So The Nauvoo Expositor Was Right Afterall

[Mars]

I recently learned Joseph Smith charged a guy money for disagreeing (?) during a sermon. Sort of dictator like.

 

Do we need to spin the CFR wheel again?

 

Edit: I don't like 'CFR.'  Sounds like a jerk move.  I'd rather just say, all polite like, "Hey, so...  um..  Where'd you hear about that?"

Edited November 22, 2014 by Mars

[carbon dioxide]

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

The issue in my mind was the Expositor simply to give people accurate and unbias information or to stir up anger and contention against the Church and the people?  I don't think it was a legitimate journalistic publication.

[Anteojito]

Do we need to spin the CFR wheel again?

 

Edit: I don't like 'CFR.'  Sounds like a jerk move.  I'd rather just say, all polite like, "Hey, so...  um..  Where'd you hear about that?"

 

I don't like the term "CFR" either, but I used it because it seems to be a vernacular on this board

[Mars]

I understand.

 

I meant my 'CFR' to be a request to Tacenda to please provide a source for Joseph Smith walking up all Kim Jong Un like and telling a dude to pay up or suffer the consequences.

[Anteojito]

The issue in my mind was the Expositor simply to give people accurate and unbias information or to stir up anger and contention against the Church and the people?  I don't think it was a legitimate journalistic publication.

This was in the preamble of the paper:

 

"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. We all verily believe, and many of us know of a surety, that the religion of the Latter Day Saints, as originally taught by Joseph Smith, which is contained in the Old and New Testaments, Book of Covenants, and Book of Mormon, is verily true; and that the pure principles set forth in those books, are the immutable and eternal principles of Heaven, and speaks a language which, when spoken in truth and virtue, sinks deep into the heart of every honest man.--Its precepts are invigorating, and in every sense of the word, tend to dignify and ennoble man's conceptions of God and his atributes [sic]. It speaks a language which is heard amidst the roar of Artillery, as well as in the silence of midnight: it speaks a language understood by the incarcerated spirit, as well as he who is unfettered and free; yet to those who will not see, it is dark, mysterious, and secret as the grave."

 

 

From the introductory of the paper:

 

"The question is asked, will you bring a mob upon us? In answer to that, we assure all concerned, that we will be among the first to put down anything like an illegal force being used against any man or set of men. If any one has become amenable to the law, we wish to have him tried impartially by the laws of his country. We are among the number who believe that there is virtue and integrity enough in the administrators of the law, to bring every offender to justice, and to protect the innocent. If it is necessary to make a show of force, to execute legal process, it will create no sympathy in that case to cry out, we are mobbed. There is such a thing as persons being deceived into a false sympathy once, who, the second time, will scrutinize very closely, to know who, or which party, are the persecutors. It is not always the first man who cries out, stop thief, that is robbed. It is the upright, honest, considerate and moral precepts of any class that will be respected in this or any other enlightened age--precepts which have for their end the good of mankind, and the establishment of fundamental truths. On the other hand, paradoxical dogmas, new systems of government, new codes of morals, a new administration of the laws by ignorant, unlettered, and corrupt men, must be frowned down by every lover of his country. The well-being of society demand it at our hands. Our country, by whose laws we are protected, asks us for a manifestation of that patriotism which should inspire every American citizen--the interests of the State of Illinois require it, and as a citizen of Illinois, we intend to respond to the voice of duty, and stand the hazard of the die.

 

These don't seem like the words of people who wanted Joseph Smith dead.

 

The more I re-read the paper, the more my admiration for William Marks grows.

[Nevo]

Here are some entries from William Law's Nauvoo diary that give a sense of his personality:
 

8 [January 1844] I was passing along the street near my house, when call'd to by Joseph Smith, he said I was injuring him by telling evil of him, he could not name any one that I talked to, he said my wife was injuring him and that Wilson Law was doing so too; he could not give any authority but was very angry, and told me that I no longer had a place in the Quorum, and that he had cut me off from the first Presidency and appointed another in my place. Some unpleasant words ensued. I told him his cause was not only unjust but dishonourable, &c. &c.

I confess I feel annoyed very much by such unprecedented treatment for it is illegal, inasmuch as I was appointed by revelation (so called) first and twice after the unanimous voice of the general Conferences,—but I feel relieved from a most embarrassing situation I cannot fellowship the abominations which I verily know are practiced by this man, concequently I am glad to be free from him, and from so vile an association—

I thank God that he opened my understanding to know between truth and error, in relation to plurality & community of wives, and that I had fortitude to tell Joseph that it was of the Devil and that he should put it down & I feel that I have opposed a base error and that the eternal God is on my side, and if I am persecuted it is because I vindicate principles of virtue and justice, not that I wish to injure any man, but I love the truth, and hate to see the virtuous destroyed and brought down into corruption and vice, and finally cast upon the world as unclean—

 

March 29. Since my last conversation with Joseph Smith which was on the 8th Jan'y I have had no association with him, as I do not wish to associate with evil doers; he has in the meantime been using all his influence to destroy me, he has employed every vile and corrupt man and woman in the city over whom he has any power to circulate evil reports as false as the author of lies, about me and my wife, but he has failed to accomplish his object, for our names yet stand fair and untarnished in the estimation of the virtuous and the good; we find the better part of the community to be our friends; they feel disgusted with Smith's course for it has been most disgusting lothsome to the virtuous mind, lust, falsehood, injustice, and cruelty have characterized his course towards me & mine in such an unparalleled degree that the unprejudiced could not but see it, and abhor the man and his base acts,—

Hyrum Smith was here a few days ago. He beg'd for peace; we told him of the corrupt operation which had been practised upon us; he could not deny it, but said he was sorry as we had always been good friends to him and Joseph and had done much good for the church &c &c. I told him I was ready for an investigation before the Conference, and that there I would bring their abominations to light; he said there would not be an investigation before [the] Conference, that they wanted peace. I told him then to cease their abominations, for they were from Hell & that I knew it. he said they were not doing anything in the plurality of wife business now, and that he had published a piece against it; when I came to examine the piece referred to I found that it amounted to this, that no one should preach or practice such things unless by revelation (of course through Hyrum or Joseph). I told Hyrum that we stood defensive, we would defend the truth, we would defend ourselves both in character and in person.

 

Ap. 7. I have learned that my case cannot be brought before the Conference as the Smiths are determined that no exposure of their wicked deeds shall be made to the Conference, but if any charges be preferred they will insult and abuse the person daring to make the charges & then turn the investigation over to the High Council and some particular High Priests, so I have concluded to let the matter rest at present.

 

April 15. . . . Since Conference Almon Babbit came to me, and said, that Joseph Smith wished a reconciliation and that if I would let all drop and say nothing about it, and be friendly, he would restore me to my office of the first Presidency and raise me higher than ever, & would send me a writing to that effect. I told Mr. Babbit that I could not be bought, that if J. Smith wanted reconciliation with me he must make public acknowledgment and cease from his abominations &c.

(Quotes from Lyndon W. Cook, William Law. Biographical Essay, Nauvoo Diary, Correspondence, Interview [Orem, UT: Grandin Book Company, 1994], 46–50)

[volgadon]

The issue in my mind was the Expositor simply to give people accurate and unbias information or to stir up anger and contention against the Church and the people?  I don't think it was a legitimate journalistic publication.

 

Jacksonian era newspaper culture was rarely meant to be objective and unbiased. Such wasn't really seen as a virtue. It was highly partisan, and newspaper were more like extended op eds.

[Mars]

Also, FWIW, I can't find anything (read: I googled for 15 minutes and didn't find anything) that says Law led the charge at Carthage personally, or even that he was there during the mob conflict.

 

http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/history-2/nauvoo-polygamy-1844/  - this one says that Law was not there.

Edited November 22, 2014 by Mars

[Anteojito]

Also, FWIW, I can't find anything (read: I googled for 15 minutes and didn't find anything) that says Law led the charge at Carthage personally, or even that he was there during the mob conflict.

 

http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/history-2/nauvoo-polygamy-1844/  - this one says that Law was not there.

I thought you said this thread was a total face palm.

[Mars]

I thought you said this thread was a total face palm.

 

That hasn't changed.  It is.

 

But misinformation is misinformation.  Even if it would make Law a detestable character to have him at the fore of the mob which took the Prophet's life, if it ain't true, it ain't true.

[Guest]

I recently learned Joseph Smith charged a guy money for disagreeing (?) during a sermon. Sort of dictator like.

When did you find this on the Internet, if so must be true. A baseless charge followed by opinion. Edited November 22, 2014 by Pa Pa

[ERayR]

I recently learned Joseph Smith charged a guy money for disagreeing (?) during a sermon. Sort of dictator like.

 

Again I would like to see the references so  I must issue a CFR

[Tacenda]

If you will be so kind to wait for it, reference, I'd so appreciate it.

I heard the story when going through the channels on Wednesday night and saw Grant Palmer on Ancient Paths with Jason Wallace. I'm trying to get through to Grant to find out the reference. Had to contact MT on their website to ask. Don't know how to contact Palmer, figure they will. So see ERayR, I didn't come across it online. This was news to me.

And if the CFR is met, who cares who the messenger is. And really, it could have just been Joseph being a jokester.

[Mars]

If you will be so kind to wait for it, reference, I'd so appreciate it.

I heard the story when going through the channels on Wednesday night and saw Grant Palmer on Ancient Paths with Jason Wallace. I'm trying to get through to Grant to find out the reference. Had to contact MT on their website to ask. Don't know how to contact Palmer, figure they will. So see ERayR, I didn't come across it online. This was news to me.

And if the CFR is met, who cares who the messenger is. And really, it could have just been Joseph being a jokester.

 

Permit me to be a little condescending:

 

It may help next time to say "I saw on TV, can't remember the channel, where Grant Palmer was being interviewed and he related a story wherein Joseph Smith ..."

 

I mean at the very least, you really will be the messenger.

[ERayR]

If you will be so kind to wait for it, reference, I'd so appreciate it.

 So see ERayR, I didn't come across it online. This was news to me.

And if the CFR is met, who cares who the messenger is. And really, it could have just been Joseph being a jokester.

 

I don't think I said anything about your source.  I don't remember having heard of that.

[sunstoned]

The Nauvoo Expositor was wrong about Joseph and polygamy, and so is the church.

No this is not true.  The latest essay clearing states JS practice polygamy.  I know it is a hard pill to swallow, but you will just have to deal with it.

[Kenngo1969]

Anteojito,

 

I ask again, do you believe the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor press was a violation of the First Amendment?  If not, and if Joseph Smith followed legal advice and the ordinance then in effect that allowed the City Council to declare it a nuisance and for him to take action against it, on what basis (other than a legal basis) would you expect him to know that his action was wrongful/immoral?

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Selective, slanted presentation of fact, coupled with inflammatory rhetoric, can be and often is more damaging than overt falsehood.

I hate it when people say things that are true yet not helpful to my cause. I also hate it when people feel passionately and therefore speak passionately against a perceived wrong.

 

Yes, in this case the truth may be worse than overt falsehoods.

[carbon dioxide]

No this is not true.  The latest essay clearing states JS practice polygamy.  I know it is a hard pill to swallow, but you will just have to deal with it.

The expositor was right about JS practicing polygamy but was it right in explaining the practice?  Did it seek to give a honest, objective information or create scandel and hostility?  On one end is true journalism.   On the other is something like you would see in the National Enquirer.  About 5% truth and a whole lot of crap.

Edited November 22, 2014 by carbon dioxide

[HappyJackWagon]

 

 Did it seek to give a honest, objective information or create scandel and hostility?  On one end is true journalism.

If only they had better journalism schools in the 1840's this whole mess could have been avoided.

 

IF he was trying to create scandal, what was his end game? Get everyone mad at the church? Rile up a mob to kill JS? Or warn people about the secret and odious practice of polygamy. They're essentially the same questions you could ask about any whistleblower.

[CA Steve]

If only they had better journalism schools in the 1840's this whole mess could have been avoided.

 

IF he was trying to create scandal, what was his end game? Get everyone mad at the church? Rile up a mob to kill JS? Or warn people about the secret and odious practice of polygamy. They're essentially the same questions you could ask about any whistleblower.

So on the one hand Joseph marrying a 14 year old is not out of the ordinary and can be excused while on the other hand an inflammatory newspaper makes the authors despicable people.

[Silhouette]

So on the one hand Joseph marrying a 14 year old is not out of the ordinary and can be excused while on the other hand an inflammatory newspaper makes the authors despicable people.

Ouch! Touché! Man, I wish I had the full site so I could use that popcorn eatin' emoticon.

Edited November 22, 2014 by Silhouette

[omni]

I'm not sure why the need to defend Joseph at ask costs on this, some even going so far as to suggest God may have inspired him to destroy the press. IMO, it seems pretty reasonable to believe what Joseph did was wrong, but somewhat understandable considering what the Saints had gone through. I don't know if he ordered the press to be destroyed because he feared for their safety or because it spoke the unvarnished truth mixed with inflammatory rhetoric - probably a mix of both. I'm often reminded on this board that Joseph was "just a man" or was fallible - why can't this be one of his fallible moments?

[Kenngo1969]

OK.  On what basis, other than a legal basis (since the record shows that Joseph Smith sought and obtained legal advice about what to do about the Expositor) would you expect Joseph Smith to conclude that destruction of the press was wrong?  A lot of people have brought up the First Amendment; those people are ignorant of the fact that the First Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, had not yet been applied to protect people from overreaching by state and local governments.  The U.S. Supreme Court did not apply the Incorporation Doctrine to overreaching by state and local government until about the 1920s (and the Court didn't apply other protections of the Bill of Rights to state and local action until much later).  The City Council duly passed an ordinance under which Joseph Smith acted, having sought and obtained legal advice, abating the press as a nuisance. And he offered to compensate the press's owners, even though he was neither legally nor morally obligated to do so. What rationale do you have (or, for that matter, what rationale does anyone else have), other than applying a 20th-century legal concept to an action that took place in the mid-19th century, for concluding that Joseph Smith acted wrongfully?

[thesometimesaint]

So on the one hand Joseph marrying a 14 year old is not out of the ordinary and can be excused while on the other hand an inflammatory newspaper makes the authors despicable people.

 

When I was in HS 14 was the legal age of consent to marry.

 

Inciting murder isn't exactly what I'd call reputable.