Anti-Mormon Lies In The Nauvoo Expositor

[T-Shirt]

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

You'll have to be more specific. I would be interested in seeing your commentary on each of the points I made.

[foster]

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

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.

Where, in paragraph you are quoting from, is the explicit claim these women are forced against their will? Also, where in the same paragraph is England directly mentioned? Concerning the claims you make, are you just summarizing in your own words or editorializing?

On a separate note, the Expositor states "spiritual wife", so my first post which states "spiritual wifery" should read "spiritual wife".

[ALarson]

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

CFR

As far as I know, William Law never declared himself a Prophet of the new church, only the president. But I'd love to see anything you've found regarding this. Thanks.

[Scott Lloyd]

It was a stupid, probably or possibly illegal, decision for the city council to destroy the press.

I disagree that it was stupid.

Mob hatred for the Latter-day Saints had grown so intense that suppression of an incendiary or inflammatory writing strikes me as prudent under the circumstances and may well have forestalled significant violence if not wholesale massacre of the citizens in Nauvoo. In a sense, it is akin to preventing incitement to riot.

Certainly the saints knew through all-too-real and recent experience in Missouri what mobs are capable of doing. Subsequent events, including the ill-treatment of Nauvoo residents who were too weak, ill or poor to embark right away for the West, show that their fears were well-founded.

The "Summary Conclusion" in the FairMormon Wiki article on "City of Nauvoo/Nauvoo Expositor" is this:

The Expositor incident led directly to the murder of Joseph and Hyrum, but it was preceeded by a long period of non-Mormon distrust of Joseph Smith, and attempts to extradite him on questionable basis.

The destruction of the Expositor issue was legal; it was not legal to have destroyed the type, but this was a civil matter, not a criminal one, and one for which Joseph was willing to pay a fine if imposed.

Joseph seems to have believed—or, his followers believed after his death—that the decision, while 'unwise' for Joseph, may have been in the Saints' interest to have Joseph killed. For a time, this diffused much of the tension and may have prevented an outbreak of generalized violence against the Saints, as occurred in Missouri.

Edited August 15, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[T-Shirt]

Where, in paragraph you are quoting from, is the explicit claim these women are forced against their will? Also, where in the same paragraph is England directly mentioned? Concerning the claims you make, are you just summarizing in your own words or editorializing?

On a separate note, the Expositor states "spiritual wife", so my first post which states "spiritual wifery" should read "spiritual wife".

I wrote this several years ago. I went back and checked and I recognize that my rewording has some errors, but not much. It does not specifically mention England, but it does mention coming from "across waters" and traveling thousands of miles over sea and land. Given that most of the converts that came across the ocean at that time came from England, that is what I postulated. Whatever country they came from is irrelevant to my point, it still stands. As for forcing them to marry Joseph against their wills, I worded it badly. It does say that they were threatened with death if they were to reveal the secret, and if they refused, they were damned and sent away. The paragraph, certainly, implies that women were coerced and frightened. If this were true, some may have married him against their will. So, yes, I was editorializing somewhat, but I stand by the general conclusion of it being a lie and very incendiary.

[stemelbow]

I disagree that it was stupid.

Mob hatred for the Latter-day Saints had grown so intense that suppression of an incendiary or inflammatory writing strikes me as prudent under the circumstances and may well have forestalled significant violence if not wholesale massacre of the citizens in Nauvoo. In a sense, it is akin to preventing incitement to riot.

The "Summary Conclusion" in the FairMormon Wiki article on "City of Nauvoo/Nauvoo Expositor" is this:

It seems to me that Sharp's work was quite an inciter to violence before the Expositor incident. with that I'd say violence was inevitable. And it does appear that the destruction of the expositor gave reason, for the violent sympathizers, to go after Joseph. Maybe there is something to your thoughts here, along with the article you link.

[Scott Lloyd]

You can't lie about the future.

That Joseph had established an "inquisition" that resulted in "specimens of injustice" etc., and was intent on being "more formidable and terrible than the Spanish inquisition" etc., was indeed a lie.

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"?

Professional journalists are trained to establish through independent verification the accuracy of a statement before putting it into print (or, in today's context, on the air or on the Internet). That's a reasonable expectation for others as well.

I repeat: What the law allows and what decent people do or tolerate might not necessarily be equivalent.

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?

The question is too simplistic. The lies combined with "facts" are what bring the harm. It's analogous to a binary weapon in which the blending of two chemical precursors is what forms the lethal agent.

Edited August 15, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[WmLaw]

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.

Maybe I missed it. What is your primary reference that William Law threatened to kill JS?

[Scott Lloyd]

It seems to me that Sharp's work was quite an inciter to violence before the Expositor incident. with that I'd say violence was inevitable. And it does appear that the destruction of the expositor gave reason, for the violent sympathizers, to go after Joseph. Maybe there is something to your thoughts here, along with the article you link.

The murder of Joseph and Hyrum mollified the haters for a time, and fear of prosecution for their crimes caused them to lie low, long enough to allow the saints in Nauvoo to finish the temple (which they saw as essential to their spiritual fortification for the exodus) and to prepare for the departure.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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.

Joseph Smith did (no need to capitalize) practice polygamy under D&D 132 and other older established laws approved by God.

Joseph would and did approach women, but always took no for answer. He got Emma pregnant 11 times in their marriage, not one of 34 women ever bore him a child...what are the odds.? Maybe he should have played the lottery. : )

Joseph Smith invited William Law to Christmas dinner (as he served as counselor in Presidency) and he did not showed. Shortly thereafter Joseph, Hyrum and the 12 found out of his Many betrayals. (So I am guessing they were trying to avoid scandal) His betrayals ended when the "Law Brothers) led a mob to kill Joseph and in so doing killed Joseph and Hyrum and caused major injury to John Taylor. As for the lies of the anti-Mormon Nauvoo Expositor, it portrayed Nauvoo women as being little better than call girls and hookers. Joseph destroyed the press, as the expected he would and used it as the justification to ,under him. While the police and courts stood by and did nothing, an none where ever brought to justice, some of the mob just returned to their pulpits, and others to their pews.

[foster]

I wrote this several years ago. I went back and checked and I recognize that my rewording has some errors, but not much. It does not specifically mention England, but it does mention coming from "across waters" and traveling thousands of miles over sea and land. Given that most of the converts that came across the ocean at that time came from England, that is what I postulated. Whatever country they came from is irrelevant to my point, it still stands. As for forcing them to marry Joseph against their wills, I worded it badly. It does say that they were threatened with death if they were to reveal the secret, and if they refused, they were damned and sent away. The paragraph, certainly, implies that women were coerced and frightened. If this were true, some may have married him against their will. So, yes, I was editorializing somewhat, but I stand by the general conclusion of it being a lie and very incendiary.

What is the lie in the paragraph about woman being introduce to the doctrine of being a spiritual wife? You admit it is not about English immigrants. You also admit there is no statement of being forced against there will. What is the lie in the paragraph pertaining to the accusation of spiritual wife?

[USU78]

The murder of Joseph and Hyrum mollified the haters for a time, and fear of prosecution for their crimes caused them to lie low, long enough to allow the saints in Nauvoo to finish the temple (which they saw as essential to their spiritual fortification for the exodus) and to prepare for the departure.

Of course, the cannonades of the city by the "militia" a couple of years later were pretty awful.

[why me]

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.

I think that it had more to do with it being a public menace. I don't think that the saints wanted this paper to publish such things because it would bring the mobs down on them. If Joseph would have admitted polygamy, the mobs would be at the gate and nauvoo would have been burned to the ground with much bloodshed. Not to mention the law. Isn't it rich that when the saints left nauvoo and began their journey west, plural marriage was openly practiced? What was the turning point? Having to leave nauvoo. Joseph was wise enough to know that it would be better for the saints to deny it, then to suffer the consequences.

A public menace is a public menace. I am sure that if the saints were not persecuted in missouri for their beliefs, they would have been much more open about the practice.

[why me]

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?

Both. We need to remember that the newspaper from warsaw under the editorship of thomas sharpe was railing against the mormons quite often, getting the mobs all geared up for attacking the mormons. All around them, the antimormon hysteria was increasing. And the saints were heavily persecuted in missiouri. The newspaper was dangerous not for the mormons themselves but for the peacefulness of the community as the mobs would come and burn the city down. Joseph had to keep the polygamy issue secret and mislead outsiders for the safety of the city and for public order.

[T-Shirt]

Maybe I missed it. What is your primary reference that William Law threatened to kill JS?

One of the references is right in the text you quoted and there are many more. Here is another:

Apr. 18, 1844

Joseph meets with 32 leading Church brethren (22 of whom belong to the Council of Fifty) to make a ruling about certain Church dissidents. Robert D. Foster, Wilson Law, William Law, Jane Law, and Howard Smith are excommunicated for "unchristianlike conduct." These men did not reject Mormonism, but regarded Joseph as a fallen, not a false, prophet, and planned to set up their own church. They made various charges against Joseph's character. William Law accused Joseph of propositioning Law's wife. Joseph claimed that when he told Jane Law that her husband, William, was unworthy of celestial sealing due to admitted adultery, she then begged to be sealed to Joseph. Several months later Jesse Price would testify that on April 18, 1844, William Law had gone out with pistols determined to blow Joseph's "infernal brains out," saying that he was determined to kill Joseph at first opportunity. (HC 7:227.)

(J. Christopher Conkling, A Joseph Smith Chronology [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1979], 220.)

[T-Shirt]

What is the lie in the paragraph about woman being introduce to the doctrine of being a spiritual wife?

Most of it.

You admit it is not about English immigrants

No I didn't. I said that I assumed he was referring to England. It doesn't matter. He was very clearly referring to women coming thousands of miles from foreign counties. If it wasn't England, it was other country, it doesn't change my point. Can you provide the name of any single woman from a foreign country or from the East coast that was brought to Joseph Smith and treated the way the Expositor claims they were? The actual quote says there were "many females", but I don't think you can provide the name of even one, can you?

. You also admit there is no statement of being forced against there will.

I admitted to error in claiming that women were forced to marry him, however, I know of no evidence that shows Joseph Smith ever tried to coerce women to marry him and threaten them with death if they were to tell anyone or that he damned them and had them sent away if they refused. Can you provide the evidence? If not, then you must agree that it was a lie.

What is the lie in the paragraph pertaining to the accusation of spiritual wife?

Frankly, I have a hard time taking anyone seriously who asks such a question. Here is the text of the section you are referring to, you tell me if you think every word is the absolute truth:

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, as they supposed, to glorify God, that they might thereby stand acquitted in the great day of God Almighty. But what is taught them on their arrival at this place? -- They are visited by some of the Strikers, for we know not what else to call them, and are requested to hold on and be faithful, for there are great blessings awaiting the righteous; and that God has great mysteries in store for those who love the Lord, and cling to brother Joseph. They are also notified that brother Joseph will see them soon, and reveal the mysteries of Heaven to their full understanding, which seldom fails to inspire them with new confidence in the Prophet, as well as a great anxiety to know what God has laid up in store for them, in return for the great sacrifice of father and mother, of gold and silver, which they gladly left far behind, that they might be gathered into the fold, and numbered among the chosen of God. -- They are visited again, and what is the result? They are requested to meet brother Joseph, or some of the Twelve, at some insulated point, or at some particularly described place on the bank of the Mississippi, or at some room, which wears upon its front -- Positively NO admittance. The harmless, inoffensive, and unsuspecting creatures, are so devoted to the Prophet, and the cause of Jesus Christ, that they do not dream of the deep-laid and fatal scheme which prostrates happiness, and renders death itself desirable, but they meet him, expecting to receive through him a blessing, and learn the will of the Lord concerning them, and what awaits the faithful follower of Joseph, the Apostle and Prophet of God, when in the stead thereof, they are told, after having been sworn in one of the most solemn manners, to never divulge what is revealed to them, with a penalty of death attached, that God Almighty has revealed it to him, that she should be his (Joseph's) Spiritual wife; for it was right anciently, and God will tolerate it again: but we must keep those pleasures and blessings from the world, for until there is a change in the government, we will endanger ourselves by practicing it -- but we can enjoy the blessings of Jacob, David, and others, as well as to be deprived of them, if we do not expose ourselves to the law of the land. She is thunder-struck, faints, recovers, and refuses. The Prophet damns her if she rejects. She thinks of the great sacrifice, and of the many thousand miles she has traveled over sea and land, that she might save her soul from pending ruin, and replies, God's will be done, and not mine. The Prophet and his devotees in this way are gratified. The next step to avoid public exposition from the common course of things, they are sent away for a time, until all is well; after which they return, as from a long visit. Those whom no power or influence could seduce, except that which is wielded by some individual feigning to be a God, must realize the remarks of an able writer, when he says, "if woman's feelings are turned to ministers of sorrow, where shall she look for consolation?" Her lot is to be wooed and won; her heart is like some fortress that has been captured, sacked abandoned, and left desolate. With her, the desire of the heart has failed -- the great charm of existence is at an end; she neglects all the cheerful exercises of life, which gladen the spirits, quicken the pulses, and send the tide of life in healthful currents through the veins. Her rest is broken. The sweet refreshment of sleep is poisoned

What do you say, is this completely accurate?

Edited August 15, 2013 by T-Shirt

[foster]

T-shirt, the lack of England not being mentioned, completely and utterly changes your point. Your point was, that no plural wife of Joseph Smith was from England. Your point now is that no plural wife of Joseph Smith is foreigner.

Pertaining to your claim of women forced against their will, you now claim the penalty of death is a lie and it seems you want this to be a lie simply because there is no evidence you know of. As I understand it, Temple content is not permitted to be discussed, suffice it say there is a basis for the Expositor to claim penalty of death for discussing the matters revealed.

Lastly, does the lack of evidence make a claim a lie? If the answer is no, then why must I accept something is a lie due to lack of evidence some 150 years after the fact?

[cdowis]

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

 

His purpose was to cause destruction and chaos by inflaming the antimormons, not to save people.

[Scott Lloyd]

Lastly, does the lack of evidence make a claim a lie? If the answer is no, then why must I accept something is a lie due to lack of evidence some 150 years after the fact?

In law, logic and life, the burden of proof is always on the accuser.

The reason for this should be obvious to you. Because of the ease with which malicious or ill-disposed individuals can harm or destroy a victim's reputation, a reasonable and just person does not accept an accusation as true that is not substantiated.

Edited August 16, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Pertaining to your claim of women forced against their will, you now claim the penalty of death is a lie and it seems you want this to be a lie simply because there is no evidence you know of. As I understand it, Temple content is not permitted to be discussed, suffice it say there is a basis for the Expositor to claim penalty of death for discussing the matters revealed.

As one acquainted with temple content, I denounce this as a distortion.

[Scott Lloyd]

T-shirt, the lack of England not being mentioned, completely and utterly changes your point. Your point was, that no plural wife of Joseph Smith was from England. Your point now is that no plural wife of Joseph Smith is foreigner.

Pointless quibbling.

[David T]

As one acquainted with temple content, I denounce this as a distortion.

 

To be fair, Nauvoo and even 19th-early 20th Century Utah Era Temple Content is explicitly different in significant ways than even pre-1990 mid-to-late 20th Century Temple Content. Including the in-ceremony explanation of the meaning of certain acts. To be more specific, there was a particularly significant and meaningful change in wording in the 1920s that directly effect the topic at hand.

Edited August 16, 2013 by David T

[foster]

In law, logic and life, the burden of proof is always on the accuser.

The reason for this should be obvious to you. Because of the ease with which malicious or ill-disposed individuals can harm or destroy a victim's reputation, a reasonable and just person does not accept an accusation as true that is not substantiated.

 

The accusation, having never seen a court of law with the original witnesses and accusers, and which occurred over 150 years can not be automatically assumed a lie. Does any one really live by the Mantra "There is no evidence therefore it is

As one acquainted with temple content, I denounce this as a distortion.

  I suggest you look up an interview with Elder Holland and a Mr. Sweney from the BBC.

Pointless quibbling.

No more pointless than T-shirts original point.

Concerning the Expositor, I do not believe everything it it was a lie. I believe it contained editorialized, emotional rhetoric of which is not uncommon in even todays so called "news" outlets, blogs, or other media. The Church has even stated "In the mid-19th century, when rhetorical, emotional oratory was common,..." I ager with and would add that, in my opinion, the people of that time where prone to blovating when it came to defense of self or attack of foe.

[foster]

Edit to post 73: Dora anyone really live by the mantra "There is no evidence, therefore it is a lie."

[David T]

  I suggest you look up an interview with Elder Holland and a Mr. Sweney from the BBC.

 

That is completely irrelevant to Law's experience, as per my previous post. Scott is personally acquainted with the pre-1990 ritual by experience, and his statement is accurate only insomuch as it pertains to his (and, for that matter, Elder Holland's) temple experience. It is not incorrect to say that from the late 1920s forward, no one has sworn in the Temple that they are willing to be put to death as the result of revealing anything. And even prior to that, there is no evidence of anyone ever having to have any affirmed covenant willingness seen through to any fulfillment.

 

Did Law ceremonially make an oath that his life could be forfeit if he revealed confidences? Most likely. Were there those who were intending to see that through? Less likely. Could Law have been afraid some would be tempted to see his oaths literally through? More likely.

 

While certain actions remained in the temple post 1920s, the explicit stated meaning given to them was substantially altered from what one affirmed one was willing to be penalized with, to a symbolic affirmation as to what one would rather have done to them than be willing to divulge a sacred confidence. It is a nuance, but a substantial, important one.

Edited August 16, 2013 by David T