So The Nauvoo Expositor Was Right Afterall

[Anteojito]

 I wonder if the Church will be updating the instructional manuals since they have admitted that Joseph Smith was practicing polygamy in Nauvoo?

 

"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." - Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Student Study Guide, (2005), 153–156

 

I think somebody owes William Law an apology. 

 

 

 

[Freedom]

So Joseph contributed to the early death of young women? Do you have some evidence to support this claim?

[Grundelwalken]

I wonder if the Church will be updating the instructional manuals since they have admitted that Joseph Smith was practicing polygamy in Nauvoo?

 

"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." - Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Student Study Guide, (2005), 153–156

 

I think somebody owes William Law an apology. 

I suppose if that was the only charge leveled against the Prophet and the Church by the apostates in their misspoken rag, some might be inclined to offer such. Since that was not the case, your answer would be no. But thanks for asking. MW

[Duncan]

It was the authors of the paper not the paper itself that made these claims

[JLHPROF]

 I wonder if the Church will be updating the instructional manuals since they have admitted that Joseph Smith was practicing polygamy in Nauvoo?

 

"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." - Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Student Study Guide, (2005), 153–156

 

I think somebody owes William Law an apology. 

 

 

Here's a whole thread on the subject...it's a bit outdated, but there you go - http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/12420-what-did-the-nauvoo-expositor-lie-about/

 

or here are some stupid statements from the Expositor:

 

JOSEPH'S NAUVOO WORSE THAN THE INQUISITION

“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.”

 

THE OLD LOST BOYS ARGUMENT

“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.”

 

and then there's the debatable claims about Joseph imprisoning women from foreign lands and threatening them with death if they didn't marry him.  Whether these are total "lies" or not they have been proven by scholars to be inaccurate.

[Anteojito]

Here's a whole thread on the subject...it's a bit outdated, but there you go - http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/12420-what-did-the-nauvoo-expositor-lie-about/

 

or here are some stupid statements from the Expositor:

 

JOSEPH'S NAUVOO WORSE THAN THE INQUISITION

“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.”

 

THE OLD LOST BOYS ARGUMENT

“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.”

 

and then there's the debatable claims about Joseph imprisoning women from foreign lands and threatening them with death if they didn't marry him.  Whether these are total "lies" or not they have been proven by scholars to be inaccurate.

And those statements justify destroying the press and trampling on the the first amendment?

[JLHPROF]

And those statements justify destroying the press and trampling on the the first amendment?

 

Didn't say that.  You asked for lies.  I gave you lies.

 

Justification for destroying the press is another subject.  And one that in a 21st Century United States discussion is nearly impossible to justify.

But I personally have no issue with the destruction of a press that spoke evil of the Lord's anointed prophet.  Anything spewing evil will be destroyed eventually.  Lucifer spoke out against the plan God chose for his children.  Lucifer will eventually be destroyed for speaking against God.  Think of the Expositor as a smaller mortal equivalent.

[cinepro]

Didn't say that.  You asked for lies.  I gave you lies.

 

Justification for destroying the press is another subject.  And one that in a 21st Century United States discussion is nearly impossible to justify.

But I personally have no issue with the destruction of a press that spoke evil of the Lord's anointed prophet.  Anything spewing evil will be destroyed eventually.  Lucifer spoke out against the plan God chose for his children.  Lucifer will eventually be destroyed for speaking against God.  Think of the Expositor as a smaller mortal equivalent.

A better response would have been for Joseph to publish two essays in the Times and Seasons explaining the religious and cultural context for what was happening (including the dynastic and non-physical nature of many of the sealings). I'm sure everyone, including Emma, would have felt much better.

Edited November 21, 2014 by cinepro

[Duncan]

And those statements justify destroying the press and trampling on the the first amendment?

 

 

do you have a problem with an anti Mormon mob destroying Phelps's printing press in July of 1833? in his home no less?

[Anteojito]

Didn't say that.  You asked for lies.  I gave you lies.

 

Justification for destroying the press is another subject.  And one that in a 21st Century United States discussion is nearly impossible to justify.

But I personally have no issue with the destruction of a press that spoke evil of the Lord's anointed prophet.  Anything spewing evil will be destroyed eventually.  Lucifer spoke out against the plan God chose for his children.  Lucifer will eventually be destroyed for speaking against God.  Think of the Expositor as a smaller mortal equivalent.

Actually the two examples you gave seem more like opinions to me. I think my point is still valid. he had no right destroying the press. And I will say that Joesph Smith did not deserve to die.

[Anteojito]

do you have a problem with an anti Mormon mob destroying Phelps's printing press in July of 1833? in his home no less?

Of course I have a problem with that. But that does not justify destroying William Law's press

[cinepro]

I suppose if that was the only charge leveled against the Prophet and the Church by the apostates in their misspoken rag, some might be inclined to offer such. Since that was not the case, your answer would be no. But thanks for asking. MW

I might be wrong, but I don't think the Expositor press was destroyed for the lies it told.  Just as with anti-Mormons today, the truth was much more dangerous...

 

AFFIDAVITS.

I hereby certify that Hyrum Smith did, (in his office,) read to me a certain written document, which he said was a revelation from God, he said that he was with Joseph when it was received. He afterwards gave me the document to read, and I took it to my house, and read it, and showed it to my wife, and returned it next day. the revelation (so called) authorized certain men to have more wives than one at a time, in this world and in the world to come. It said this was the law, and commanded Joseph to enter into the law.--And also that he should administer to others. Several other items were in the revelation, supporting the above doctrines.

WM. LAW

[LDSGuy]

In Joseph Smith's time freedom of the press, in the U.S. constitution, was a limit put on the Federal government. It was not necessarily a limit that applied to state and local governments.

[Anteojito]

In Joseph Smith's time freedom of the press, in the U.S. constitution, was a limit put on the Federal government. It was not necessarily a limit that applied to state and local governments.

Maybe. Still makes it wrong. Slavery was legal in his day too, but we don't excuse that. 

[Duncan]

Of course I have a problem with that. But that does not justify destroying William Law's press

 

 

or Phelps' press no less

[rodheadlee]

 I wonder if the Church will be updating the instructional manuals since they have admitted that Joseph Smith was practicing polygamy in Nauvoo?

 

"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." - Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Student Study Guide, (2005), 153–156

 

I think somebody owes William Law an apology. 

I'm willing to wait until Judegment Day and let Joseph Smith give that apology (if needed) to Wm Law in person. I don't see where it's really our place to judge that situation, we don't have all the info needed to do so. SInce Wm Law is dead too perhaps they have already spoken to each other.

[bluebell]

Maybe. Still makes it wrong. Slavery was legal in his day too, but we don't excuse that.

I'm not sure it does still make it wrong.

Some things are wrong because they are morally wrong, and some things are wrong because someone made a lay declaring they are wrong. Stealing, for example, is morally wrong. Jay walking on the other hand isn't morally wrong but is wrong only because someone decided it should be.

We can make a case for why slavery is morally wrong but I don't know that you could make a case for why destroying a printing press is morally wrong.

If you had to argue this idea in a country or place where freedom of speech isn't protected by law or was something the populace had never heard of before, could you convince them that people have a moral duty to allow others to say whatever they want?

What would you base your argument on?

[ERayR]

And those statements justify destroying the press and trampling on the the first amendment?

 

On frontier America, circa 1800's it was not uncommon to forcefully close down nuisance newspapers.

[Freedom]

At the time, it was legal and moral. You cannot apply todays standards to those of the early 1800s. But of course, this has nothing to do with the claim that started this discussion. 

[Sevenbak]

And those statements justify destroying the press and trampling on the the first amendment?

I wonder if you would string President Lincoln up with that same rope...

[readstoomuch]

Marvin Hall and Dallin Oaks wrote an ancient article about it being legal within the laws of the time.

[Anteojito]

I wonder if you would string President Lincoln up with that same rope...

Yes I would. We would never tolerate that today and it should not have been tolerated then. 

[halconero]

Yes I would. We would never tolerate that today and it should not have been tolerated then. 

 

A regular ole Abraham Africanus I.

[Sevenbak]

Yes I would. We would never tolerate that today and it should not have been tolerated then. 

And yet, Lincoln is revered as one of the best Presidents this country has had.  He made tough discussions that were unpopular with some, but kept unified what was his stewardship.  Joseph used the same justification, to keep united his people and the Lord's church.

 

If Lincoln wasn't enough of a comparison, what about Christ?  Those that espoused and revered the law above all else had him killed for not worshiping the law like they saw fit.

Edited November 21, 2014 by Sevenbak

[The Nehor]

I think somebody owes William Law an apology. 

 

I think William Law owes Emma Smith and her children an apology for contributing to the death of their husband/father.