the Expositor, it would be better to list the accusations verbatim.

[foster]

T- shirt, your analysis is biasedly literal and does not consider the totality of the context.