Anti-Mormon Lies In The Nauvoo Expositor

[why me]

From looking at what was published and how Smith & Co responded it looks to me as if Joseph was caught and reacted with violence, the same as he was known to do when he was questioned at times.

It is a shame the press was destroyed as it would be interesting to see what succeeding papers would publish.

I don't think that joseph was caught. Polygamy was not that much of a secret among the mormons. After all Joseph would ask the relatives if it were okay. I am sure that the word spread fast. Also, was Joseph the only one practicing polygamy in nauvoo? How did he react with violence. The town council voted to close it down. So, they closed it down. I do believe that Law meant to rile the mobs about polygamy and attempted to sow problems within the mormon community. The paper deserved to be closed down since the saints were heavily persecuted in missouri...which they wanted to avoid in nauvoo.

[why me]

Have read the Expositor as well as what you guys are writing on it and I can't see any Lies. Each of what some of you say are lies are accurate descriptions of what these members saw.

 

What about inciteful language, language designed to incite public outrage? I think that we need to remember the persecution complex that many members were experiencing back then after having their missouri experience. I think that the community supported the closure but I could be wrong about this.

[USU78]

I don't think that joseph was caught. Polygamy was not that much of a secret among the mormons. After all Joseph would ask the relatives if it were okay. I am sure that the word spread fast. Also, was Joseph the only one practicing polygamy in nauvoo? How did he react with violence. The town council voted to close it down. So, they closed it down. I do believe that Law meant to rile the mobs about polygamy and attempted to sow problems within the mormon community. The paper deserved to be closed down since the saints were heavily persecuted in missouri...which they wanted to avoid in nauvoo.

 

My great-great aunt was a great friend of the Murdock girl in Nauvoo (whom Joseph and Emma raised), and spent a great deal of time in and about the Mansion House.  Years later she reported, sniffing about JSIII's maintaining "no polygamy in Nauvoo," telling about how JSIII would tease and flirt with the other younger women who lived in the Mansion House, much to the Murdock girl's shock.  "People think they just work here," she confided, "But they're really Father's [JSJr's] wives."

 

It was a very open "secret," and I personally question the stories of those who claimed to have been in the dark, like JSIII and Emma.  No way could JSJr have conducted live-in marriages with those girls who were part of his household without Emma knowing . . . or JSIII.

 

Polygyny's "exposure" and the "shock and outrage" in the community were, just as now, an excuse to do what one was/is otherwise inclined to do.

[why me]

It is a shame the press was destroyed as it would be interesting to see what succeeding papers would publish.

One just needed to read the Warsaw newspaper. The expositor would have been no different. For example:

 

 

THE  QUESTION OF  COMPROMISE.

Mr. Gregg: -- in your paper published on the 10th inst., we find some remarks on the fifficulties which occured between the Carthagenians and the Mormons on Monday and Tuesday last, in which I think may be seen a strong squinting at a disposition to compromise with that people. Your closing paragraph runs thus:

"As a means of bringing about so desirable a result, we respectfully suggest that a public meeting of all parties be called, to meet at Carthage on as early a day as practicable to take into consideration the grievances and their remedy. What say you, fellow citizens?"

As for one, I say, NO Never!! Just as well might you call upon us to strike hands with Pirates or to compromise with the Powers of Darkness. Who is there amongst us so wanting in discrimination as not to be able to see, that a community constructed as is that at Nauvoo, headed by a leader so destitute of every moral principle, as we know Jo Smith to be, can be trusted? -- obeying a leader most implicitly who in their very midst has committed so long a catalogue of the most adominable acts, of which the imagination of man can conceive; attempting at the same time to cloak all his outrages under the sacred garb of religion, and that too, the pure and holy religion of Jesus Christ! In view of such wonderful presumption, I am constrained to cry out -- "O blasphemous wretch! Who can trust him?" I repeat it most emphatically, "Let no such man be trusted!" I again answer, I can make no compromise with Nauvoo, as a community, while it avows allegiance to the Beast and the False Prophet. If there are those, as you suggest, who would be willing to rid themselves and the country, of the evils growing out of the mad projects of that presumptuous wretch, let them show their faith by works, and come out, and disabuse themselves of the odium which cleaves to them like the fatal shirt of Nessus, and that will suffice me. For I hold that the little philosophy which I can lay claim to, has never yet taught me that when I see a thief, and other partakers with him, that these last can be honest men! No, Sir, I can never compromise with Jo Smith; nor yet with a community who consider his will as their pleasure -- no matter how absurd. And more especially cannot I compromise with Jo Smith, until I shall have seen his inflated vanity and his intoerable audacity humbled and subdued. I have seen too much of his treachery, and felt too much of his dastardly tyranny, when in the plenitude of his power, he expected no resistance. Who, then, in view of such a being, but with the full assurance that so soon as he shall have found himself in a situation to crush them with impunity, that he will not withold his hand for a moment? These are my feelings: They are the feelings of one who presumes to subscribe himself,        --- Hannibal.

 

 

 

Which got this response from the paper:

 

Remarks on the Above.

WE are glad that our Query has brought so prompt an answer -- though so unfavorable to our own views. One has spoken, -- and he has spoken, no doubt, the sentiments of many -- and we desire a further expression, on the part of our citizens. Our columns are always open to well tempered articles on a subject so momentous. Again we ask -- Fellow Citizens, what say you?

We acknowledge, that, inview of all the circumstances -- regarding the high state of excitement which has been produced upon the public mind -- the danger there is of collision and bloodshed, and consequent misery and ruin and death, to hundreds of innocent people -- in view of all these things, we have a "strong squinting at compromise." Rather thando worse, we would "strike hands with Pirates, or compromise with the Powers of Darkness" -- so far, at least, as to agree to a system of non-intercourse. We would not compromise with Joe Smith one inch, in the acknowledgement of his right to plunder, and destroy, and tyrannize, and dupe, as he is doing; or that he is any thing short of a demon in human shape, sent to scourge mankind. But we do believe that there are "ten righteous persons in the city" -- yes, fifty times ten -- who are innocent of any intention to do wrong. And, shall they, too, suffer? Shall there be no discrimination made between these, and that ruthless and guilty band, who disregard all law and all right? Shall all be made to suffer alike -- the innocent with the guilty. God forbid!

We see no use in attempting to disguise the fact, that many in our midst contemplate a total extermination of that people; that the thousands of defenceless women and children, aged and infirm, who are congregated at Nauvoo, must be driven out -- aye, DRIVEN -- SCATTERED -- like the leaves before the Autumn blast! But what good citizen, let us ask -- what lover of his country and his race, but contemplates such an event with horror?

Shall not, we would ask -- shall not the olive branch be at least held out to those innocent -- though deluded -- followers of the prophet? Shall not an attempt be made to set them right, in reference to the designs and aims of those, whom they have heretofore been taught to regard as their wirst enemies?

We still persist in the opinion that a compromise may be ebtered into that will do much good; that will, in its operation, entirely stay the work of destruction. And we call upon all our fellow citizens to aid in bringing about such a compromise.

 

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/IL/sign1844.htm

 

It seems that the mobs wanted extermination. The Expositor would have hastened that event.

Edited August 16, 2013 by why me

[USU78]

Is there any difference between the terms"plural marriage" and polygamy? Someone in this thread objected to the term polygamy.

 

Why not call it by the name its practitioners used:  "The Principle"?

[Calm]

Why not call it by the name its practitioners used:  "The Principle"?

That might be confusing to those not familiar with the term.  Since they also used "Plural Marriage" I still vote for that.  

[why me]

It was a very open "secret," and I personally question the stories of those who claimed to have been in the dark, like JSIII and Emma.  No way could JSJr have conducted live-in marriages with those girls who were part of his household without Emma knowing . . . or JSIII.

 

Polygyny's "exposure" and the "shock and outrage" in the community were, just as now, an excuse to do what one was/is otherwise inclined to do.

Reading the Warsaw paper where the editor admitted that many people wanted to exterminate the mormons, and knowing that the people of nauvoo probably read that newspaper, I can see why they wanted the expositor closed down. When the saints left nauvoo for brighter pastures away from the maddening mobs, polygamy was practiced openly because the saints felt more safe in practicing it.

[why me]

Or in the words of one of his plural wives:

 

One of the Prophet’s plural wives, having lived three years in his home, reflected late in her life, “I have known of his outgoings, and his incomings, his sorrows and joys, his troubles and afflictions in public and in private. He was one of the noblest of men and those who knew him best, loved him most.”¹⁴

 

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/09/joseph-smiths-reputation?lang=eng

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't know what you think you're disagreeing with me about. All of those men who were authorized to practice plural marriage, or even monogomous marriage sealings (not called spiritual wifery by any of them) by Joseph were initiated into the Quorum of the Anointed - IE, those who had participated in the Endowment and associated rituals - (and were also mostly Masons) - and had indeed made oaths in more than one context not to reveal this information.

I think (though I'm not sure) his intent in that post was to carry on his argument with me that he doesn't need evidence to believe an accusation is true.

[theplains]

Anyone care to defend these men behind the Expositor?

 

Thanks for providing part 1 and 2.  Very indepth.

 

Were any of the men who contributed to this article, denouncing Joseph Smith and some

of his associates, Mormon themselves?    Disregard, I saw it mentioned in one of the parts.

 

Regards,

Jim

Edited August 16, 2013 by theplains

[cinepro]

My great-great aunt was a great friend of the Murdock girl in Nauvoo (whom Joseph and Emma raised), and spent a great deal of time in and about the Mansion House.  Years later she reported, sniffing about JSIII's maintaining "no polygamy in Nauvoo," telling about how JSIII would tease and flirt with the other younger women who lived in the Mansion House, much to the Murdock girl's shock.  "People think they just work here," she confided, "But they're really Father's [JSJr's] wives."

 

It was a very open "secret," and I personally question the stories of those who claimed to have been in the dark, like JSIII and Emma.  No way could JSJr have conducted live-in marriages with those girls who were part of his household without Emma knowing . . . or JSIII.

 

Polygyny's "exposure" and the "shock and outrage" in the community were, just as now, an excuse to do what one was/is otherwise inclined to do.

 

 So if Emma didn't know about it, it's her fault for believing her husband?

[foster]

I think (though I'm not sure) his intent in that post was to carry on his argument with me that he doesn't need evidence to believe an accusation is true.

Respectfully, you have my intent incorrect. Tshirt position can be described as "the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence". I, nor anyone, is obligated to believe the lack of evidence "X" means "X" is a lie. How much of the gospel lacks evidence? Is everything for one has no evidence a lie. For example, prior to the evidence of planetary rotation, was it a lie that the earth revolved around the sun? If I go to the most remote place on earth and tell someone of Jesus Christ, am I lieing to that person? I find it doubtful you believe everything you have no evidence for is a lie.

[foster]

Why not call it by the name its practitioners used:  "The Principle"?

  

That might be confusing to those not familiar with the term.  Since they also used "Plural Marriage" I still vote for that.  

Not to belabor the point, but for your consideration:

"And I would say, as no man can be perfect without the woman, so no woman can be perfect without a man to lead her. I tell you the truth as it is in the bosom of eternity; and I say to every man upon the face of the earth, if he wishes to be saved, he cannot be saved without a woman by his side. This is spiritual wifeism, that is, the doctrine of spiritual wives." ~ Brigham Young, Times and Seasons, Vol. VI, p. 955.

[foster]

Provided that in modern general understanding "marriage" implies sexual intercourse, to me using the term plural marriage or even polygamy inadvertently suggests sexual intercourse; quite the contrary, in my opinion, with the phrase "spiritual wife", "spiritual wifery", or "spiritual wifeism".

[Calm]

  

Not to belabor the point, but for your consideration:

"And I would say, as no man can be perfect without the woman, so no woman can be perfect without a man to lead her. I tell you the truth as it is in the bosom of eternity; and I say to every man upon the face of the earth, if he wishes to be saved, he cannot be saved without a woman by his side. This is spiritual wifeism, that is, the doctrine of spiritual wives." ~ Brigham Young, Times and Seasons, Vol. VI, p. 955.

You have convinced me that there is a possibility that "spiritual wifery" was acceptable, but while this is practically the same (which does make it much more likely the similar term was not seem as an insult), I still would be reluctant due to the tendency of people to look at variations of the same word in different ways (a really obvious example is how turning a name  into a childish version can be seen as insulting given the tone that goes with it).  If I had not heard so often and if David T had not provided some confirmation here that "spiritual wifery" was seen as a derogatory version I would be happy to go further.

 

However you should also remember you are using the term to talk to modern Saints here and since most of us who are familiar with the term likely believe it is meant to be insulting in the here and now because of the way critics and antis have often used it, then for this audience it is also wisdom to use "plural marriage" which is the only term I am aware of that readily identifies what we are talking about and has no negative baggage (well, beyond the topic itself).  In every new conversation, I suspect you would have to justify your use of the term as you are doing here.  If the reason you are using it here is because you saw it as more precise and thus leading to less qualifications in discussions, then you are defeating your own purpose.

 

Since most LDS will associate "spiritual wifery" with John Bennett, that would definitely be associated with sexual activity in my view.  As far as the other terms, I think if you use them in conversations, you will have to explain what you mean, being unfamiliar.  And I highly doubt that BY meant no sexual activity when he used the term "spiritual wifeism".  

Edited August 17, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Provided that in modern general understanding "marriage" implies sexual intercourse, to me using the term plural marriage or even polygamy inadvertently suggests sexual intercourse; quite the contrary, in my opinion, with the phrase "spiritual wife", "spiritual wifery", or "spiritual wifeism".

And this is a problem why?

[USU78]

 So if Emma didn't know about it, it's her fault for believing her husband?

 

CFR that Emma didn't know about it.

[David T]

CFR that Emma didn't know about it.

 

At the beginning, she didn't know. And then she did, and was opposed. And then conditionally accepted it. And then was opposed again. Emma's story is highly complicated, and heartbreaking. During most of these periods, marriages occurred that Emma was not aware of (if I recall correctly, during the period she accepted it, she participated in a marriage ceremony for plural wives Joseph had already been married to prior!).- I think a key evidential point is that Emma wasn't the fist woman sealed to Joseph.

 

I don't have my reference books (IE, The 3 volumes of Joseph Smith's Polygamy by Brian Hales - THE reference source to everything JS Polygamy related. Seriously. Absolutely everything known to exist on the subject is in here.) handy on this moment to give you the references, but I will provide them later if someone else doesn't in the meantime.

Edited August 19, 2013 by David T

[Closet Doubter]

I don't think that joseph was caught. Polygamy was not that much of a secret among the mormons. After all Joseph would ask the relatives if it were okay. I am sure that the word spread fast. Also, was Joseph the only one practicing polygamy in nauvoo? How did he react with violence. The town council voted to close it down. So, they closed it down. I do believe that Law meant to rile the mobs about polygamy and attempted to sow problems within the mormon community. The paper deserved to be closed down since the saints were heavily persecuted in missouri...which they wanted to avoid in nauvoo.

Where do those of you that seem to know church history well come off stating that polygamy wasn't a secret?  Are you purposefully being less than truthful?  Several weeks before he was murdered, Joseph publicly denied polygamy.  When Joseph taught someone about polygamy those people were sworn to secrecy.  William Law was fed up with the teaching of polygamy (or celestial marriage, or the principal, or the new and everlasting covenant of marriage or whatever else you want to call it) in secret and then lying about it in public.  The rank and file membership that weren't in on the little secret but beleived their leaders were honest and upright, beleived the lies that they were being taught in public about polygamy being an apostate lie.

[why me]

Where do those of you that seem to know church history well come off stating that polygamy wasn't a secret?  Are you purposefully being less than truthful?  Several weeks before he was murdered, Joseph publicly denied polygamy.

I would have denied it too. To admit polygamy would have meant mobs at the gates of nauvoo. I think that for the safety of the saints it needed to be denied in public. I think that it was known more than it was unknown. One factor in this would be how it was openly practiced when the saints left nauvoo.

 

http://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V09N04_23.pdf

 

See pages 23-24

Edited August 19, 2013 by why me

[why me]

.  The rank and file membership that weren't in on the little secret but beleived their leaders were honest and upright, beleived the lies that they were being taught in public about polygamy being an apostate lie.

I think that you are wrong. The pages from the dialogue article that I linked to would verify that the members knew what was happening. They also knew that the nauvoo expositor needed to be closed down. I am sure that they supported the council's decision.

[Calm]

Two years difference between martyrdom and leaving Nauvoo...a lot of things can change in that time, including shared knowledge level among a community.

 

Leadership would have known, IIRC, but I would like to hear how well it was known among the Saints in general.

[Calm]

I think that you are wrong. The pages from the dialogue article that I linked to would verify that the members knew what was happening. 

quote please...no time to look for it in the small print...

Edited August 19, 2013 by calmoriah

[why me]

quote please...no time to look for it in the small print...

I tried to put the quotation from the article in. But it didn't work very well so I couldn't do it. The article says that a 37 page pamphlet was published in 1842 in defense of polygamy by the mormon press in nauvoo. It committed a brief furor in nauvoo. I have no idea however if the saints put two and two together. I would imagine so.

 

It is on pages 23-24 of the article.

Edited August 19, 2013 by why me

[why me]

You have convinced me that there is a possibility that "spiritual wifery" was acceptable, but while this is practically the same (which does make it much more likely the similar term was not seem as an insult), I still would be reluctant due to the tendency of people to look at variations of the same word in different ways (a really obvious example is how turning a name  into a childish version can be seen as insulting given the tone that goes with it).  If I had not heard so often and if David T had not provided some confirmation here that "spiritual wifery" was seen as a derogatory version I would be happy to go further.

However, Emily Partridge observed: "Spiritual wives, as we were then termed, were not very numerous in those days and a spiritual baby was a rarity indeed"

 

https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V27N01_13.pdf

 

See page 11 to read the quotation I have just written.