"He lived great, and he died great"

[Calm]

53 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don't remember an incitement to violence in the Expositor. Maybe I'll have to reread it, but can you point me to it? I'm not saying that's incorrect, but all I can recall is that it used some purple prose to "expose" what was going on in the church. 

Whether or not it was intentionally inciting violence can definitely be questioned, imo. If they were intelligent, insightful men, they likely would have known that their paper would trigger an angry response from the Saints as well as feed the paranoia of the surrounding populace with comments like Smith was intent on robbing the old settlers of all of their rights. 

I don’t think given the climate stoking the fires had to be the equivalent of yelling shoot them. 

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Whether or not it was intentionally inciting violence can definitely be questioned, imo. If they were intelligent, insightful men, they likely would have known that their paper would trigger an angry response from the Saints as well as feed the paranoia of the surrounding populace with comments like Smith was intent on robbing the old settlers of all of their rights. 

I don’t think given the climate stoking the fires had to be the equivalent of yelling shoot them. 

As I said, the end result was murder, plain and simple. There may have been some self-deception on the part of the Laws et al., as they certainly seemed to think they weren't doing anything violent: 

Quote

We have anxiously desired, and strenuously advocated a peaceable redress of the injuries that have repeatedly been inflicted upon us, and we have now the means in our hands, through which we can peaceably and honorably effect our object.

Obviously, people like Thomas Sharp were advocating violence, but the Expositor on its own doesn't seem to be intentionally inciting violence. That it ended in violence could easily have been predicted, no matter the intent.

There seems to be a tendency to see this in black and white terms: either Joseph and Hyrum got what they deserved, or the Laws were villainous murderers. I don't think either is true.

[jkwilliams]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I dare say no mob ever acknowledged itself to be illegal or unjustified. 

Again, there's nothing in the text that is advocating a mob. 

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

As I said, the end result was murder, plain and simple. There may have been some self-deception on the part of the Laws et al., as they certainly seemed to think they weren't doing anything violent: 

Obviously, people like Thomas Sharp were advocating violence, but the Expositor on its own doesn't seem to be intentionally inciting violence. That it ended in violence could easily have been predicted, no matter the intent.

There seems to be a tendency to see this in black and white terms: either Joseph and Hyrum got what they deserved, or the Laws were villainous murderers. I don't think either is true.

Or they were lying about their motives. If there was real intent to harm, what idiot would admit that if they had to have interactions with their victims?  And the Laws were large property owners in my understanding. Chances are they wanted a power change, but not the Saints driven out.  They had formed their own version of the Church to replace JS’s leadership.  If they admitted to harboring murderous feelings towards any Saint, unlikely even with Joseph and Hyrum gone they would have been accepted back into the fold, let alone resume leadership roles.

The same goes for Joseph and the Saints. While JS claimed he was told the Laws were intent on killing him, the reverse is true as well as Nevo posted above (the reason given for leaving Nauvoo). I am not claiming the only possibility is that the Laws were out to get Joseph killed. 

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Again, there's nothing in the text that is advocating a mob. 

On the contrary, I see it as coyly saying they would not condone a mob and then going on to specify conditions under which they would do that very thing. 

Edited July 2, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Calm said:

Or they were lying about their motives. If there was real intent to harm, what idiot would admit that if they had to have interactions with their victims?  And the Laws were large property owners in my understanding. Chances are they wanted a power change, but not the Saints driven out.  They had formed their own version of the Church to replace JS’s leadership.  If they admitted to harboring murderous feelings towards any Saint, unlikely even with Joseph and Hyrum gone they would have been accepted back into the fold, let alone resume leadership roles.

The same goes for Joseph and the Saints. While JS claimed he was told the Laws were intent on killing him, the reverse is true as well as Nevo posted above (the reason given for leaving Nauvoo). I am not claiming the only possibility is that the Laws were out to get Joseph killed. 

I don't know what their intent was, honestly. I'm just saying it's hard to get murderous intent just from the text of the Expositor. That doesn't mean I'm defending the Laws or approving of the murders. It's just not that clear to me that violence was the intended result. It is abundantly clear that Thomas Sharp wanted the Smiths dead, but I'm not sure you can say the same thing about the Laws. But I don't know.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

On the contrary, I see it as coyly saying they would not condone a mob and then going on to specify conditions under which they would do that very thing. 

I read it as saying pretty clearly that sometimes force is required in executing the law, and that should not be considered a mob when it happens. Who knows? All we have to go on is the text of the Expositor and the recollections of William Law later, wherein he repeats that he was not advocating violence. Sure, he may well have been lying, but then how would we know?

[ALarson]

35 minutes ago, Calm said:

Whether or not it was intentionally inciting violence can definitely be questioned, imo. If they were intelligent, insightful men, they likely would have known that their paper would trigger an angry response from the Saints as well as feed the paranoia of the surrounding populace with comments like Smith was intent on robbing the old settlers of all of their rights. 

I don’t think given the climate stoking the fires had to be the equivalent of yelling shoot them. 

I see that perhaps this was being done from both sides.  The violence and destruction that was done to the Laws and others (their business, etc.) was obviously not a good response because it just incited more violence and murder. I firmly believe that if Joseph had responded in a different manner regarding attempting to close down the Expositor (through legal means) and had just faced the saints and told them the truth regarding his polygamy (and whatever else was being exposed that he didn't like, but was true), that could have gone a long ways to avoiding any more violence from either side.

Calm, you probably have read the interview given and letters written by William Law later.  I don't know if others have taken the time to do this, but they really should if they want a better perspective of what took place here.  I think I saw someone post a link to these writings on this thread, but I'll look for them to post again too.

William Law was not the villain he's portrayed as, IMO.  He was a good man who morally disagreed with the polygamy he saw being lived in secret.  He maybe could have gone about exposing this in a better manner (easy to see in hindsight), but I haven't read anything that convinces me he wanted to form mobs and violently attack and murder anyone. I don't believe he was a violent man from what I've read on this.

Edited July 2, 2018 by ALarson

[ALarson]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

On the contrary, I see it as coyly saying they would not condone a mob and then going on to specify conditions under which they would do that very thing. 

How do you feel about the violence and destruction that they suffered (Laws and others)?  Do you classify it as ok since they were exposing the truth regarding what Joseph was doing in secret?

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I see that perhaps this was being done from both sides.  The violence and destruction that was done to the Laws and others (their business, etc.) was obviously not a good response because it just incited more violence and murder. I firmly believe that if Joseph had responded in a different manner regarding attempting to close down the Expositor (through legal means) and had just faced the saints and told them the truth regarding his polygamy (and whatever else was being exposed that he didn't like, but was true), that could have gone a long ways to avoiding any more violence from either side.

Calm, you probably have read the interview given and letters written by William Law later.  I don't know if others have taken the time to do this, but they really should if they want a better perspective of what took place here.  I think I saw someone post a link to these writings on this thread, but I'll look for them to post again too.

William Law was not the villain he's portrayed as, IMO.  He was a good man who morally disagreed with the polygamy he saw being lived in secret.  He maybe could have gone about exposing this in a better manner (easy to see in hindsight), but I haven't read anything that convinces me he wanted to form mobs and violently attack and murder anyone.

Yes, it is easy to see in hindsight, which is why I suspect there was some self-deception involved. It's kind of like those politicians who use really inflammatory rhetoric and then are shocked when it results in violence. Did they intend the violence? It is hard to say.

[JulieM]

14 hours ago, Nevo said:

Unsold copies of the paper weren't the only thing burned. Charles Foster, who was present, said they "destroyed the Press and all the materials, by throwing them into the street and setting the whole on fire" (Letter to the Editor, St. Louis Evening Gazette, 12 June 1844, 2). Foster also alleged in the Warsaw Messenger that they "injured the building very materially." John Taylor, writing in the Nauvoo Neighbor on 12 June 1844, stated that "the city Marshall at the head of the police in the evening took the press, materials and paper into the street and burnt them." Francis Higbee's complaint on the same date accused Joseph Smith and the city council of "unlawfully burning & destroying the printing press Type & fixtures."

William Law's purported diary also contains this description: "The Marshal had the office door broken open by sledges, the press & type carried out into the street and broken up, then piled the tables, desks, paper &c on top of the press and burned them with fire. The Marshal said his instructions were to burn the houses of the proprietors if they offered any resistance" (William Law diary, 10 June 1844, in Lyndon W. Cook, William Law [Orem, UT: Grandin Book Company, 1994], 56).

Ok, I thought I remembered more destruction was done but I was trying to make sure I wasn’t saying anything that couldn’t be supported.

Thank you for clarifying and giving sources and more information on the burning and destruction that took place.

Edited July 2, 2018 by JulieM

[Calm]

41 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don't know what their intent was, honestly. I'm just saying it's hard to get murderous intent just from the text of the Expositor. That doesn't mean I'm defending the Laws or approving of the murders. It's just not that clear to me that violence was the intended result. It is abundantly clear that Thomas Sharp wanted the Smiths dead, but I'm not sure you can say the same thing about the Laws. But I don't know.

I agree, the text cannot expose the real intent, either primarily concern for freedom, etc or thoughts of murder, etc.

Sharp could keep his distance and had no need to be in Nauvoo, so he could be open with his extreme hostility.

Edited July 2, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Ok, I thought I remembered more destruction was done but I was trying to make sure I wasn’t saying anything that couldn’t be supported.

Thank you for clarifying and giving sources and more information on the burning and destruction that took place.

The Marshall had also been given the warrant to arrest those who got in the way.  From the description of what they did do (physically removed Higbee? from the doorway to the press, but did not arrest anyone) in choosing to bring sledges to break the locked door rather than just setting the building on fire as the warrant allowed as well as professionally and quietly (no shouts of delight, etc even if it was probably a beautiful sight as most bonfires are, no marshmallow roasting, etc) going about destroying papers and press.

IOW, sounds like the police were the most levelheaded of the bunch....doing what they were ordered to do, but in as least traumatic way possible.  Definitely better than allowing a mob of Saints to do it as Joseph feared would happen.

Edited July 2, 2018 by Calm

[jkwilliams]

 

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

I agree, the text cannot expose the real intent, either primarily concern for freedom, etc or thoughts of murder, etc.

Sharp could keep his distance and had no need to be in Nauvoo, so he could be open with his extreme hostility.

I read something a while back comparing what Joseph Smith was saying about William Law and vice versa in the months leading up to the murders. In public and private, Joseph was saying William wanted him dead. In his public and private statements, Law wasn’t saying anything like that. It was a fascinating article, and I’ll have look for it later when I’m home. 

[JulieM]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

The Marshall had also been given the warrant to arrest those who got in the way.  From the description of what they did do (physically removed Higbee? from the doorway to the press, but did not arrest anyone) in choosing to bring sledges to break the locked door rather than just setting the building on fire as the warrant allowed as well as professionally and quietly (no shouts of delight, etc even if it was probably a beautiful sight as most bonfires are, no marshmallow roasting, etc) going about destroying papers and press.

IOW, sounds like the police were the most levelheaded of the bunch....doing what they were ordered to do, but in as least traumatic way possible.  Definitely better than allowing a mob of Saints to do it as Joseph feared would happen.

I agree that it could have been worse and gotten completely out of control.  I do think the shutting down of the business could have been done peaceably though.  Joseph seemed to have the power in Nauvoo and control enough that sledgehammers didn’t need to get involved or smashing and burning and throwing things out into the street could have been avoided.  This has to have incited and excited both sides of this which we know now wasn’t the wisest way to deal with this press.  I know there’s always two sides and this thread is giving a lot to think about on this (thanks Calm for all the sources you’ve shared, they’ve helped me.)

Edited July 2, 2018 by JulieM

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I see that perhaps this was being done from both sides.  The violence and destruction that was done to the Laws and others (their business, etc.) was obviously not a good response because it just incited more violence and murder. I firmly believe that if Joseph had responded in a different manner regarding attempting to close down the Expositor (through legal means) and had just faced the saints and told them the truth regarding his polygamy (and whatever else was being exposed that he didn't like, but was true), that could have gone a long ways to avoiding any more violence from either side.

Calm, you probably have read the interview given and letters written by William Law later.  I don't know if others have taken the time to do this, but they really should if they want a better perspective of what took place here.  I think I saw someone post a link to these writings on this thread, but I'll look for them to post again too.

William Law was not the villain he's portrayed as, IMO.  He was a good man who morally disagreed with the polygamy he saw being lived in secret.  He maybe could have gone about exposing this in a better manner (easy to see in hindsight), but I haven't read anything that convinces me he wanted to form mobs and violently attack and murder anyone. I don't believe he was a violent man from what I've read on this.

I think Sharp may be the one most responsible for the murders in terms of setting things up.  His article is the one referred to by Joseph as a reason to call up the Nauvoo Legion and establish martial law, the excuse used to jail Joseph on treason charges (there was no bail allowed for this charge as there was for the destruction of the press, so Joseph and Hyrum had to stay in Carthage).

Iirc, he was not part of the actual mob, but honestly that makes him more vile in my view...getting others to do his dirty work for him.

-----

As far as if Joseph hadn't allowed/caused the destruction of the press, his murder wouldn't have happened, I am of the opinion there were enough like Sharp who wanted Joseph dead it was going to happen and sooner than later.  For example the charge of treason so he would have to stay in Carthage  rather than just waiting for the other charges to be taken to trial.  The Justice basically lied in order to set up Smith (said Smith been brought before him to be charged as required by law when he hadn't).

Quotes got out of order, bottom should be read first for order of events.

Quote

The issue of treason never came up at the June 25 riot hearing. After supper, later that night, well after the riot hearing, Constable Bettisworth nally came to take Joseph and Hyrum into custody while they were still at the Hamilton hotel. They were shown a mittimus writ on the new charge of treason, also issued by Justice Robert F. Smith. That writ was directed to the jailer and authorized incarceration of the Smiths. It recited that both Smiths had been brought before him as a justice of the peace, although that had not happened. Treason was a capital crime entailing mandatory incarceration and for which no bail was feasible. Unlike the charge of riot, this was no minor accusation. The penalty in Illinois for treason was death by hanging.186 

Quote

When they met with Ford the next day, John Taylor said they were shocked to find him already in meeting with fifteen to twenty of The “vilest and most unprincipled men in creation,” including ex-LDS dissidents and publishers of the ill-fated Expositor. For about an hour, each time the Mormon emissaries tried to speak, they were interrupted and contradicted by those men. They then had to wait another five or six hours while Ford (a former judge) prepared a strong letter back to Joseph. It was basically a one-sided brief on a series of legal points involving the Expositor. Ford demanded re-arrest by the same Carthage constable and yet another retrial of the riot charge—this time in Carthage, he said, before the same magistrate who had issued the original summons.149

The Mormons were willing to be retried but not in Carthage or other hostile venues. Instead, Ford demanded that all defendants not only come immediately to Carthage but come unescorted and unarmed— without the protective entourage that had supported Joseph in Carthage the previous month. Ford guaranteed full protection if they complied, and he pledged the full faith of the state of Illinois...

Nevertheless, he expressed a willingness to undergo yet another trial, if it were held in a less inflammatory venue than Carthage. Ford flatly refused to move the trial to any other location.151...

Although a justice of the peace, he was also captain of the Carthage Greys and head of the Anti-Mormon Party’s Central Corresponding Committee.158 Second, the case was not tried then, as promised, but rather was put over to the next circuit court term in October 1844, ostensibly due to the absence of a key witness. Ironically, the missing witness was none other than Francis Higbee, the very man who had signed the first complaint one week earlier. Justice Smith then set bail at $500 per defendant. That was an exorbitant sum, totaling $7,500 (over $200,000 in today’s money). The amount far exceeded the maximum fine of $70 to $200 per defendant for the crime of riot, a misdemeanor. Notwithstanding, the defendants or their friends immediately posted bail, many signing over deeds to their own homes and farms in lieu of cash.159 By doing so, they guaranteed that they would appear in October for the hearing. ...

Francis Higbee likely did not attend in order to deliberately delay any trial in the matter, similar to the May 27 delay due to a missing witness...  

“It was evident that the magistrate intended to overreach the wealth of the defendants and friends so as to imprison them for want of bail. But there was strength enough to cover the demand. For some of them went security to the full extent of their property.”  

Having posted bail, all defendants (including the Smith brothers) were then free to return home. The Expositor case was put over to be tried in October, at the next court term, and was no longer a pressing issue. Clearly, destruction of the Expositor did not directly cause Joseph and Hyrum Smith to go to jail or to their deaths, but it did place them in Carthage, where they became subject to arrest under a new allegation of treason, which would soon lead to their demise. 

 

 

Edited July 2, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

The link for the above quotes is https://byustudies.byu.edu/file/11495/download?token=VT4hTTQf

Quote

Later that same day, the Smiths were summoned to court for their hearing on the treason charge. They feared for their own safety, so en route to court, Joseph “politely locked arms with the worst mobocrat he could see” and used him as a shield.189 At their one and only treason hearing, Joseph’s attorneys requested a one-day delay to bring witnesses from Nauvoo and to prepare their case. Justice Smith agreed and set the trial for noon the next day, June 27. The prisoners were remanded without bail and were now considered legally incarcerated. Joseph’s attorney James W. Woods said that after the hearing, Robert Smith unilaterally changed the trial date to Saturday, June 29, without any prior notice to defendants or their counsel. This ensured that they would remain incarcerated for three more days and nights.190...

Jones also heard conspirators saying that “they had 18 accusations against Joseph, and as one failed, they would try another,” to keep him detained. Jones heard Joseph Jackson say that they had “worked too hard to get old Joe to Carthage to let him get out of it alive.”211 

Ford's behaviour seems highly suspect.  He had promised Smith he would take him to Nauvoo when he went, but did not.  He took the Smiths' best protection and left the worst.  

Quote

Meanwhile, Ford did go to Nauvoo, but without Joseph. Instead, he took the McDonough County troops that were “most friendly to the prisoners” and disbanded the rest (about 1,300) just outside of town.194 The Carthage Greys were left to guard the jail and gave no resistance to the mob that stormed the jail just after 5 p.m. Before sundown that same day, both Smiths were dead—just as Frank Worrel, the Carthage Greys’ o cer of the day charged with guarding the Smiths, had predicted: “I can prophesy better than old Joe, for neither he nor his brother, nor anyone who will remain with them will see the sun set today.”195 

 

Quote

What about that charge of “treason”? How could the Smiths possibly have been regarded as traitors? Governor Ford consistently claimed that Joseph and Hyrum Smith (both officers in the Nauvoo Legion) had committed treason by, among other things, mobilizing the Nauvoo militia, declaring martial law, and arresting some offenders—all without Ford’s consent.200

But what, exactly, was considered to be treason in 1844? This crime was taken so seriously by our nation’s founders that it was defined in the United States Constitution. Article III, Section 3, reads: “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”201 The Illinois Constitution contained similar wording. 

Like I said before, I find the charge of treason laughable and I don't see how anyone could have expected it to win.  However, it did get Joseph and Hyrum pinned down in that jail long enough for a mob to get to them.

Edited July 2, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

William Law does appear to have been fully committed to Joseph and the Church prior to his apostasy, which appears to me to be based on sincere disagreement about structure of church government as well as polygamy.  Law was more committed to democracy than following .Joseph and it was when Joseph moved into more developed practices, that Law parted ways.  His involvement in starting a new church modeled on the earlier form of Mormonism was sincere, imo.  He saw Joseph as the apostate rather than himself.

I can't copy paste this article, but it seems a decent treatment of Law and itemizes why Law dissented on page 56, about ten pages into the article.  His concerns were valid, imo, if one doesn't fundamentally trust Church leadership and prefers to have checks and balances between church and state.  Keeping the Church out of state in areas that are dominantly one faith can be problematic as it can cross the line into depriving members of their civil rights, but if not some limitations are made, the law becomes too flexible for fulfilling the faith community's wishes ( and its leaders).  Nauvoo is a good example of how not to do it, imo.  Passing a city law to protect Joseph from extradition with a mandatory life sentence for any law officer attempting it is way out of bounds, imo.  Joseph insisting the Saints only buy real estate from the Church was another problematic choice (yes, it was to help the Church get out of debt, but went too far, imo).  Law had some good reasons to be worried.

https://byustudies.byu.edu/file/2385/download?token=TAILt4N6

OTOH, some of the others involved have more character issues attached to them.  I am thinking primarily of Chauncey Higbee who apparently scammed his fellow investors out of reimbursement money for the press.

Edited July 2, 2018 by Calm

[Jeanne]

3 hours ago, USU78 said:

A considerable stretch.  Perhaps it would be simpler if you were merely to say, "I believe JSJr was a criminal.  I believe he was killed because he was a criminal.  Nothing you say will dissuade me from this belief.  I don't care about jurisdictional matters or evidentiary sufficiency.  I don't care about the evidence of animus and bloodthirstiness of those behind the Expositer.  I don't care that JSJr's arrest would never hold up to legal challenge.  I have my belief.  I'll die with my belief."

Perhaps it would save everybody time and bandwidth?

All that would have been easier to say...yes..but Joseph was also a good person in his own way...I was being kind. 

[JulieM]

30 minutes ago, Calm said:

William Law does appear to have been fully committed to Joseph and the Church prior to his apostasy, which appears to me to be based on sincere disagreement about structure of church government as well as polygamy.  Law was more committed to democracy than following .Joseph and it was when Joseph moved into more developed practices, that Law parted ways.  His involvement in starting a new church modeled on the earlier form of Mormonism was sincere, imo.  He saw Joseph as the apostate rather than himself.

I can't copy paste this article, but it seems a decent treatment of Law and itemizes why Law dissented on page 56, about ten pages into the article.  His concerns were valid, imo, if one doesn't fundamentally trust Church leadership and prefers to have checks and balances between church and state.  Keeping the Church out of state in areas that are dominantly one faith can be problematic as it can cross the line into depriving members of their civil rights, but if not some limitations are made, the law becomes too flexible for fulfilling the faith community's wishes ( and its leaders).  Nauvoo is a good example of how not to do it, imo.  Passing a city law to protect Joseph from extradition with a mandatory life sentence for any law officer attempting it is way out of bounds, imo.  Joseph insisting the Saints only buy real estate from the Church was another problematic choice (yes, it was to help the Church get out of debt, but went too far, imo).  Law had some good reasons to be worried.

https://byustudies.byu.edu/file/2385/download?token=TAILt4N6

Thanks again for all that you’re posting, Calm.  I’m learning a lot and reading things I’ve never heard before.

It sounds like maybe Joseph ordered the destruction of the wrong press!  Sharp’s Warsaw Signal was much more anti-Mormon and hateful.  I don’t consider the Expositor to be the same.  

I honestly believe that Law was heartbroken when he learned of what was taking place behind the scenes with polygamy.  I think he really loved Joseph and believed he was a fallen prophet who needed to repent and come back.  I know there’s a lot more to what happened, but Law was a Mormon and a leader and one of Joseph’s counselors.  I don’t think he was anti-Mormon but really did feel that the leaders had fallen and were sinning.

This is all very interesting to study.  It is complicated, for sure!

I also didn’t know that Sharp was arrested and tried for the murders of Joseph and Hyrum but he and others were acquited by a jury.  

Anyway, thank you again.

Edited July 3, 2018 by JulieM

[Jeanne]

I am finding that there is a lot more to the story of Carthrage than I realized. I appreciate new knowledge I have read today.  The men that shot Joseph/Hyrum should have paid for their crimes..it was murder no matter how we look at it.  What Calm and Julie have been corresponding about in this thread makes me realize how much damage that polygamy did..to husbands/wives...and to wonderful friendships.  The whole thing is so very sad.

[Glenn101]

6 hours ago, Nevo said:

Given all this, what do you think the odds were that the Nauvoo Municipal Court would have found in favor of Law et al. in a civil suit in mid-June 1844?

The Nauvoo Municipal Court would not have been the venue for a tort against the city. But, as I noted in another post, there would have been no arrests made either. It would have been a civil action held in an Illinois district court. But the object never was to obtain redress but to get Joseph in jail away from Nauvoo where he could be murdered. I believe that has been credibly established.

Glenn

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

The link for the above quotes is https://byustudies.byu.edu/file/11495/download?token=VT4hTTQf

Ford's behaviour seems highly suspect.  He had promised Smith he would take him to Nauvoo when he went, but did not.  He took the Smiths' best protection and left the worst.  

Like I said before, I find the charge of treason laughable and I don't see how anyone could have expected it to win.  However, it did get Joseph and Hyrum pinned down in that jail long enough for a mob to get to them.

Of course it was laughable. These people were out to get Joseph. Some of them wanted him dead. I have no idea what would have happened had Joseph not tried to prevent people from finding out about polygamy. By the time things came to a head I’m not sure it would have mattered. 

[USU78]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

All that would have been easier to say...yes..but Joseph was also a good person in his own way...I was being kind. 

🤣

[Glenn101]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Of course it was laughable. These people were out to get Joseph. Some of them wanted him dead. I have no idea what would have happened had Joseph not tried to prevent people from finding out about polygamy. By the time things came to a head I’m not sure it would have mattered. 

I do not know how much research you have done on the matter, but polygamy was not a main player in the scene. Political power and financial gain were the compelling forces in that narrative.

Glenn