So The Nauvoo Expositor Was Right Afterall

[Guest]

Where did I say "ok he lied but so did Joseph"?

 

Where did you get " William Law did what the did because if Joseph would not let him practice polygamy his way then he would seek to out Joseph in print! "

 

 

I think you maybe confusing William Law with John C. Bennett.

Could be, it has been a while since it all happened. The entire polygamy era of the Church is filled with unanswered questions. But William Law, used the press to establish his claims of his own Church...along with taking part in others acts to leading to Joseph's death, as did Joseph. My point being, the unwavering need (in this thread) to leave Joseph naked to the eyes of the reader while ignoring William Law, has no clothing.

[Stone holm]

Destruction of the press was problematical, but most certainly did not justify the killing of Joseph and Hyrum. One should also remember that discussing the First Amendment in terms of municipal action at that point in time is not legally correct. The First Amendment did not apply to municipalities until after the adoption of the 14th Amendment. Municipal latitude was at that time to abate nuisances would have been governed by the State Constitution or State Statutes or the Town Charter.

[volgadon]

Here is a sampling of newspaper reaction to the hostilities in Jackson County in 1833:

 

Good reading, thanks. In your opinion, when was there a stronger or more widespread condemnation, in 1833 or 1844, or were reactions broadly comparable?

[omni]

Well, your analogy is quite problematic:

-- There is scarcely any resemblance between the Church of Jesus Christ and the Warren Jeffs band.

-- The Deseret News is hardly prone to the sort of actions perpetrated by the Nauvoo Expositor.

-- We find ourselves more than a century-and-a-half removed from the time, setting and circumstances of 1840s Nauvoo.

I find it amusing when someone, to make a point, contrives the most outrageous analogy he can think of for comparison. it betrays some desperation.

Of course their is a resemblance between the FLDS and the early church, any objective observer would recognize this.

Do you also give the angry mob the defense of presentism? After all it could be argued they were just enacting frontier justice as retribution for the destruction of the press, polygamy, and the creation of a theocratic state. As for me I prefer to call a spade a spade and am happy with the label of "murderous mob".

 

You are out of the thread. Don't compare to criminals.

[taybme]

11 pages and I still havent seen anyone cite the factual error printed in the Expositor that justified its destruction.

[Analytics]

Have you read any of the responses on the first page of this thread? In case you have forgotten, the answer is yes, you have read the responses. The following was mentioned:

 

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....

 

Could you point out what, specifically, in this piece of prose you find to be libelous?

 

If you cut through the long-winded melodrama, your quote makes the following claim:

 

More than one young woman converted to the Church and immigrated to Nauvoo.  Once there, some senior members of the Church approached them and told them that Joseph Smith had a special blessing for them, and were instructed to meet with him at a secret time and place.  When they did, they were instructed to enter into a solemn oath with the penalty of death attached to it, and were then manipulated to become the secret polygamous “wife” of Joseph Smith or an apostle.  The women became extremely depressed about the whole affair, then fell sick and died.

 

What part about this do you think is libelous? 

 

I find the accusation quite not only plausible, but highly likely.  We know that Joseph Smith and the appostles did in fact manipulate several dozen followers to become their plural wives in the way described.*  We know that in general, the plural wives became depressed about the whole thing.  We know that Joseph Smith went to great lengths to prevent any evidence of his plural "marriages" from ever being recorded.  Most of what we know about his marriages is from the spouses who survived and remained loyal to Brigham Young.  If any died, we would all testimony to the fact they had been "married" to Joseph at all to have died with them.

 

The fact of the matter is that William Law was an honest man, and if he claims that some of Joseph Smith’s wives fell into depression and died, I take that as strong evidence that it really happened.

 

That’s my viewpoint.  But again, what part of this do you find libelous?

 

-----------------------------------------

 

*ETA: Honestly, I find the details of the truth of what happened to be worse than what this story actually says.  The Prophet tells a teenager that an angel with a flaming sword threatened to kill him of the teenager doesn't marry him?  And promises the teenager that her whole family will be guaranteed salvation if she consents to marrying him?  Those true details more disturbing than anything written in the Expositor.

Edited November 24, 2014 by Analytics

[volgadon]

Could you point out what, specifically, in this piece of prose you find to be libelous?

 

If you cut through the long-winded melodrama, your quote makes the following claim:

 

More than one young woman converted to the Church and immigrated to Nauvoo.  Once there, some senior members of the Church approached them and told them that Joseph Smith had a special blessing for them, and were instructed to meet with him at a secret time and place.  When they did, they were instructed to enter into a solemn oath with the penalty of death attached to it, and were then manipulated to become the secret polygamous “wife” of Joseph Smith or an apostle.  The women became extremely depressed about the whole affair, then fell sick and died.

 

What part about this do you think is libelous? 

 

I find the accusation quite not only plausible, but highly likely.  We know that Joseph Smith and the appostles did in fact manipulate several dozen followers to become their plural wives in the way described.*  We know that in general, the plural wives became depressed about the whole thing.  We know that Joseph Smith went to great lengths to prevent any evidence of his plural "marriages" from ever being recorded.  Most of what we know about his marriages is from the spouses who survived and remained loyal to Brigham Young.  If any died, we would all testimony to the fact they had been "married" to Joseph at all to have died with them.

 

The fact of the matter is that William Law was an honest man, and if he claims that some of Joseph Smith’s wives fell into depression and died, I take that as strong evidence that it really happened.

 

That’s my viewpoint.  But again, what part of this do you find libelous?

 

-----------------------------------------

 

*ETA: Honestly, I find the details of the truth of what happened to be worse than what this story actually says.  The Prophet tells a teenager that an angel with a flaming sword threatened to kill him of the teenager doesn't marry him?  And promises the teenager that her whole family will be guaranteed salvation if she consents to marrying him?  Those true details more disturbing than anything written in the Expositor.

 

You can't simply cut through the melodrama, that is the point. This captivity narrative is crafted in such a way that was calculated to outrage 19th century sensibilities to the utmost. The quote makes a different claim. When young women join the church and leave their homes, there is a special group targeting them that convinces the women to come to some place where Joseph and his associates coerce them into becoming spiritual wives, despite their initially fainting in horror at the proposition. After having his way with them, Joseph leaves them and sends them away for a time. When they return, single again, they fall into such a deep depression that even the slightest physical injury kills them. Who were these many females from the most distant regions of the eastern hemisphere (more distant than England)? Can you name them?

[Analytics]

You can't simply cut through the melodrama, that is the point. This captivity narrative is crafted in such a way that was calculated to outrage 19th century sensibilities to the utmost. The quote makes a different claim. When young women join the church and leave their homes, there is a special group targeting them that convinces the women to come to some place where Joseph and his associates coerce them into becoming spiritual wives, despite their initially fainting in horror at the proposition. After having his way with them, Joseph leaves them and sends them away for a time. When they return, single again, they fall into such a deep depression that even the slightest physical injury kills them. Who were these many females from the most distant regions of the eastern hemisphere (more distant than England)? Can you name them?

 

Crafted to outrage 19th century sensibilities, or crafted to express the sincere outrage that the writer felt? In any case, just to make sure I understand your point, you are saying that if the article would have stated the same accusations in a cool, dispassionate tone it would not have been libelous?

 

I'm fairly sure the general reader of the paper knew where the converts were coming from, so I don't think the accusation of "the most distant regions of the eastern hemisphere" is material.

 

Regarding who the alleged girls were, I don't think there is any way to know. Joseph Smith and his scribes falsified his contemporaneous records so that he would be able to "prove" that he never took any secret plural wives. That being the case, we are forced to rely upon the records of the surviving wives who remained loyal to Brigham Young to know any details.  Thus we wouldn’t expect to know the identity of any wives who would have died. 

 

But again, the fact that William Law says some of his wives fit this profile is pretty good evidence that such wives existed.  You are the one accusing him of lying about this--the burden of proof is on you.

 

Joseph Smith did in fact engage in secret polygamy, usually behind his wife's back, and always in flagrant violation of the rules of the Church. William Law could have named names--he didn't need to make up conveniently dead victims in order to have a juicy story to tell.  The fact that he kept the names of Joseph Smith’s wives private was a merciful thing for him to do.

[volgadon]

 

Crafted to outrage 19th century sensibilities, or crafted to express the sincere outrage that the writer felt? In any case, just to make sure I understand your point, you are saying that if the article would have stated the same accusations in a cool, dispassionate tone it would not have been libelous? 

 

Crafted to outrage. I am saying that Law's rhetoric is not accidental, nor is it merely an honest man's sincere outrage. Its clear purpose is to paint Joseph with as black a brush as possible, appealing  to sentimental views of virtue, as well as the captivity narrative genre. Had Law stuck to a factual account of Joseph's misdeeds (be his tone emotional or flat), that would be a different matter.

 

 

I'm fairly sure the general reader of the paper knew where the converts were coming from, so I don't think the accusation of "the most distant regions of the eastern hemisphere" is material.

 

It is merely something else that doesn't add up, and lends credence to my argument.

 

Regarding who the alleged girls were, I don't think there is any way to know.

 

Isn't that convenient.

 

Joseph Smith and his scribes falsified his contemporaneous records so that he would be able to "prove" that he never took any secret plural wives. That being the case, we are forced to rely upon the records of the surviving wives who remained loyal to Brigham Young to know any details.  Thus we wouldn’t expect to know the identity of any wives who would have died. 

 

Do you really think that it would be that difficult to identify even a few of what Law claims was a widespread phenomenon? Here are the indicators provided by Law.

 

1) A young, unattached female immigrant from Europe.

2) After being in Nauvoo, disappears for a time before reappearing and claiming to have been away on a visit.

2) Dies not long after, at an early age.

 

 

But again, the fact that William Law says some of his wives fit this profile is pretty good evidence that such wives existed. 

 

No, that is a ridiculously circular argument, and Law doesn't say some, he says many.

 

You are the one accusing him of lying about this--the burden of proof is on you.

 

I would like to see something evidence beyond the passage from the Nauvoo Expositor supporting the wild claim.

 

 

Joseph Smith did in fact engage in secret polygamy, usually behind his wife's back, and always in flagrant violation of the rules of the Church. William Law could have named names--he didn't need to make up conveniently dead victims in order to have a juicy story to tell.  The fact that he kept the names of Joseph Smith’s wives private was a merciful thing for him to do.

 

 

Yet he made up a story with conveniently dead victims that could never be proven, so what does that tell you?

[The Nehor]

11 pages and I still havent seen anyone cite the factual error printed in the Expositor that justified its destruction.

 

I never argued it was destroyed due to a "factual error". I believe it should be destroyed because it was designed to cause unrest. The editors would have to be morons to think that their garbage would not lead to some kind of violence.

 

 

Of course their is a resemblance between the FLDS and the early church, any objective observer would recognize this.

 

Polygamy (though practiced differently) and a few superficial similarities. Enemies of the church like to pretend that our offshoots are closer to the early church but they are usually just fixations on a few points of early church practice while ignoring many others.

[The Nehor]

But again, the fact that William Law says some of his wives fit this profile is pretty good evidence that such wives existed.  You are the one accusing him of lying about this--the burden of proof is on you.

 

I disrespectfully disagree.

 

Analytics is a serial killer. I knew some of his victims.

 

By this logic the fact that I claimed to know some of the victims now shifts the burden of proof to you to prove that I am lying. Come on. Cough up the facts.

Edited November 24, 2014 by The Nehor

[volgadon]

Let me answer my last question. I don't buy the villainous caricatures of Law. I believe that he was generally sincere and decent. I think that he genuinely considered Joseph to a threat, a dangerous, corrupting element that needed to be stopped. he also bore a personal grudge from his mistreatment by Joseph, so he set out to stop him by utterly ruining and blackening his reputation even if that involved embroidering the truth. That way, Joseph would have no influence and power left.

[why me]

 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. 

The problem was not that joseph was practicing polygamy. The problem had more to do with what would happen if the news reached the mobs outside nauvoo. I think that the paper was closed down for public safety. The lies had more to do with the tone of the paper and what was said about the practice itself.

 

William Law knew exactly what would happen if the paper kept publishing inciteful information. He had no love for the lds leaders nor was he very concerned about the people who lived in nauvoo.

[why me]

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

But on the other hand, mormon presses were destroyed also by mobs. Nothing knew there. Maybe the town council overreacted but considering the threat from outside I suppose that they thought to react quickly. We humans are imperfect afterall. Not to mention that Law was an apostate. I suppose that this also had much to do with it. Let me put it this way. The saints came to nauvoo for safety. Suddenly, an apostate wishes to open a newspaper in the town.. publishing antimormon articles, inciting people against joseph and other church leaders etc. What should the town council do? We need to remember that these people have been driven from their homes quite often before nauvoo.

[The Nehor]

Let me answer my last question. I don't buy the villainous caricatures of Law. I believe that he was generally sincere and decent. I think that he genuinely considered Joseph to a threat, a dangerous, corrupting element that needed to be stopped. he also bore a personal grudge from his mistreatment by Joseph, so he set out to stop him by utterly ruining and blackening his reputation even if that involved embroidering the truth. That way, Joseph would have no influence and power left.

Most villains are, on some level, sincere. Hitler believed he was helping his people. McCarthy honestly believed the communist menace was dangerous enought to justify his little inquisition and the injustices he carried out. The Pharisees genuinely believed that Jesus was going to destroy their cozy little deal with the Romans and that the raising of Lazarus made him too dangerous to leave alive. The devil seems to be sincere about his plans too.

Sincerity is the rule and not the exception when it comes to villains.

[Analytics]

Crafted to outrage. I am saying that Law's rhetoric is not accidental, nor is it merely an honest man's sincere outrage. Its clear purpose is to paint Joseph with as black a brush as possible, appealing  to sentimental views of virtue, as well as the captivity narrative genre. Had Law stuck to a factual account of Joseph's misdeeds (be his tone emotional or flat), that would be a different matter....

 

 

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).

 

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. 

Edited November 24, 2014 by Analytics

[Danzo]

hat is why you are grasping to find fault with insiginficant details (e.g. where the various wives were born).

 

 

 

It may seem insignificant to you, but I want to know who who died at an early age because of polygamy?  I am interested to know.

[Anteojito]

The problem was not that joseph was practicing polygamy. The problem had more to do with what would happen if the news reached the mobs outside nauvoo. I think that the paper was closed down for public safety. The lies had more to do with the tone of the paper and what was said about the practice itself.

 

William Law knew exactly what would happen if the paper kept publishing inciteful information. He had no love for the lds leaders nor was he very concerned about the people who lived in nauvoo.

"He had no love for the lds leaders nor was he very concerned about the people who lived in nauvoo." You have absolutely no evidence of that at all. In fact if you read the first part of the paper you will see that he was not advocating violence. 

[why me]

 

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. 

We are assuming that the saints did not know what was happening in Nauvoo. I think that many did know about polygamy. How to keep it such a secret when many women were being sealed and not just that, but quite often with the consent of their relatives. I don't think that polygamy was such a secret. However, to have a newspaper broadcasting it and having that newspaper sold outside the lds community would create a dangerous situation for the saints in Nauvoo. The mobs were waiting for an excuse to expel the saints from nauvoo.

[why me]

"He had no love for the lds leaders nor was he very concerned about the people who lived in nauvoo." You have absolutely no evidence of that at all. In fact if you read the first part of the paper you will see that he was not advocating violence. 

We have received the last number of the "Warsaw Signal;" it is rich with anti-Mormon matter, both editorial and communicated. Among other things it contains a lengthy letter from J.H.Jackson, giving some items in relation to his connection with the "Mormon Prophet," as also his reasons for the same. It will be perceived that many of the most dark and damnable crimes that ever darkened human character, which have hitherto been to the public, a matter of rumor and suspicion, are now reduced to indisputable facts. We have reason to believe, from our aquaintance with Mr. Jackson, and our own observation, that the statements he makes are true; and in view of these facts, we ask, in the name of heaven, where is the safety of our lives and liberties, when placed at the disposal of such heaven daring, hell deserving, God forsaken villains. Our blood boils while we refer to these blood thirsty and murderous propensities of men, or rather demons in human shape, who, not satisfied with practising their dupes upon a credulous and superstitious people, must wreak their vengeance upon any who may dare to come in contact with them. We deplore the desperate state of things to which we are necessarily brought, but, we say to our friends, "keep cool," and the whole tale will be told. We fully believe in bringing these iniquities and enormities to light, and let the majesty of violated law, and the voice of injured innocence and contemned public opinion, speak in tones of thunder to these miscreants; but in behalf of hundreds and thousands of unoffending citizens, whose only fault is religious enthusiasm, and for the honor of our own names and reputation, let us not follow their desperado measures, and thereby dishonor ourselves in revenging our own wrongs. Let our motto be, "Last in attack, but first in defence;" and the result cannot prove otherwise than honorable and satisfactory.

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Primary_sources/Nauvoo_Expositor_Full_Text

 

Of course Law would not advocate violence in the newspaper. However, let us give a wink, wink to that. But the paper's tone against Smith and other leaders, violence would have happened. Here is another part of the paper:

The Mormons

We last week gave some account of the dissensions and divisions which have sprung up in the holy city of Nauvoo -- growing out of the arbitrary conduct of "the Prophet." -- Since then, the breach has become still wider between the head of the church and his followers. The citizens have procured a press, and will soon cmmence a paper, for the purpose of exposing Smith on his own ground and among his own people. Last week, individuals of the Mormon faith, (Messrs. Blakesley and Higbee,) representing the dissenters, addressed a large number of our citizens, in reference to the "flare up," at Nauvoo. We were not present, but have it from others who were, that the dissenters, made out that Joe Smith was pretty much of a rough customer, especially in relation to the "spiritual wife" doctrine. Their whole aim was principally against the church -- of which they still claimed to be members. They painted Smith, as any thing but the saint he claims to be -- and as a man, to the last degree, corrupt in his morals and religion. On Wednesday night, Mr. John P. Green, a Mormon elder, addressed a crowded house in defence of "the Prophet." The principal portion of the worthy elder's speech, while we were in the house, was taken up, in an apology for addressing the meeting, and when he did come to the substance of his address, he could only disprove the statements made by the dissenters, from his own knowledge -- he said he had been a Mormon for the last twelve years -- and had always been intimate with Smith, and that such doctrines as were ascribed to Smith by his enemies, had never been taught to him. He further said that Smith was like a diamond, the more he was rubbed, the brighter he appeared -- and he strongly insinuated, that the characters of the individuals, who had assailed Smith on the second evening previous, were none of the best, &c.

We think these Mormon Missionaries are laboring under a mistake in one particular. It is not so much the particular doctrines, which Smith upholds and practices, however abominable they may be in themselves, that our citizens care about -- as it is the anti-republican nature of the organization, over which he has almost supreme control -- and which is trained and disciplined to act in accordance with his selfish will. The spectacle presented in Smith's case of a civil, ecclesiastical and military leader, united in one and the same person, with power over life and liberty, can never find favor in the minds of sound and thinking Republicans. The day has gone by when the precepts of Divine Truth, could be propagated at the point of the sword -- or the Bible made the medium of corrupt men to gratify their lustful appetites and sordid desires--[Quincy Whig

 

I think that the mob and its anger would be raised by such a newspaper and its articles.

[Analytics]

We are assuming that the saints did not know what was happening in Nauvoo. I think that many did know about polygamy. How to keep it such a secret when many women were being sealed and not just that, but quite often with the consent of their relatives. I don't think that polygamy was such a secret. However, to have a newspaper broadcasting it and having that newspaper sold outside the lds community would create a dangerous situation for the saints in Nauvoo. The mobs were waiting for an excuse to expel the saints from nauvoo.

 

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

 

The irony here is thick. 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 the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again."

 

Despite this official declaration being published in the Church's canonized scriptures and being repeatedly used to as definitive proof that the Church did not practice polygamy, we are to believe that the exact opposite is true, and that an angel of the Lord threatened the head of the Church with being killed by a flaming sword if he didn't flagrantly violate the rules of the Church.  We are not only to believe that, but are also to believe that “many” rank-and-file members knew that the president of their Church was in scandalous violation of the Church’s explicit moral code, and were okay with it. 

[Nevo]

Good reading, thanks. In your opinion, when was there a stronger or more widespread condemnation, in 1833 or 1844, or were reactions broadly comparable?

 

I don't think the destruction of the Expositor received much coverage in the national press. I've only found two notices outside of Illinois and both are rather lacking in outrage:

• "A party has of late grown up in Nauvoo hostile to Joe Smith and his apostles, and resolved to unmask some of the wickedness and imposture which is carried on there. To this end, they procured a printing establishment and issued the first number of 'The Nauvoo Expositor.' The following official bulletin from one of Joe Smith's organs will show how summarily the establishment was broken up. We do not remember anything quite so cool since Amos Kendall officially approved the breaking open and burning of the Mails on the pretext of Abolition. Hear Joe's adjutant! [There follows an excerpt from the Nauvoo Neighbor]." (New-York Daily Tribune, 25 June 1844).

   

• "There's been a devil of a kick up at Nauvoo. The 'Expositor,' the 'anti-Jo-Smith' paper, has been destroyed. The 'Expositor' was established by a number of Mormons who opposed Jo Smith's course, and the disclosures made through it, completely enraged Jo and his supporters. The Council, therefore, declared that paper a nuisance, and then sent the City Marshal with an armed posse to destroy the office. The work of destruction was completed about ten o'clock at night." (The Ohio Democrat, 4 July 1844)

 

Let me answer my last question. I don't buy the villainous caricatures of Law. I believe that he was generally sincere and decent. I think that he genuinely considered Joseph to a threat, a dangerous, corrupting element that needed to be stopped. he also bore a personal grudge from his mistreatment by Joseph, so he set out to stop him by utterly ruining and blackening his reputation even if that involved embroidering the truth. That way, Joseph would have no influence and power left.

 

I agree with this. Law had stood by the Prophet's side through the Bennett scandal and the Missouri extradition attempts, providing moral and financial support, and had vouched for Joseph's integrity in letters to friends back in Canada. He apparently believed all the polygamy denials. So when he finally learned of the 1843 revelation it came as a body blow. Law was 34 at the time of his disaffection, still relatively young. 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.

 

In my view, Thomas Sharp is the person most responsible for Joseph and Hyrum's deaths. He was the mob's chief inciter and convener, not the Laws or Higbees or Fosters.

Edited November 25, 2014 by Nevo

[Calm]

So I read something that included the Laws in the indictment for the murders of Joseph and Hyrum, though it sounds like it came to nothing. Was this accurate? Did the prosecutor included the Laws (or one of the brothers) in his accusation or was this a mistake by the author...wish I could remember where I read it, but I read a lot of stuff the past few days....

[Nevo]

So I read something that included the Laws in the indictment for the murders of Joseph and Hyrum, though it sounds like it came to nothing. Was this accurate? Did the prosecutor included the Laws (or one of the brothers) in his accusation or was this a mistake by the author...wish I could remember where I read it, but I read a lot of stuff the past few days....

 

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.

 

Add-on:

I should probably elaborate on why I don't consider Richards's claim credible.

• Richards's list appears to be a shortened version of a list compiled by William Clayton. It is not clear how Clayton arrived at his list. If we suppose that Richards was his informant, we have to believe that Richards was able to identify 20+ individuals from the second story window of the jail, most or all of whom had blackened faces and were wearing hats, in the brief instant that he was able to look out the window after the shooting had stopped and after all the mobbers had left the stairwell.
• Several of those named on the Clayton and Richards lists are known not to have been in Carthage during the attack. William Law's diary places him, his brother Wilson, and Robert Foster in Fort Madison, Iowa, on 27 June.
• Also, we know that the mob was composed almost entirely of remnants of the Warsaw militia and was led by Warsaw militia officers.

I suspect Alex Beam is correct that the lists produced by Clayton and Richards "merely named the Mormons’ many enemies in Hancock County, rather than the actual participants in the massacre" (Beam, American Crucifixion: The Murder of Joseph Smith and the Fate of the Mormon Church [New York: PublicAffairs, 2014], 207). Researcher Debra Jo Marsh likewise concludes that "the Clayton/Richards list cannot be relied upon as a credible source" (Marsh, "Respectable Assassins: A Collective Biography and Socio-Economic Study of the Carthage Mob," [M.A. thesis; University of Utah, 2009], 24).

Edited November 25, 2014 by Nevo

[LinuxGal]

 

Despite this official declaration being published in the Church's canonized scriptures and being repeatedly used to as definitive proof that the Church did not practice polygamy, we are to believe that the exact opposite is true, and that an angel of the Lord threatened the head of the Church with being killed by a flaming sword if he didn't flagrantly violate the rules of the Church.  We are not only to believe that, but are also to believe that “many” rank-and-file members knew that the president of their Church was in scandalous violation of the Church’s explicit moral code, and were okay with it. 

 

So the article on lds.org does not represent the official position of the Church?  Seriously?

 

https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo