So The Nauvoo Expositor Was Right Afterall

[Calm]

The Laws were not among the nine people indicted for the Smiths' murder. Willard Richards claimed they were present, but I don't buy it.

 

Thanks for the info….

[volgadon]

You are grasping at straws.  There are two big-picture details you are not addressing:

 

1- This story is entirely consistent with what we now know is the truth about Joseph Smith's polygamy.  On the major points, it nails the details exactly.  That is why you are grasping to find fault with insiginficant details (e.g. where the various wives were born).

 

The major points are so general that they are pretty meaningless. Joseph Smith had multiple wives, he kept it secret, and some of them were depressed? is that really enough of a convergence to establish the veracity of Law's specific claims?

 

2- The specific truth about the specific marriages we know about is every bit as damning to Joseph Smith's reputation as the generic story told in the Expositor; if William Law's motive was simply to cause outrage among the Saints, all he needed to do was tell them the truth.  To outrage the Saints, he had absolutely no reason to lie, exagerate, or use shocking prose.  All he needed to do was tell them truth.

 

 

Pretty weak. Using that logic, no lie is ever a lie because the truth might be damning enough.

[Analytics]

The major points are so general that they are pretty meaningless. Joseph Smith had multiple wives, he kept it secret, and some of them were depressed? is that really enough of a convergence to establish the veracity of Law's specific claims?

 

 

Pretty weak. Using that logic, no lie is ever a lie because the truth might be damning enough.

 

The major points are meaningless?  At the time, the D&C said, "Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again."  There is nothing the least bit "meaningless" about Joseph Smith coercing women into secret marriages in blatant violation of the laws of the Church, as published in the D&C.

[theplains]

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

 

Fortunately for those who don't agree with all the past and present teachings of the Mormon Church,

the Latter-day Saints are more docile today.

 

Regards,

Jim

[pogi]

Fortunately for those who don't agree with all the past and present teachings of the Mormon Church,

the Latter-day Saints are more docile today.

 

 

Apparently you haven't met my mother-in-law.

 

Fortunate for us, those who don't agree with us are more docile as well.  Fortunate for them, they don't treat us as they once did, or they would see how docile we really are.   

[LinuxGal]

Apparently you haven't met my mother-in-law.

 

 

I always thought that polygamy contained it's own built-in punishment, which is, of course, multiple mothers in law.

[Calm]

Do you have children?   If so, it is likely that someday you will be a mother-in-law (if you aren't already).  Do you intend to be a punishment to your kids' spouses?

[LinuxGal]

Do you have children?   If so, it is likely that someday you will be a mother-in-law (if you aren't already).  Do you intend to be a punishment to your kids' spouses?

 

That was a test to see if anyone had a sense of humor.  

[bluebell]

That was a test to see if anyone had a sense of humor.

Maybe it was a test to see if you are funny.

[ERayR]

Fortunately for those who don't agree with all the past and present teachings of the Mormon Church,

the Latter-day Saints are more docile today.

 

Regards,

Jim

 

When one doesn't need to repel physical assault it mat seem so.

 

Today the persecution is verbal instead of physical assaults. 

[ERayR]

That was a test to see if anyone had a sense of humor.  

 

Why at the expense of mothers-in-law.

[Calm]

never mind...

Edited November 26, 2014 by calmoriah

[volgadon]

The major points are meaningless?  At the time, the D&C said, "Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again."  There is nothing the least bit "meaningless" about Joseph Smith coercing women into secret marriages in blatant violation of the laws of the Church, as published in the D&C.

 

Your response makes it seem like you don't have much of an argument left, so you resort to emotional appeals. I said nothing whatsoever about any of that. What I did say is that the points of convergence which you presented were meaningless for establishing the truth of Law's specific claims.

[why me]

 

Actually, we are simply assuming that the Saints thought Joseph Smith was honest.

 

 

I think that joseph himself would be the first to claim that he was not perfect. In fact, I think that on occasions he spoke about this:

 

I love that man better who swears a stream as long as my arm, and administering to the poor and dividing his substance, than the long smooth faced hypocrites. I don't want you to think I am very righteous, for I am not very righteous. God judgeth men according to the light he gives them.

 

Words of Joseph Smith, p.204 (18 May 1843)

 

What is interesting is that whatever was denied during Joseph's time in Nauvoo, polygamy began to be practiced openly after his death. So, I don't think that polygamy was that much of a surprise for the early saints. I do think that if the mormons were allowed the freedom of their religion, issues such as polygamy would have been practiced openly and not denied.

Edited November 26, 2014 by why me

[why me]

 

 

 

. I see his newspaper venture as an idealistic, somewhat naive attempt to unmask Joseph and destroy his influence, not as something calculated to incite murder or mobbings. I don't think he had any hand in the events at Carthage.

 

 

He must have known of the hostility that the mormons were generating outside of nauvoo. Even the nauvoo expositor has a reference to the warsaw signal and its antimormon reporting. I don't think that he was as innocent as you believe. Law was certainly not stupid. Perhaps his newspaper beginnings had its foundation in his hurt and disappointment. But the reporting about the mormons in the newspaper would certainly add to the antimormon hysteria. It certainly wouldn't quell it.

[Calm]

According to my reading of the Wiki, Law joined in 1836 but came straight from Canada to Nauvoo in 39.  I am curious how much of the persecution he went through, did he join during a quiet period and so perhaps wasn't as sensitive to the possibility of mob violence as we would think he was looking back on what the Saints had gone through before his joining them?

 

OTOH, I read elsewhere that he settled in Nauvoo in 41….which would have had him join the main body of the Saints after the worse of the settlement was over so even more likely to be less likely to be hyperaware of problems as might be expected by those who had gone through the attacks and various resettlements.

Edited November 26, 2014 by calmoriah

[theplains]

Today the persecution is verbal instead of physical assaults. 

 

Maybe both groups can work to tone down the rhetoric so these attacks become

theological differences instead.

 

I suppose the Christians in Joseph Smith's time also felt persecuted when he vollied the

first salvo of JSH 1:19 at them.  Things may have been different if he did not say those

words. But then again, the LDS Church had to differentiate itself from JW and SDA and

thus promoted the premise of the need for a total restoration.

 

Regards,

Jim

[ERayR]

Maybe both groups can work to tone down the rhetoric so these attacks become

theological differences instead.

 

Regards,

Jim

 

Example please.

[Mars]

Mormons - 1830

 

Jehovah's Witnesses - Late 1800s - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses

 

Seventh Day Adventists - 1863 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh-day_Adventist_Church

 

(If you take wiki as a solid source, that is...)

 

I wouldn't say Joseph Smith chose his words in order to separate himself from those two.  Anthropologically speaking, I suppose it's possible that to start a new religion, a founder must necessarily find a sweet spot of distance between new and old. 

 

After having been told by a several Christans, directly and to my face, that I'm going to hell for the sin of being incorrect and believing in the wrong Jesus, I guess I don't mind a few feathers being ruffled by words like "their creeds are an abomination."

 

Just me, tho.

Edited November 26, 2014 by Mars

[Mars]

You know, as another thought, my previous post seems to imply a cycle of ***-for-tat, which I don't really want to get into.

 

I can see why Christians, especially those in the American Protestant traditions, would be upset by that statement.  I don't think it means, and I certainly don't think the Lord thought it meant, that those who honestly followed God as they saw fit are an abomination.  Or that their beliefs are so unworthy of praise that the only way to characterize them is with incendiary language.

 

While it's true I've had my fair share of "you're going to hell" moments, I've also had experiences with good and kind Christians who haven't reduced me to the lowest common denominator of Mormon-going-to-hell, and who have respected me and my beliefs.

Edited November 26, 2014 by Mars

[cinepro]

According to my reading of the Wiki, Law joined in 1836 but came straight from Canada to Nauvoo in 39.  I am curious how much of the persecution he went through, did he join during a quiet period and so perhaps wasn't as sensitive to the possibility of mob violence as we would think he was looking back on what the Saints had gone through before his joining them?

 

OTOH, I read elsewhere that he settled in Nauvoo in 41….which would have had him join the main body of the Saints after the worse of the settlement was over so even more likely to be less likely to be hyperaware of problems as might be expected by those who had gone through the attacks and various resettlements.

 

He arrived in Nauvoo in November of 1839.  He was called to the First Presidency in 1841.

[why me]

According to my reading of the Wiki, Law joined in 1836 but came straight from Canada to Nauvoo in 39.  I am curious how much of the persecution he went through, did he join during a quiet period and so perhaps wasn't as sensitive to the possibility of mob violence as we would think he was looking back on what the Saints had gone through before his joining them?

 

OTOH, I read elsewhere that he settled in Nauvoo in 41….which would have had him join the main body of the Saints after the worse of the settlement was over so even more likely to be less likely to be hyperaware of problems as might be expected by those who had gone through the attacks and various resettlements.

We would need to assume that Law knew of the persecution. He also knew of the antimormon sentiment outside of Nauvoo because it is reported in the Nauvoo Expositor. He must have known that such descriptions of Joseph Smith and other leaders in his newspaper would not help the situation outside Nauvoo. I think that the paper was a personal vendetta against the church leaders. It was not just a paper against joseph but also his brother and other leaders. Law knew what he was doing by publishing such a newpaper.

[volgadon]

You know, as another thought, my previous post seems to imply a cycle of ***-for-tat, which I don't really want to get into.

 

I can see why Christians, especially those in the American Protestant traditions, would be upset by that statement.  I don't think it means, and I certainly don't think the Lord thought it meant, that those who honestly followed God as they saw fit are an abomination.  Or that their beliefs are so unworthy of praise that the only way to characterize them is with incendiary language.

 

While it's true I've had my fair share of "you're going to hell" moments, I've also had experiences with good and kind Christians who haven't reduced me to the lowest commond denominator of Mormon-going-to-hell, and who have respected me and my beliefs.

 

It is not like the Second Great Awakening lacked in harsh, polemical accusations directed towards other groups.

[Mars]

It is not like the Second Great Awakening lacked in harsh, polemical accusations directed towards other groups.

 

They didn't mince words, did they?

[Anteojito]

We would need to assume that Law knew of the persecution. He also knew of the antimormon sentiment outside of Nauvoo because it is reported in the Nauvoo Expositor. He must have known that such descriptions of Joseph Smith and other leaders in his newspaper would not help the situation outside Nauvoo. I think that the paper was a personal vendetta against the church leaders. It was not just a paper against joseph but also his brother and other leaders. Law knew what he was doing by publishing such a newpaper.

Are you saying that it was Law's intent that the paper would rile up a mob and cause violence to the Saints in general and Joseph Smith specifically? 

 

Remember, it wasn't the paper that riled up the mob, it was the destruction of the paper and press.

 

So Law's plan would have been to publish the paper, knowing Joesph Smith would order it's destruction and that would then be the catalyst to incite mob violence.