"He lived great, and he died great"

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Glenn101 said:

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

It’s more complicated than that. I was responding to the suggestion made by someone else that things might have gone differently had Joseph owned up to polygamy. I don’t think so. 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

It’s more complicated than that. I was responding to the suggestion made by someone else that things might have gone differently had Joseph owned up to polygamy. I don’t think so. 

 

I agree with you, but I also agree with Glenn that polygamy was not a big issue in this conflict at this point in history. 

Furthermore, I don’t see how public disclosure of plural marriage would have done anything but make things worse. It mystifies me that anyone thinks it would have diffused the matter. 

Edited July 3, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

I agree with you, but I also agree with Glenn that polygamy was not a big issue in this conflict at this point in history. 

Furthermore, I don’t see how public disclosure of plural marriage void have done anything but make things worse. It mystifies me that anyone thinks it would have diffused the matter. 

I agree with him too. I think public disclosure of polygamy would have caused massive problems within the church, given that leaders had been denying it. 

[Glenn101]

45 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It’s more complicated than that. I was responding to the suggestion made by someone else that things might have gone differently had Joseph owned up to polygamy. I don’t think so. 

 

Okay. I agree with that.

 

[JulieM]

20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I agree with you, but I also agree with Glenn that polygamy was not a big issue in this conflict at this point in history. 

Furthermore, I don’t see how public disclosure of plural marriage void have done anything but make things worse. It mystifies me that anyone thinks it would have diffused the matter. 

I don’t believe polygamy had anything (or much) to do with his death (to those anti’s like Sharp who wanted him gone).

But his polygamy being exposed to all church members is why Joseph wanted to stop more issues of The Expositor (from what I’ve read).  Joseph was still denying that in public, iirc.

 

Edited July 3, 2018 by JulieM

[jkwilliams]

16 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

 

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. 

I found what I was referring to, but unfortunately it's on a site that I can't link to from here. 

[ALarson]

58 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I found what I was referring to, but unfortunately it's on a site that I can't link to from here. 

That's too bad because I'd love to read it!  (I'll try to search for it).

I do believe that William Law has unjustly become the face of evil in this and painted as a villain which he does not deserve.  There are definitely two sides to this, but he did not form the mob or want Joseph murdered.  If one reads the interview (posted and mentioned here on this thread a few times), he was horrified that this took place.  He really believed the church leaders had gone morally astray (after his wife was approached to live polyandry and he heard of the young girls who some were marrying, etc....most done in secret behind the backs of the saints and even some of the spouses).  He had every right to put his own money into a business and speaking what he believed was the truth.  

It's interesting that many here will admit that it wasn't the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor that led to Joseph's death (that it was others who were out to get him one way or the other) and yet they continue to blame William Law for Joseph's murder.  The truth is that he had nothing to do with the killing of Joseph and Hyrum.  Yes, the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor riled up those who were already out to destroy Joseph, but Law didn't want his business destroyed and a scene made in the street like there was.  

Here's three letters written by William Law (and published in the Salt Lake Tribune):

http://www.william-law.org/publications/the-mormons-in-nauvoo-three-letters-from-william-law-on-mormonism-an-honest-mans-view-and-remorse-the-daily-tribune-salt-lake-city-july-3-1887

Here's the interview (also published in the Trib):

http://www.william-law.org/publications/dr-w-wyl-wilhelm-ritter-von-wymetal-interview-with-william-law-in-shullsburg-wisconsin-30-march-1887-the-daily-tribune-salt-lake-city-31-july-1887

 

 

 

Edited July 3, 2018 by ALarson

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

That's too bad because I'd love to read it!  (I'll try to search for it).

I do believe that William Law has unjustly become the face of evil in this and painted as a villain which he does not deserve.  There are definitely two sides to this, but he did not form the mob or want Joseph murdered.  If one reads the interview (posted and mentioned here on this thread a few times), he was horrified that this took place.  He really believed the church leaders had gone morally astray (after his wife was approached to live polyandry and he heard of the young girls who some were marrying, etc....most done in secret behind the backs of the saints and even some of the spouses).

It's interesting that many here will admit that it wasn't the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor that led to Joseph's death (that it was others who were out to get him one way or the other) and yet they continue to blame William Law for Joseph's murder.  The truth is that he had nothing to do with the killing of Joseph and Hyrum.  Yes, the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor riled up those who were already out to destroy Joseph, but Law didn't want his business destroyed and a scene made in the street like there was.  

Here's three letters written by William Law (and published in the Salt Lake Tribune):

http://www.william-law.org/publications/the-mormons-in-nauvoo-three-letters-from-william-law-on-mormonism-an-honest-mans-view-and-remorse-the-daily-tribune-salt-lake-city-july-3-1887

Here's the interview (also published in the Trib):

http://www.william-law.org/publications/dr-w-wyl-wilhelm-ritter-von-wymetal-interview-with-william-law-in-shullsburg-wisconsin-30-march-1887-the-daily-tribune-salt-lake-city-31-july-1887

I'll see what I can do. In the meantime, here's proof that William Law was guilty of murdering Joseph and Hyrum Smith:

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'll see what I can do. In the meantime, here's proof that William Law was guilty of murdering Joseph and Hyrum Smith:

  Yup!  Thanks.

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I'll see what I can do. In the meantime, here's proof that William Law was guilty of murdering Joseph and Hyrum Smith:

Like wow...the first link I have read before..but it seems to be the character of Joseph as I see him now.  Wow.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Jeanne said:

Like wow...the first link I have read before..but it seems to be the character of Joseph as I see him now.  Wow.

William Law’s interview, filtered through dedicated anti-Mormon Wilhelm Wyl, is not entirely trustworthy. 

The affidavit above I posted as a joke. 

[ALarson]

31 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

William Law’s interview, filtered through dedicated anti-Mormon Wilhelm Wyl, is not entirely trustworthy. 

Oh, yes....I agree 100%.  Everything needs to be read with a critical eye and acknowledging the source.  It's just good to read writings from both sides of this and the truth is probably somewhere in between  

It's quite simply not as black and white as it's portrayed, IMO.

Edited July 3, 2018 by ALarson

[jkwilliams]

Just now, ALarson said:

Oh, yes....I agree 100%.  Everything needs to be read with a critical eye and acknowledging the source.  It's just good to read writings from both sides of this and the truth is probably somewhere in between  

Yep. For example, Law's claim that Joseph and Hyrum embezzled $5000 of Maria Lawrence's $8000 inheritance, leaving Law to cover the debt, is not accurate. What is accurate is that Joseph used the roughly $3800 inheritance to buy the printing press in Nauvoo. After his death, the executor of the Lawrence will sued the estate of Joseph Smith and won a judgment of approximately $4200 (the original inheritance plus interest), which was apparently never paid by the Smiths, Law, or anyone else. So, yes, somewhere in the middle.

[Analytics]

On ‎7‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 2:40 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

In the case of the Expositor, it was suppressed because it was inciting violence (Calm pointed this out). Even today, incitement to riot is not constitutionally protected. 

We can argue reasonably about whether destruction of the press was illegal. But given its nefarious intent, the newspaper was rightly suppressed. I think that is beyond reasonable dispute. 

What we are talking about is a mayor of a city-state with a city charter that theoretically puts its power equal to that of the state and nation. In this city-state, the mayor controls all branches of government, and the vast majority of the citizens follow him with literal religious zeal. This city-state has declared that the Constitutional right of habeas corpus means that if somebody is arrested by any city, state, or federal authority anywhere for any alleged crime, the accused has the right to be taken back to Nauvoo where the Nauvoo judge can decide whether the arrest has legal merit. The sitting mayor of the city-state also happens to be the general of the largest militia in the area, which he uses to enforce this perverted interpretation of habeas corpus.

The freedom of press was established by people who responded to corrupt governments with revolutionary wars. You are claiming that if a newspaper criticizes a government official and the official being criticized argues that the criticism could lead to a riot, that in and of itself is enough to grant the government the right to shut down the press. That might be how it works in China. But in America, I can't take that seriously.

As Thomas Jefferson said, "Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost."

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, Analytics said:

What we are talking about is a mayor of a city-state with a city charter that theoretically puts its power equal to that of the state and nation. In this city-state, the mayor controls all branches of government, and the vast majority of the citizens follow him with literal religious zeal. This city-state has declared that the Constitutional right of habeas corpus means that if somebody is arrested by any city, state, or federal authority anywhere for any alleged crime, the accused has the right to be taken back to Nauvoo where the Nauvoo judge can decide whether the arrest has legal merit. The sitting mayor of the city-state also happens to be the general of the largest militia in the area, which he uses to enforce this perverted interpretation of habeas corpus.

The freedom of press was established by people who responded to corrupt governments with revolutionary wars. You are claiming that if a newspaper criticizes a government official and the official being criticized argues that the criticism could lead to a riot, that in and of itself is enough to grant the government the right to shut down the press. That might be how it works in China. But in America, I can't take that seriously.

As Thomas Jefferson said, "Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost."

The Nauvoo City charter was lawfully established by the state of Illinois and was justified at the time in the wake of the horrific oppression to which the Mormon people had been subjected up to that time. 

Those are fine words by Jefferson, but as a practical matter, as I pointed out in a post earlier on this thread, none of the First Amendment freedoms are absolute. 

[Analytics]

11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The Nauvoo City charter was lawfully established by the state of Illinois and was justified at the time in the wake of the horrific oppression to which the Mormon people had been subjected up to that time. 

Those are fine words by Jefferson, but as a practical matter, as I pointed out in a post earlier on this thread, none of the First Amendment freedoms are absolute. 

Yea, that is how it was justified at the time. With 20/20 hindsight, we should be able to agree that the Nauvoo City charter wasn't compatible with American democracy and that the way the mayor/general aggresively used its powers did infinitely more harm than good in terms of creating a peaceful, permanent home for the Saints.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

Yea, that is how it was justified at the time. With 20/20 hindsight, we should be able to agree that the Nauvoo City charter wasn't compatible with American democracy and that the way the mayor/general aggresively used its powers did infinitely more harm than good in terms of creating a peaceful, permanent home for the Saints.

“20/20 hindsight” might in some instances be a euphemism for the presentist fallacy. 

It’s not self evident that it did more harm than good. Perhaps the good it did was to hold back the tide of oppression long enough for the saints and the Church to survive and ultimately make their way to a place in the West where they did establish their permanent home. 

Edited July 4, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[USU78]

On 7/3/2018 at 12:19 PM, ALarson said:

Oh, yes....I agree 100%.  Everything needs to be read with a critical eye and acknowledging the source.  It's just good to read writings from both sides of this and the truth is probably somewhere in between  

It's quite simply not as black and white as it's portrayed, IMO.

Fog of war.