Joseph Smith's most breathtaking lie.

[_grindael]

There were a lot of players active at the time that Joseph was being accused of moral bankruptcy in Nauvoo. It is difficult using primary sources to pin down what really was going on. Some of the sources are antagonistic. Some are not. Where do you draw the line between what can be trusted as 'the truth' and what is not? For example, are John C. Bennett and Sarah Brotherton to be trusted? When is William Law to be trusted and when is he not? The Fosters? And so forth.

They can be trusted where their information can be verified. Take William Law. Please detail for me, MG anything that Law said that can't be trusted, and can be PROVEN by historical evidence to be a lie. I can prove by that historical evidence that everything that Law claimed was TRUE.

Joseph lied.
Joseph broke the law.
Joseph broke his own church laws and regulations.
Joseph committed adultery.

We only need one case for any of these, to prove that Joseph was a liar and an adulterer. We have plenty of instances in contemporary diaries where Joseph "married" women in addition to Emma. Here is one by William Clayton,

[May 1, 1843. Monday.] A.M. at the Temple. At 10 m[arried] J[oseph] to L[ucy] W[alker]. P.m. at President Josephs…6 (George D. Smith, An Intimate Chronicle; The Journals of William Clayton, p.100)

This perfectly accords with Lucy Walker's later testimony. Joseph was marrying other women and committing adultery by the laws of the state and of the church, since the church only permitted one man to have one wife. This isn't "messy" or difficult or oblique. It is cut and dry. William Law proclaimed all of these things, and everything he said was accurate and correct in the Expositor, in his diary, and before the High Council in 1843/44.

We know Brigham Young committed adultery with Amanda Cobb. There was a court trial in Boston and she was found guilty of doing so with Young. So yes, Martha Brotherton is credible. It wasn't her that was lying, it was Brigham and Joseph. They have been caught in numerous lies, I don't know of any that she was caught in. As for Bennett. He was a scoundrel, but you don't need Bennett to show Joseph to be a liar. But many of the things he did say are backed up by evidence. As for Foster, I can show where he told the truth and Joseph lied. All you need is one instance to show who was truthful and who was not. Would you like me to provide the evidence? I'd be happy to. Here is something I wrote up about the squabble that took place between Joseph and the Fosters and Higbees and Laws in 1844 that led up to the murder of Smith:

On April 26, all hell broke loose between Joseph Smith and the Foster Brothers. Smith’s diary records the incident,

Friday, April 26[th] 1844 At home. 10 A.M. Marshal went up on hill to arrest Augustus Spencer for an assault on his Bro[ther] Orson Spencer for an assault in his own home. R[obert] D. Foster, Charles Foster, and Chaunc[e]y L. Higbee come down.

Charles Foster drew a pistol towards me on the steps of my office. I ordered him to be arrested and the pistol taken from him. A struggle ensued in which Charles Foster, R[obert] D. Foster and Chaunc[e]y L. Higbee resisted and I ordered them to be arrested. They resisted and I Mayor ordered the High policemen to be called and his possey and went on to try A[ugustus]. Spencer. Fined him $100 bound for to keep the peace 6 months.

$100 Bonds appealed to Municipal court at once [by] R[obert] D. Foster, Ghaunc[e]y L. Higbee and Charles Foster[, arrested] for resisting the authorities of the city. O[rrin] P[orter] Rockwell sworn Marshal [John Greene] sworn. Said Dr. Foster swore by God he would not assist the Marshal and swore by God they would see the Mayor &c. in hell before they would go. {page 99}

[p.474] Charles Foster drew a pistol. Dr. Foster interfered. Cha[r]les Foster and Chaunc[e]y L. Higbee said they would be God damned if they would not shoot the Mayor. Breathed out many hard threatening and menacing sayings. Would concider favored of God for the privilege of shooting or ridding the world of such a Tyrant referring to the Mayor. J. Coolidge confirmed.Tufts swore [and] confirmed the foregoing statements.

Fined R[obert] D. Foster, Charles Foster and C[hauncey] L. Higbee fined $100 each. Appealed to Municipal Court.

Issued a warrant for a R[obert] D. Foster on complaint of Willard Richards for breach of ordinance in that Foster, said tosaid Richards, "You," shakeing his fists in his face, "are another Damned black hearted villian. You tried to seduce my wife on the boat when she was going to New York and I can prove it. And the oath is out against you." (Scott H. Faulring, An American Prophet's Record, 473-474).

Augustine Spencer was a non-Mormon in a family full of Mormons. He had been friendly towards Joseph Smith and the Church until his father died on November 27, 1843, and it came time to divide the estate. As the oldest son of Daniel and Chloe Spencer, Augustine felt that he should be the Administrator of the Estate, (which was considerable) but was opposed by his Mormon family who took the matter to the county seat at Carthage. There, Augustine was granted control of the Estate. Accusations were then made by both sides about the goods and monies left by Daniel Spencer. As Richard and Claudia Sadler write:

As the enmity widened between Augustine and his mother Chloe and his three younger brothers, so did his animosity toward the Church and its leaders. By April 1844, Augustine had clearly aligned himself with the leading Nauvoo dissenters—William Law (Joseph Smith’s second counselor in the First Presidency), his brother Wilson Law, Chauncey and Francis Higbee, and Charles A. and Robert D. Foster. (Richard & Claudia S. Sadler, Augustine Spencer: Nauvoo Gentile, Joseph Smith Antagonist, Mormon Historical Studies, Vol. 12, Issue 2, September 2011, 35, Online here, Accessed January 5, 2015).

On April 26, Augustine and his younger brother Orson got into a heated argument at Orson’s home, which escalated to physical confrontation. (ibid, p. 35) Augustine left his brother’s house and went to an attorney’s office (W. H. J. Marr) where he was found by Orrin Porter Rockwell, the City Marshal who was sent there to arrest him. Rockwell claimed that he had resisted arrest and so would be taken before the Mayor, Joseph Smith to be charged. (ibid) A crowd soon converged on the Mayor’s Office including Chauncey Higbee, Robert and Charles Foster, who came to Augustine’s defense. In the ensuing argument about Augustine being arrested without due process, Charles drew a gun on Smith and threatened to shoot him. Smith immediately held a hearing and fined them all $100 and Augustine another $100 to “keeph the peace for six months.” Foster told Smith that “there was Daniteism in Nauvoo.” (ibid.)

It almost seems from all of the incidents that Smith and his detractors were engaged in that both parties enjoyed taking opposite sides of an argument so they could confront each other. With each new confrontation emotions ran hotter and hotter as more and more accusations and hostility were manifested. Joseph was their tyrant and they were his usurpers of authority.

On May 3, Parley P. Pratt wrote a warning letter to Joseph Smith and Orson Spencer from Richmond, Massachusetts, about Augustine which read in part:

Dear Brother Joseph and Brother Orson Spencer, or whom it may concern:

This is to forewarn you that you have a snake in the grass—a base traitor and hypocrite in your midst, of whom perhaps you may not be fully aware. You may think these hard terms, but I speak from good evidence and speak the truth. Mr. Augustine Spencer, brother to Elder Orson Spencer, has written a letter from Nauvoo, which is now going the rounds in this neighborhood, and is fraught with the most infamous slander and lies concerning Joseph Smith and others, and which is calculated to embitter the minds of the people who read or hear it. It affirms that Joseph Smith is in the habit of drinking, swearing, carousing, dancing all night, &tc., and that he keeps six or seven young females as wives, &tc., and many other such like insinuations. (ibid.)

Pratt claimed that he never saw the letter, but that he had “carefully examined the testimony of those who have, and I have also seen and witnessed its baneful effect upon the people here.” (ibid., 36)

The day after the shooting incident Smith’s diary records that,

9 A.M. R[obert] D. Foster come up for trial. After much conversation with the Mayor in which he charged Joseph with many crimes [like] Daniteism in Nauvoo, and a great variety of vile and false Epithets and charges. Court adjourned to Monday 9 A.M. Foster agreed to meet Joseph on 2d Monday of May at the stand and have a settlement. Foster then said he would publish it [in the] Warsaw paper. Joseph told him if he did not agree to be quiet [and] not attempt to raise a mob and [threaten violence] he would not meet him. If he would be quiet he would publish it in Neighbor. Foster would not agree to be quiet and Joseph said he was free from his (Foster) blood had made the last overtures of peace, [and] delivered him into the hand of God and shook his garments against him. (Scott H. Faulring, An American Prophet's Record, 475).

The next day (Sunday) the 28th of April, the Law’s organized their new Church:

Sunday, April 28[th] 1844 At home. Hyrum preached at the stand. A.M. There was a meeting at Gen[eral] W[illia]m and Wilson Law's near the saw mill of those who had been cut off from the Church and their dupes. Several affidavits were taken and read against Joseph and others. W[illia]m Law, Wilson Law, Austin D. Cowles, John Scott Sen[ior]., Francis M. Higbee, R[obert] D. Foster, and Robert Pierce were appointed a committee to visit the different families of the city and see who would join the new Church (IE [i.e.,]) it was decided that Joseph was [a] fallen prophet &c. and W[illia]m Law was appointed in his place. Austin Cowles and Wilson Law Councillors. R[obert] D. Foster and F[rancis] M. Higbee to the 12 Apostles &c. as report says. El[der] James Blakely preached up Joseph in the A.M. and [in the] P.M. joined the anties [anti-Mormons]. Cha[rle]s Ivins Bishop. [several lines left blank] (ibid.)

This sounds almost like what Dennison Harris describes in his 1881 recollection to George S. Gibbs (without all the drama). On Monday (April 29) Robert D. Foster came up for trial and Joseph finally recused himself and gave the case to William Marks. Foster “objected to jurisdiction of court and informality” (Smith Diary). It was ruled by the court that his objections had no foundation. On the same day Smith had Abiathar Williams file affidavits to suspend the Laws from the Nauvoo Legion pending a trial. (ibid.) A trial never happened for any of these men.

On May 6th Joseph nominated Sidney Rigdon to be his Presidential running mate. Also on that day Smith had a warrant served on him by Francis Higbee for slander in the amount of $5000. Gary Bergera writes,

It is unclear what immediately prompted the suit; perhaps others of Higbee’s immediate circle had talked about Smith’s earlier accusations against him. Smith petitioned Nauvoo’s municipal court the same day to allow him to respond to Higbee’s charges and to force Higbee to justify why Smith should remain under arrest. During the May 8 proceeding, which Higbee did not attend, Smith proved good on his threat to try to expose Higbee. According to the published minutes:

Joseph Smith sworn … Francis M. Higbee said he was grieved at me, and I was grieved at him. I was willing on my part to settle all difficulties, and he promised if I would go before the City Council and tell them he would drop every thing against me forever. I have never mentioned the name of Francis M. Higbee disrespectfully from that time to this; but have been entirely silent about him; if any one has said that I have spoken disrespectfully since then, they have lied: and he cannot have any cause whatever. I want to testify to this court of what occurred a long time before John C. Bennet left [t]his city. I was called on to visit Francis M. Higbee; I went and found him on a bed on the floor.
[Here follows testimony which is too indelicate for the public eye or ear; and we would here remark, that so revolting, corrupt, and disgusting has been the conduct of most of this clique, that we feel to dread having any thing to do with the publication of their trials; we will not however offend the public eye or ear with a repetition of the foulness of their crimes any more.]

Bennet said Higbee pointed out the spot where he had seduced a girl, and that he had seduced another. I did not believe it, I felt hurt, and labored with Higbee about it; he swore with uplifted hands, that he had lied about the matter. I went and told the girl’s parents, when Higbee and Bennet made affidavits and both perjured themselves, they swore false about me so as to blind the family. I brought Francis M. Higbee before Brigham Young, Hyrum Smith and others; Bennet was present, when they both acknowledged that they had done these things, and asked us to forgive them. I got vexed, my feelings had been hurt; Higbee has been guilty of adulterous communication, perjury, &c. which I am able to prove by men who heard them confess it. I also preferred charges against Bennett, the same charges which I am now telling: and he got up and told them it was the truth, when he pleaded for his life, and begged to be forgiven; this was [Bennett’s] own statement before sixty or seventy men; he said the charges were true against him and Higbee. I have been endeavoring to throw out shafts to defend myself, because they were corrupt, and I knew they were determined to ruin me: [Higbee] has told the public that he was determined to prosecute me, because I slandered him, although I tell nothing but the truth. Since the settlement of our difficulties, I have not mentioned his name disrespectfully; he wants to bind up my hands in the circuit court, and make me pay heavy damages for telling the truth. In relation to the conspiracy, I have not heard Francis M. Higbee say he would take away my life; but Chauncey Higbee [and two others] … said they would shoot me, and the only offence against me is telling the truth.

Although Hyrum Smith had earlier insisted that such accusations were “a mistake,” he and others now joined their testimony to Joseph Smith’s regarding Francis’s reported depravity:

Brigham Young, sworn, With regard to Francis M. Higbee, at the time that is spoken of, I stopped opposite Mr. Laws’ store, we had been conversing with Dr. Bennet when I came into the room, Francis Higbee rather recoiled and wished to withdraw; he went out and sat upon a pile of wood. He said it is all true, I am sorry for it, I wish it had never happened. I understood Bennet who related some of the circumstances, he cried and begged of us to forgive him, and said if he could be permitted to stay in the city as a private individual he should be happy; that was about what he said; it is true, I am sorry for it I wish it had never been so; as we came up, Dr. Bennet, Mr. Higbee, and Mr. Smith, had been talking about it, I have not mentioned it before, I knew of the whole affair, it was on the 4th of July, or a few days after[;] it was shortly after I came from England. I was in the City Council when Mr. Higbee said all was settled. …

Hyrum Smith swore,—I recollect a settlement of difficulties between Francis M. Higbee and my brother Joseph, about which some of the court may recollect. I recollect Dr. Bennett asking forgiveness of the [Masonic] Lodge when there was about sixty present—Francis M. Higbee acknowledged that it was the truth, that he was sorry, and had been a thousand times: he acknowledged his connection with the woman on the hill; I did think he was with Dr. Bennet at the time, the statement of Bennet was, that he was guilty, he was sorry and asked forgiveness, he said he had seduced six or seven, he acknowledged it, and said if he was forgiven, he would not be guilty any more. Francis said he knew it was true, he was sorry and had been a hundred times; the very things that we had challenged him with, he acknowledged. I told Francis that it had better be settled[.] [H]e said, Joseph had accused him—if his character was gone all was gone, he said he would settle it and they went into the room, he did not deny any charge, he said he was sorry, that he wanted it buried, and it was agreed to do so. Francis did not say any thing about his sickness, but Dr. Bennet … doctored him in the time of his sickness. …

Heber C. Kimball, sworn—I think it is near two years: I had some conversation with Francis Higbee, he expressed himself indignant at some things; he expressed himself that he was sorry, he would live a new life, he never would say a word against President Joseph Smith; he had an inclination to write that what he published was false. … The last time I conversed with him, he said, “if I had taken your council, I should now have been a man looked on with respect; he said he was not connected with the people that opposed President Smith and never would”—he much regretted the course he had taken.

At the end of the hearing, the court discharged Joseph Smith and ruled that “Francis M. Higbee’s character having been so fully shown, as infamous, the court is convinced that this suit was instituted through malice, private pique and corruption; and ought not to be countenanced; and it is ordained by the court that said Francis M. Higbee pay the costs.” To underscore his commitment to expose Higbee, Smith had the court record, including his own testimony, published in the Nauvoo Neighbor the next week.

Before the end of the month, Higbee issued his own public statement to the Warsaw Signal:

The nature of the above case was as follows:—On the 1st day of May, 1844, I sued out a capias, from the Clerk of the Circuit Court, of the Fifth Judicial District of Illinois, against Joseph Smith, who, immediately on being arrested obtained a writ of habeas corpus, from the Municipal Court at Nauvoo, that he might under that garb or semblance of justice, extricate himself from the just demands of violated law, as has always been the case before when men have attempted to bring him to justice. On the return of said writ before the Municipal Court, Joseph Smith in justification of his own wickedness, corruption and infamy, swore first, as follows: “That I was grieved at him, and he was grieved at me,” but he does not tell the cause of my “grief,” neither does he give the world to understand the cause of his. He, as well as I, recollects well, the cause which first induced me to question his pretentions to sincerity, and which gave rise as he says, to my ‘grief:’ which was the base attack he (Joseph Smith) made upon the virtue of Miss Nancy Rigdon, in 1842, to whom I was at that time paying my addresses. The attack was of so base, so loathesome, and of so detestable a character, that I could not conceal my feelings from the base seducer, and I assailed Joseph Smith about the matter; in (as I think quite likely,) rather a rough manner, for I felt much excited indeed; when he (Smith) assured me I must keep perfectly dark, and be quiet, or he would serve a quietus upon me—But I could not feel reconciled towards Joseph, and I made another assault upon him, in front of Mr. James Ivin’s store, (or where he at that time kept,) and he upon that occasion told me he would blow my character to the four winds, if I did not be still, for God would deal with him, if I would be still and mind my own business, and that I was only exciting and agitating the attack, he made upon Nancy for the sake of insuring to myself an imperishable name, (or some words to that effect.)

The excitement upon my part was still on the increase, for as I reflected upon the matter, the more and more I became astonished; to think that Joseph Smith, a man professing to be a Messiah, sent by the God of Heaven to revolutionize and christianize this depraved and fallen generation, would have the presumption to attack the virtue of any female, with whom I was corresponding, and that too under the cloak of Christianity, was more than I could or ever will bear from him or any other man made in the image of his God;—I care not what his pretentions of Christianity may be, or how many revelations he may call to his aid—he is a dark fiend from the Tartarian regions, and hell stands wide to swallow him up; and I would here recommend that Joseph Smith should look well to the west, for the figure of the Lord hath written it upon the wall “Mene, Tekel, Upharsin.”

Smith discovered my feelings and commenced raging against me, by assailing my character in every corner of the street and in any private circle, and he soon commenced his outrageous attacks upon my character from the public stand. I met Smith in the public street before Hiram Smith’s office, about that time (in ’42,) when he presented his hand for my acceptance, I carried mine behind me, and refused to accept his, when he stated that he was sorry the things had assumed such an aspect, for he always loved me and did still, and I was a good boy, and every body knew it, and if every body did not know it, they were not as smart as he was. At that time he eulogized my moral worth to the skies, but could not come [to] it, for I still persisted, and utterly refused to extend my hand to any one so base, so lost to every sense of honor and virtue.”

The above is a brief statement of some things that passed between Joseph and myself, about the time he made the attack upon the virtue of Miss Nancy, sufficient, however, to acquaint the public with the reasons for my feeling towards him, as he stated I did. As for himself he could not succeed in his unhallowed attempts, and that is what made him feel so bad, but all the man had to do, I suppose in mitigation of the crime, was to offer up the entrails of a lamb, if John T. Barnett would sell another, as he did when Mr. Samuel Pratt repeated his attempts.

Joseph Smith continues his statement before the Municipal Court, at great length with regard to myself, during which statement he (Joseph) tells but one falsehood, and that includes all the man said from the time he rose to swear, until he closed his testimony—which was a lie of the basest kind, and constitutes him a perjured villain, and so he stands on the docket of that Court, and what is still more painful and desperate, is to know as I do verily know, that he stands before the Bar of Heaven and owns [i.e., admits] that he has lied, and that too, for the sole purpose of destroying him who has never harmed the hair of any man’s head, or injured any female under Heaven. (Bergera, op. cited)

Smith is caught in a lie in his testimony. He claims that “I have never mentioned the name of Francis M. Higbee disrespectfully from that time to this; (January 13th) but have been entirely silent about him; if any one has said that I have spoken disrespectfully since then, they have lied: and he cannot have any cause whatever.”

Yet, little more than a month later, because Higbee decided to counsel Orsimus Bostwick, and did not want him tried in Nauvoo, Smith accused Higbee of trying to “stir up the mob, and bring them upon us”. Joseph also claims that “In relation to the conspiracy, I have not heard Francis M. Higbee say he would take away my life,” yet Smith accused him of trying to bring a mob down on him. They only thing that Smith can claim is that Chauncey Higbee drew a gun on him and threatened to shoot him, which he did in front of many witnesses, so he wasn’t trying to hide it by way of some conspiracy. There isn’t one mention of Francis Higbee in Smith’s Diary until February of 1844. Francis Higbee’s name though, was brought up by Joseph Smith in the Nauvoo City Council on January 3, 1844.

The City Council Minutes from the Law meeting are of extreme interest. They show that there were those who bore animosity towards Law and Marks because of their rejection of what they called (with no objections from Joseph) the spiritual wife system. Eli Norton was called to testify because William Law claimed that it was Norton who told him that his and Marks’ life was in danger:

Bro[ther] [Daniel] Cairns said all that I have heard — [and the mayor] probably refered to what has been stated, about a doe head &c. ^By Mayor^[:] Did he sa[y] he ^I^ had administered a private oath? ^Norton[:]^ No! [He] said not much about Law, did not say you had ever ministered any private oath. Cairns never intimated Law must be put out of the way. [He] did not call W[illia]m Laws [by] name nor no other name, did not say the policemen had a private oath. — did [I] underst[oo]d Cairns to say there was private instructions, and if a man could not keep a secret[,] [he] was not worthy of a place in the Church. [Cairns] did not say the Mayor had given him a charge, did not tell where. [He] told me there were doe heads about, did not say the doe heads were in danger. The Mayor was in danger from the doe head.

By W[illia]m Law[:] Did you not understand from Bro[ther] Cairns that [Joseph] was suspicious of one near him as a doe head, & must be taken care of. — [Were you not] satisfied he had reference to me?

E[li] N[orton][:] Yes. He mentioned a doe head standing near Joseph. [He said he] had [a] conversation on Spiritual wifes. — I did not believe [it]. — [I] knew Bro[ther] Law was opposed [to polygamy], and in this conversation the doe head came in. Cairns did not say Joseph had anything to do with spiritual wifes or had not taught any such things, did not say Bro[ther] Law had any thing to do with it. — ^There was^ no chain to the conversation, — ^He suggested^ there was another Law, the Law of God, [and] d[id] not know who administered the ^other^ oath.

Mayor[:] Tell what you know that made you so alarmed about Bro[ther] Law.

Eli Norton[:] Cairns told me several times Daniteism was not down, never said [the] Mayor had any thing to do about Daniteism. Cairns said it was a good system, said Q every department Quorum had their teachings and they must not tell another quorum, did not say I must take an oath to remain his counsellor. — I drew the inference that Bro[ther] Law was the doe head from Cairns conversation, but Cairns did not name Law. Bishop Cairns8 said[:] I told him we were sworn & our duties [were] specified. I said by the covenant we have made in Baptism we are bound to protect each other in righteousness. Daniteism is to stand by each other[,] that is all I know about Daniteism. — [The] Mayor said he was not afraid of any thing but a doe head in our midst. ^In our conversation we^ referred to spiritual wifes and one thing brought on another. — I was asked who can that man be? I gave my opinion that certain men had been required to give their property to certain purposes & then went & built a mill & sowed a hundred acres of hemp & lost it in the river.

— Norton said Bro[ther] Law knew about the Spiritual wife system. I never intimated that Bro[ther] Law[’s] life was in danger. I intimated that Bro[ther] Law might be the doe head, previously Bro[ther] Law and me had [a] conversation about stories afloat on spiritual wifes. He thought it was from the devil — and we must put it down[,] that he knew such a thing was in existence & [was] breaking up of families &c.

By Law[:] Did I said not say we have a good foundation [for believing so] because Joseph blowed it all up before the [Nauvoo Stake] High Council & Hyrum before the Elders Quorum? Yes said Cairns, [confirming that] Law did not[,] [in their conversation][,] speak disrespectfully of Joseph or of the Church. [Cairns said he] had no secret conversation with [the] Mayor. Nor [had he received a] charge except before the council [and people had] never heard any thing from me to endanger the life of any man.

[The] Mayor spoke on [the] Spiritual wife system and explained, The man who promises to keep a secret and does not keep it he is a liar and not to be trusted. (Dinger, John S., The Nauvoo City and High Council Minutes, Signature Books, Kindle Edition, 6312-6347).

This mention of "spiritual wifeism" can’t be about John C. Bennett, because Smith considered him guilty, so it is about himself who he (Joseph) declared “was innocent of all these charges” later in May. Here was see Smith talking about his own “Spiritual Wife System” as they called it. He also did exactly the opposite of what he counsels here with William and Wilson Law when Brigham Young cut them off from the Church on April 18th.

On the 12th Smith railed against his enemies and claimed that no one had power to reveal the principles of faith, virtue and love but him:

All the lies that are now hatched up against me are of the devil, and the influence of the devil and his servants will be used against the kingdom of God. …When did I ever teach anything wrong from this stand? When was I ever confounded? I want to triumph in Israel before I depart hence and am no more seen. I never told you I was perfect; but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught. Must I, then, be thrown away as a thing of naught? I enjoin for your consideration—add to your faith virtue, love, &c. I say, in the name of the Lord, if these things are in you, you shall be [p.367] fruitful. I testify that no man has power to reveal it but myself—things in heaven, in earth and hell; and all shut your mouths for the future. (History of the Church, Vol. 6, 366).

In his diary, Law wrote on May 13th 1844 that he told Sidney Rigdon (who Joseph had sent to William Law to offer him restoration of his place in the Church),

…that if they wanted peace they could have it on the following conditions, That [if] Joseph Smith would acknowledge publicly that he had taught and practiced the doctrine of the plurality of wives, that he brought a revelation supporting the doctrine, and that he should own the whole system (revelation and all) to be from Hell; to acknowledge also that he had lately endeavored to seduce my wife, and had found her a virtuous woman, and that persecution against me and my friends was unjust; if Smith and his followers will entirely cease from their abominations and fully undeceive the people as to these things, then I would agree to cease hostilities, otherwise we would publish all to the world. (William Law Diary, May 13, 1844)

As one can see from above, the part about Joseph seducing William’s wife has been crossed out. I believe that this was done not because it didn’t happen (we have Scott’s testimony from the 18th of April to support this as well as Edward Bonney’s) but because Law did not include this in his demands to Rigdon. He may have mentioned it to Rigdon, but did not want to demand Smith to acknowledge it publicly if he would admit to and denounce his practice of polygamy. For the next few days, William Law tried to make sense out of his excommunication:

April 19 [1844]. This day I learn from Walmart. Marks (President of this Stake) telling my brother that the heads of Presidents of all the Quorums met together last night, and without having preferred any charges, or notifying to trial, cut off (as they call it) from the Church, R.D. Foster, Wilson Law, myself and my wife, they said we were opposed to Joseph Smith and that was enough, some charges had been prefered against Foster, but they cut him off before the day of trial, the fact is they are afraid to bring us to trial, knowing that they cannot prove anything against us, and they know we could prove them guilty of base & damning crimes, they fear that we might bring charges against them, and therefore they want tocut us off lest we should expose their wicked acts. But we consider this cutting off as illegal, and, therefore corrupt. S. Rigdon was not present.

21 [April 1844]. I this day sent a written demand to Pres: Marks demanding who as follows (in substance) to let me know who our accuser was, what accused of, who the witnesses were, what they proved &c, and by whom we were tried, he (Marks) said he had not presided, that Brigham Young had, this was illegal, as B. Young has no right to preside in this Stake only over his own Quorum.

22 [April 1844]. I went this day called on Willard Richards (Church Recorder) to obtain transcript of the record of our trial, when to my surprise he said there was no record, only that we were cut off--this again was illegal but it is like the rest of their dark deeds,--By the above the Church has as a body transgressed the laws of the Church and of God & every principle of justice and are under deep transgression. (William Law Diary, April 22, 1844, 7)

It seems from the transcript we have of William Law’s “trial” that all they did was discuss a few incidents from the past and then excommunicated him without consulting him about anything. Nameless “men on the hill” claim that Smith was maligned by the Laws and Foster. The trial was illegal. Smith would later claim,

In relation to the power over the minds of mankind which I hold, I would say, It is in consequence of the power of truth in the doctrines which I have been an instrument in the hands of God of presenting unto them, and not because of any compulsion on my part. I wish to ask if ever I got any of it unfairly? if I have not reproved you in the gate? I ask, Did I ever exercise any, compulsion over any man? Did I not give him the liberty of disbelieving any doctrine I have preached, if he saw fit? Why do not my enemies strike a blow at the doctrine? They cannot do it: it is truth, and I defy all men to upset it.(History of the Church, Vol. 6, 274, March 24, 1844).

He also claimed that, “I won't swear out a warrant against them, for I don't fear any of them: they would not scare off an old setting hen.” (ibid.)

Yet this is exactly what Joseph Smith did (swear out warrants against his “enemies”, based on hearsay reports). For example, Joseph claimed that,

My brother Hyrum received an anonymous letter, supposed to have been written by Joseph H. Jackson, threatening his life, and calling upon him to make his peace with God for he would soon have to die. (History of the Church, Vol. 6, 367, May 12, 1844).

With no way to prove this, they attribute it to Joseph H. Jackson and Joseph Smith starts proclaiming that Jackson was a proven murderer, a charge that was never substantiated. John S. Dinger writes,

In fact, nothing in the minutes of the city council indicated that Joseph Jackson had committed murder. Joseph Smith had alleged an intent on Jackson’s part, and Washington Peck may have felt intimidated by Jackson; there was fear that Jackson might elope with Hyrum Smith’s daughter, but he had not eloped and had not killed anyone either. (Dinger, John S. (2013-11-26). The Nauvoo City and High Council Minutes (Kindle Locations 8529-8532). Signature Books. Kindle Edition).

Still, on June 10, Joseph would claim that,

Joseph H. Jackson has been proved a murderer before this Council. (Dinger, John S. (2013-11-26). The Nauvoo City and High Council Minutes (Kindle Locations 7212-7214). Signature Books. Kindle Edition).

This is what Joseph did with ALL of the "dissenters", slandered their names. William Law was opposed to Joseph’s doctrines. But they were not focused on that, but on rumors of violence. On May 3rd, the Twelve wrote a letter to Reuben Hedlock and claimed:

William and Wilson Law , R[ obert] D. Foster, C[ hauncey] L. & F[ rancis] Higbee, father [Austin] Cowles &c., have organized a new church. (Laws and Fosters were first cut off.) William Law is prophet, James Blakesley and Cowels, counselors; Higbee and Foster of the twelve: cannot learn all particulars; Charles Ivins, Bishop; old Dr [Younger] Green and old John Scott his counselors; they are talking of sending a mission to England, but it will probably be after this when they come among you. ’Tis the same old story over again, “The doctrine is right, but Joseph is a fallen prophet.” (Letter from the Twelve to Reuben Hedlock, Nauvoo, May 3rd, 1844, as quoted in, The Council of Fifty: A Documentary History, Signature Books, Kindle Edition, 1879).

All of the reports of Law being in a conspiracy to murder the Smith family were false. Even Hyrum did not believe them, and said so at the April Conference. Yet Joseph went ahead and had William Law excommunicated by Brigham Young, probably because Hyrum Smith had qualms about it.

On May 4th, both Robert D. Foster and Aaron Johnson were cashiered from the Nauvoo Legion for “unofficer like and unbecoming conduct”. (History of the Church, Vol. 6, 355). On the 6th of May, Smith wrote the Court at Nauvoo that the suit brought against him by Francis M. Higbee for slander was,

instituted against him without any just or legal cause; and further that the said Francis M. Higbee is actuated by no other motive than a desire to persecute and harass your petitioner for the base purpose of gratifying feelings of revenge, which, without any cause, the said Francis M. Higbee has for a long time been fostering and cherishing. (History of the Church, Vol. 6, 358).

Smith also claimed that another reason for the suit by Higbee against him was to,

throw your petitioner [Joseph Smith] into the hands of his enemies, that he [Higbee] might the better carry out a conspiracy which has for some time been brewing against the life of your petitioner. (ibid.)

ANOTHER LIE by Smith. On May 9th the Law brothers were cashiered out of the Nauvoo Legion for the same reasons as Francis Higbee. (ibid, p.362) On the same day Joseph boasted,

When did I ever teach anything wrong from this stand? When was I ever confounded? I want to triumph in Israel before I depart hence and am no more seen. I never told you I was perfect; but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught. Must I, then, be thrown away as a thing of naught? (History of the Church, Vol. 6, 366).

By now it was a familiar game to Smith to separate what he said “on the stand” with what he practiced in private. On May 23, Joseph reports that,

Past nine p. m., I walked a little way with Dr. Richards for exercise. My brother Hyrum called in the evening, and cautioned me against speaking so freely about my enemies, &c., in such a manner as to make it actionable. I told him that six months would not roll over his head before they would swear twelve as palpable lies about him as they had about me. (History of the Church, Vol. 6, 403, May 23, 1844)

This was because Smith kept repeating rumors in public and private as if they were facts. (Like with Joseph Jackson and William Law) Joseph’s reply was not to listen to Hyrum but to tell him they would be telling lies about him too. Except that his critics weren’t lying about Joseph’s spiritual wife doctrine, his adultery nor his slanders. Then on May 25 Joseph got the news that he was being brought up on charges of false swearing and adultery. Smith’s diary records that he was,

At home. Keeping out of the way of expected arrests from Carthage. Towards night the grand jury [members] Hunter [and] Marks returned from Carthage also Marshal Green and A[lmon] M. Babbit. [They] informed me [there] were 2 indictments found against me. One for false swearing by R[obert] D. Foster and Joseph Jackson and one for polygamy or something else by the Laws, the particulars of which I shall learn more hereafter. Much hard swearing before Grand Jury. Francis M. Higby swore so hard that I [understand he] had to [be] removed[, he says that I steal] states property &c. His testimony was rejected. (Scott H. Faulring, An American Prophet's Record, 483, Saturday, May 25, 1844)

The next day Smith had recorded that he “Preached at the stand about /Joseph/ Jackson and the mobocrats.” (ibid.) Smith boasted that,

I have suffered more than Paul did. I should be like a fish out of water, if I were out of persecutions. Perhaps my brethren think it requires all this to keep me humble. The Lord has constituted me so curiously that I glory in persecution. I am not nearly so humble as if I were not persecuted. If oppression will make a wise man mad, much more a fool. If they want a beardless boy to whip all the world, I will get on the top of a mountain and crow like a rooster: I shall always beat them. When facts are proved, truth and innocence will prevail at last. My enemies are no philosophers: they think that when they have my spoke under, they will keep me down; but for the fools, I will hold on and fly over them.
God is in the still small voice. In all these affidavits, indictments, it is all of the devil—all corruption. Come on! ye prosecutors! ye false swearers! All hell, boil over! Ye burning mountains, roll down your lava! for I will come out on the top at last. I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days [p.409] of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet. …

Matters of fact are as profitable as the Gospel, and which I can prove. You will then know who are liars, and who speak the truth I want to retain your friendship on holy grounds. Another indictment has been got up against me. It appears a holy prophet has arisen up, and he has testified against me: the reason is, he is so holy. The Lord knows I do not care how many churches are in the world. As many as believe me, may. If the doctrine that I preach is true, the tree must be good. I have prophesied things that have come to pass, and can still.

Inasmuch as there is a new church, this must be old, and of course we ought to be set down as orthodox. From henceforth let all the churches now no longer persecute orthodoxy. I never built upon any other man's ground. I never told the old Catholic that he was a fallen true prophet God knows, then. that the charges against me are false.

I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and made one proclamation of the Gospel, before it was reported that I had seven wives. I mean to live and proclaim the truth as long as I can.

This new holy prophet [William Law] has gone to Carthage and swore that I had told him that I was guilty of adultery. This spiritual wifeism! Why, a man dares not speak or wink, for fear of being accused of this.

William Law testified before forty policemen, and the assembly room full of witnesses, that he testified under oath that he never had heard or seen or knew anything immoral or criminal against me. He testified [p.411] under oath that he was my friend, and not the "Brutus." There was a cogitation who was the "Brutus." I had not prophesied against William Law. He swore under oath that he was satisfied that he was ready to lay down his life for me, and he swears that I have committed adultery.

I wish the grand jury would tell me who they are—whether it will be a curse or blessing to me. I am quite tired of the fools asking me.

A man asked me whether the commandment was given that a man may have seven wives; and now the new prophet has charged me with adultery. I never had any fuss with these men until that Female Relief Society brought out the paper against adulterers and adulteresses.

Dr. Goforth was invited into the Laws' clique, and Dr. Foster and the clique were dissatisfied with that document, and they rush away and leave the Church, and conspire to take away my life; and because I will not countenance such wickedness, they proclaim that I have been a true prophet, but that I am now a fallen prophet.

Jackson has committed murder, robbery, and perjury; and I can prove it by half-a-dozen witnesses. Jackson got up and said—"By God, he is innocent," and now swears that I am guilty. He threatened my life.

There is another Law, not the prophet, who was cashlured for dishonesty and robbing the government. Wilson Law also swears that I told him I was guilty of adultery. Brother Jonathan Dunham can swear to the contrary. I have been chained. I have rattled chains before in a dungeon for the truth's sake. I am innocent of all these charges, and you can bear witness of my innocence, for you know me yourselves.

When I love the poor, I ask no favors of the rich. I can go to the cross—I can lay down my life; but don't forsake me. I want the friendship of my brethren.—Let us teach the things of Jesus Christ. Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a downfall.

Be meek and lowly, upright and pure; render good for evil, If you bring on yourselves your own destruction, I will complain. It is not right for a man to bear down his neck to the oppressor always. Be humble and patient in all circumstances of life; we shall then triumph more gloriously. What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one.

I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers. I labored with these apostates myself until I was out of all manner of patience; and then I sent my brother Hyrum, whom they virtually kicked out of doors.

I then sent Mr. Backenstos, when they declared that they were my enemies. I told Mr. Backenstos that he might tell the Laws, if they had any cause against me I would go before the Church, and confess it [p.412] to the world. lie [Walmart. Law] was summoned time and again, but refused to come. Dr. Bernhisel and Elder Rigdon know that I speak the truth. I cite you to Captain Dunham, Esquires Johnson and Wells, Brother Hatfield and others, for the truth of what I have said. I have said this to let my friends know that I am right. (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Vol. 6, 408-412).

Law was NEVER SUMMONED. That is ANOTHER LIE. William Law was approached to drop his charges. That is all. On June 1st, William Law wrote:

June 1st [1844]. Since our Conference April 21st we have held public meetings every sabbath day; our enemies rage, and publish slander about us, but we cease not to vindicate the cause of truth, and oppose crime. To this end we have purchased a printing press and intend issuing in a few days a paper to be entitled the Nauvoo Expositor. This course has caused great alarm in the camp of our enemies; they are running to and fro, not knowing how to shield themselves; they use every means possible to destroy our influence; our lives are threatened and our steps watched by night and day. (William Law Diary, June 1, 1844)

On June 6 Smith’s diary records that,

About 12 [P.M.] 1/2 D[imick] B. Huntington come and said R[obert] D. Foster felt bad and he thought there was a chance for him to return if he could be reinstated in his office in the Legion &c. that he had all the anties affidavits &c. at his control. I told him if he would return, withdraw all his suits &c. and do right he should be restored. Met Bro[ther] Richards coming from his garden with new potatoes. Told him to go to the High Council and have Bro[ther] Brown restored to the church and give him his licence. Rode out with several in my carriage an hour or so. [several lines left blank]

7 P.M. Heavy shower, thunder, lightning [and] rain and again about 9. {page 147}

Friday, June 7[th] 1844 At home. R[obert] D. Foster called professidly to make some concessions and return to the Church. [He] wanted a private interview which I declined. Told him I would choose individuals and he might choose others and we would meet and I would settle any thing on righteous principles. [several lines left blank]

Report was circulated in the evening that Foster said I would receive him on any terms and give him a hat full of dollars into the bargain. 1st number of Nauvoo Expositor published to day, ed[ited] by Sylvester Emmons. (Scott H. Faulring, An American Prophet's Record, 488)

Yet at the City Council Meeting on June 8, 1844 Smith claimed that,

…he had never made any proposals to [Robert D.] Foster to come Back. Foster proposed to come back[,] come to his home[,] and wanted a private interview[.] [The] Mayor told him he would have no private interview — [He] had some conversation with Foster in the hall, in [the] presence of several. Mayor [He] related to [the] Council [his] conversation with Dr. Foster and read a letter from Dr Foster — dated June 7th[,] and when he left my house he went to a ^s[hoe]^ shop on the hill — and said that Joseph [Smith] said if he would come back he would give him Laws place in the church & a [bag] full of specie— and then wrote the Letter just read. (Dinger, John S., The Nauvoo City and High Council Minutes, Signature Books, Kindle Edition, 7064-7070).

ANOTHER LIE by Joseph. He did propose the Foster "be restored", if he did everything that Joseph wanted him to, which Foster would not agree to. According to the Nauvoo Neighbor, June 19, 1844, the letter from Robert Foster of June 7, 1844, read:

To Gen[eral] J[oseph] Smith Sir, I have consulted my friends in relation to your proposals of settlement, and they as well as myself are of [the] opinion that your conduct and that of your unworthy, unprincipled, clan, is so base that it would be morally wrong & detract from the dignity of Gentlemen to hold any conference with you[.] [T]he repeated insults, and abuses, I as well as my friends have suffered from your unlawful course towards us demands honorable resentment, [and] we are resolved to make this [“honorable resentment”] our motto[.] [N]othing on our part has been done to provoke your anger but [we] have done all things as become men, [while] you have trampled upon everything we hold dear and sacred[.] [Y]ou have set all law at defiance and profaned the name of the most high to carry out your damnable purposes — and I have nothing more to fear from you than you have already threatened, & I as well as my friends will stay here & maintain and magnify the law as long as we stay — and we are resolved never to leave until we sell or exchange our property that we have here[.] [T]he proposals made by your agent D[i]mic[k] Huntington as well as the threats you sent to intimidate me, I disdain and despise[,] as I do their unhallowed author[.] [T]he right of my family and my friends demand at my hand a refusal of all your offers[.] [W]e are united in virtue and truth, and we set hell at defiance and [bid] all her agents adieu. R[obert] D. FOSTER Gen[eral] J[oseph] Smith (Dinger, John S., The Nauvoo City and High Council Minutes, Signature Books, Kindle Edition, 8476-8490).

On June 10, Smith told the City Council that,

Joseph H. Jackson has been proved a murderer before this Council and [the mayor] declared the paper a nuisance, a greater nuisance greater than a dead carcass. — They make [it] a criminality of for a man to have a wife on the earth while he has one in heaven — according to the keys of the holy priesthood, and [the mayor] read the statement of W[illia]m Law in the Expositor, where the truth of God was transformed into a lie. [He] read [the] statements of Austin Cowles — & said he had never had any private conversation with Austin Cowles on these subjects, that he preached on the stand from the Bible showing the order in ancient days[,] having nothing to do with the present time. (Dinger, John S., The Nauvoo City and High Council Minutes, Signature Books, Kindle Edition, 7212-7220).

ANOTHER LIE by Smith. Jackson was never "proved" a murderer, not anything else. Not even close. At the same meeting Hyrum Smith claimed that,

Jackson told him he me[a]New Testament to have [Hyrum’s] daughter. Jackson laid a plan with 4 or 5 persons to kidnap his daughter & threatened to shoot any man that should come near after he got her in the skiff[.] [He] was engaged in trying to make Bogus [currency][,] which was his principle business. — [Hyrum] referred to the revelation [he] read to the [Nauvoo Stake] High council— that it was in answer to a question concerning things which transpired in former days & had no reference to the present time— that W[illia]m Law[,] when sick[,] [confessed and] said ^he had been guilty of adultery &^ he was not fit to live or die, had sinned against his own soul &c. Who was Judge [Sylvester] Emmons[?] When he come here he had scarce 2 shirts — was dandled by the authorities of the city. — Now [he is] Editor of the [Nauvoo] Expositor — His right hand man [is] Francis Higby who confi[d]ed to him the speaker he had had the Pox— &c — Emmons had lifted his hand against the Municipality of God Almighty and the curse of God shall rest upon him. (Dinger, John S. (2013-11-26). (Dinger, John S., The Nauvoo City and High Council Minutes, Signature Books, Kindle Edition, 6990-7001).

Joseph and Hyrum were OBVIOUSLY LYING when they claimed that the “revelation” on polygamy was “in answer to a question concerning things which transpired in former days & had no reference to the present time.” If they were lying about the polygamy revelation, what else were they not being truthful with? Not with the charges about Jackson and Hyrum's daughter. They were angry because Jackson told her about their spiritual wifeism. Yet these accusations took on a life of their own. Lucy Smith later wrote that,

“a man by the name of Joseph Jackson, who had been in the city several months, being desirous to marry Lovina Smith, Hyrum’s oldest daughter, asked her father if he was willing to receive [Joseph Jackson] as a son-in-law. Being answered in the negative, he went and requested Joseph [Smith] to use his influence in his favour. As Joseph [Smith] refused to do so, he next applied to Law, who was our secret enemy, for assistance in stealing Lovina from her father, and, from this time forth, [Joseph Jackson] continued seeking out our enemies, till he succeeded in getting a number to join him in a conspiracy to murder the whole Smith family” (Lucy Smith, Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith the Prophet and His Progenitors for Many Generations [Liverpool: Orson Pratt, 1853], 275, as quoted in Dinger, John S., The Nauvoo City and High Council Minutes, Signature Books, Kindle Edition, 8430-8437).

It was in this meeting that Joseph claimed that Jackson had been proved to be a murderer before the City Council, when there was no such proof. On the same day William Law wrote in his diary,

This morning Wilson Law, Dr. Foster, Chas. Ivins and myself went to Carthage. It was the day of the sale of lands for taxes, and we had an invitation by twenty five of the most respectable citizens in Carthage vicinity to go there and deliver a lecture or more on the subject of Nauvoo legislation, usurpation &c &c. We did so. In my address I strongly urged the policy and necessity of being patient, and allowing the law to have its course in all cases, to avoid anything like an outbreak; showed that mobs would only tend to create a false sympathy for those opposed to us. I told them that the law was entirely sufficient to reach each case and every man; that it only required the public to say that the law should be executed and it would be. I was told that our press would be destroyed, but I did not believe it. I could not even suspect men of being such fools, but to my utter astonishment tonight upon returning from Carthage to Nauvoo I found our press had actually been demolished by order the Marshal J.P. Green, by order of the Mayor (Jos. Smith) and the City Council. 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. Our absence on that occasion was perhaps for the best as it may have saved the sheding of blood. (William Law Diary, June 10, 1844, 9-10).

Edward Bonney, one of three non-members of the Council of Fifty (which included Uriah Brown and Marenus G. Eaton), one of Smith's trusted aides, lawyers, and confidant, wrote a book in 1855, titled, “The Banditti of the Prairies” in which he detailed the events that led up to the death of Joseph and Hyrum Smith:

In the Spring of 1844, Walmart. Law, a leading Mormon, openly charged the Prophet (Joseph Smith) with an attempt to seduce his wife. (This soon after became the spiritual wife doctrine, and was believed, and even preached to some extent by the leaders of the Mormon Church.) This charge was promptly denied by the Prophet, and Law was denounced in the most bitter terms for an alleged attempt to slander the Prophet — the holy head of the Church, and as a persecutor of the Saints. Summoned by the high tribunal of the Church Law appeared, refused to retract what he had said, and again avowed its truth, for which he was immediately cut off from the Church. Being a man of considerable influence, Law drew with him a few of the disaffected members of the Church, who were already tired of bowing in humble submission, and paying tribute to the Prophet Joseph, and being held the ready subjects of his will and pleasure.

Among these deserters were Wilso[n][,] Law, Frank [Francis] Higby [Higbee], [Robert D.]Foster, and others, who determined to put the world in possession of their grievances, by publishing a long train of corruption and crimes, countenanced and practiced by the Prophets and heads of the Church, in which they had long been accomplices or accessory. —In order more effectually to accomplish their designs and bring themselves into notice they at once set about establishing a principal office at Nauvoo, in direct opposition to the will and special edict of the Prophet.

In the month of May, [June] A. D. 1844, the new press was put in operation, and the prospectus and first number of a newspaper published under the title of the "Nauvoo Expositor." It contained a series of charges against Joseph Smith, and the leading men in the church, including bigamy, adultery, larceny, counterfeiting, &c. —

In reply to this, the '' Nauvoo Neighbor," a newspaper printed under the direction and control of the Prophet, charged the dissenters from the Mormon faith with the same crimes, and sustained many of the charges by the publication of numerous affidavits, made, without doubt, by the Prophet's standing witnesses. Each appeared determined to out-do the other in the promulgation of slander and abuse, with which, according to their own stories, each had long possessed a knowledge of. If either were guilty of half they were accused of, the gallows had long been defrauded of its just dues, and earth was teeming with the base, the vile, and the bloodstained.

But while the surrounding Country was suffering by and remonstrating against the perpetration of these crimes, and charging them justly upon the Mormons, they with one united voice echoed the cry of "Persecution for Righteousness' sake." Then was it that the old adage was fully proved, that when "rogues fall out honest men get their dues." Upon the issue of the first number of the "Expositor," the Prophet and his adherents determined to at once silence them by the destruction of the press, and the total annihilation of the office.

The subject was brought before the City Council, and many inflamatory speeches were made, in most of which the members of the said Council participated. Smith, the Prophet, told them "that the time had come to strike the blow! That God no longer required them to submit to the oppression of their enemies, and that he should vote for the destruction of the press; that it was a nuisance, and he should order it destroyed as such!"

Hiram Smith spoke in substance the same as his brother, and also denounced in unmeasured terms. Sharp, [was] the editor of the Warsaw Signal. He [Hyrum] said "he would give any man five hundred dollars who would go into the Signal office with a sledge and demolish the press. That it should be done at all hazards, even if it took his farm to pay for it!" Upon calling for the vote, eleven voted for, and one against, declaring the Expositor a nuisance, and immediate measures were taken for carrying the ordinance for its destruction into effect. —

This dissenting vote was a Mr. [Benjamin] Warring[ton], and the only anti-[non] Mormon in the Council, and little was he regarded by the hot headed ones who were bent on destruction.

The City Marshall, acting under the orders of the Council, raised a force of several hundred men, headed by Gen. [Jonathan] Dunham of the Nauvoo legion, armed with clubs, &c., and proceeded to the printing office. Meeting with no resistance, they entered the office, look the blank paper and other materials and burned them in the streets, pied the type, and taking the press into the street, broke it into pieces with hammers.

This done, they repaired to the house of the Prophet who addressed them in terms of praise, applauding them for their, services, and telling them that they had but done their duty and upheld the law. In return he was loudly cheered by the mob, after which they quietly and immediately dispersed. Some of the leaders, however, remained and congratulated each other upon their success, and the downfall of the power of their enemies. Foremost among them was the Marshall, who thus addressed the Prophet:

"General, this is the happiest hour of my life!" 'Thank you, my good fellow,'' was the reply," you have done well, done your duty, and shall be rewarded for it."

This outrage upon the public press helped to fan the flame already kindled against the Mormon outlaws, by their repeated depredations upon the citizens of the surrounding country, and plainly foreshadowed the storm that was to burst with startling fury.

The dissenting Mormons at once united with those opposed to that sect, and various meetings were called, and all parties urged to arm and prepare themselves to resist any further aggression; to be ready at all hazards to protect themselves and meet the worst.

Warrants were issued against the Smiths, and other leaders, in the destruction of the printing office of the Expositor, and though served by the proper officers, they refused to obey the mandates of the law, and laughed at its power!

As in all former cases, the writ of Habeas Corpus was resorted to, and all the arrested at once set at liberty and discharged from arrest; the same persons that were arrested acting as officers of the Courts that discharged them! Thus effectually defeating the ends of justice, and compelling the officer to return to Carthage without a single prisoner!
This mock administration of law, added new fuel to the flame. The public being convinced that Nauvoo was the headquarters of nearly all the marauders who were preying upon the surrounding community, together with the full belief that the Mormon leaders were privy to their depredations, and the resistance and defeat of justice, now became enraged, and determined to rise in their might and enforce the law, even though it should be at the point of the bayonet or sabre. Determined to rid themselves of the harpies that were gnawing at their very vitals, and if need be, rid themselves of the whole Mormon population. Thoroughly aroused and conscious not only of their power but also the justice of their cause, they fearlessly avowed their purposes, and though still defying, the most secret recesses of Mormondom trembled in view of the bursting of the tempest they had raised, but could not avert. (Edward Bonney, The Banditti of the Prairies: Or, The Murderer’s Doom, A Tale of The Mississippi Valley: An Authentic Narrative of Thrilling Adventures In The Early Settlement Of the Western Country”, 1855, Philadelphia, T.B. Peterson and Brothers, 19-21, Online here, accessed February 2, 2015).

Edward Bonney was close to Joseph Smith and helped him with his legal troubles. Bonney spent a lot of time with the Mormon “prophet”. In Joseph’s diary he is mentioned multiple times, and was included in many decisions that Joseph made. For example, on May 25, Joseph’s Diary reports that,

2 P.[M.] Joseph Jackson come in town/as I heard/. I instructed the officers to have him arrested for threatening life &c. Had a long talk with Hunter Marks, Babbit, Hyrum, [Edward] Bonney, Dr. Richards, Roundy &c. and concluded not to keep out of their way any longer.

Bonney accompanied Joseph to Carthage to answer charges on May 27th. On June 11, Joseph wrote,

“Dr. Richards come to me at my home as I was talking with Hyrum, Eaton, [Edward] Bonny &c.”

When Joseph was brought up on riot charges for the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor, he held court in Nauvoo with Daniel H. Wells presiding. He appointed Edward Bonney to prosecute him. (A wonderful way to get off, put a friend in charge of your own prosecution)

Defendants were brought before the court by Joel S. Miles, constable of the county aforesaid, by virtue of a warrant issued by the court on complaint of W. G. Ware, for a "riot committed in the city of Nauvoo, county aforesaid, on or before the 10th day of June, 1844, by forcibly entering a brick building in said city, occupied as a printing office and taking therefrom by force, and with force of arms, a printing-press, types and paper, together with other property, belonging to William Law, Wilson Law, Robert D. Foster, Charles A. Foster, Francis M. Higbee, Chauncey L. Higbee and Charles Ivins, and breaking in pieces and burning the same in the streets.

George P. Stiles, Esq., appeared as counsel for the defense, and Edward Bonny, Esq., for the prosecution. (History of the Church, Vol. 6, 488)

The reason for this is obvious and Smith was let go. It is not clear what happened to Bonney immediately after the death of the Smiths. The last entry about him in the History of the Church claims that as Joseph was leaving Nauvoo for Carthage on the 24th of June:

When they [Joseph and Company] arrived at the top of the hill, [overlooking the City] Joseph sent Rockwell with a horse for Dr. Southwick, a Southern gentleman who had been staying some days at the Mansion, and who wished General Joseph Smith to buy considerable property in Texas; but Ed. Bonny took possession of the horse, so that Dr. Southwick could not then go.

After Smith’s death Edward Bonney moved to Lee County, Iowa and ran a livery stable after which he worked as a Private Detective and helped Law Officers hunt down criminals. On one of his many cases, he volunteered to infiltrate a gang of counterfeiters who had been involved in the murder of George Davenport, a wealthy trader. Years later Bonney would write of his experiences in “The Banditti of the Prairies” and gain much notoriety as a result. The book is considered to be extremely accurate when it is compared to the court records of the cases that Bonney worked on. Brigham Young dropped Bonney from the Council of 50 after Smith’s death and they then began to vilify him. William Clayton wrote in 1847:

June 30, 1847…Elder Samuel Brannan arrived, having come from the Pacific to meet us, obtain council &c. He is accompanied by "Smith" of the firm of [Joseph H.]Jackson, [Mareneus G.] Heaton[Eaton] & [Edward] Bonney, bogus makers of Nauvoo. (George D. Smith, An Intimate Chronicle; The Journals of William Clayton, 354).

On the 11th of June 1844 Joseph Smith told the City Council that,

All the sorrow I he had ever had in his family, has arisen through the influence of W[illia]m Law.

Why? Because William Law told the TRUTH. Joseph then told this whopper to the City Council:

…at the time Gov[ernor] [Thomas] Carlin was pursuing him with his writs — W[illia]m Law come to my house with a band of Missourians for the purpose of betraying me — come to my gate — and was prevented with by Daniel Cairns [Carn] who was set to watch[.] [They] had come within his gate, and [Carn] called [the] Mayor after and the Mayor reproved Law for coming at that time of night. Daniel Cairns [Carn] [was] sworn [and] said — about 10 Oc[loc]k at night — a boat come up the river with about a Doz[en] men. W[illia]m Law come to the gate with them when [he] was on guard — and [he] stopped them. Law called Joseph to the door, and wanted an interview. Joseph said Bro[ther] Law you know better than to come here at this hour of the night — & Law returned. [The] next morning Law wrote a letter to apologize — which [Cairns] [Carn] [had] heard read — which was written apparently to screen himself [Law] from the censure of a conspiracy, and the Letter betrayed a conspiracy on the face of [it] — (Dinger, John S., The Nauvoo City and High Council Minutes, Signature Books, Kindle Edition, 7098-7111).

Joseph produced no letter by William Law, only Carn the Danites testimoy. Yet in 1842 Joseph wrote this about William and Wilson Law in the Book of the Law of the Lord,

My heart was overjoyed, as I took the faithful band by the hand, that stood upon the shore one by me. W[illia]m. Law, W[illia]m. Clayton, Dimick B. Huntington, George Miller were there. The above names constituted the little group. I do not think to mention the particulars of the history of that sacred night which shall forever be remembered by me. But the names of the faithful are what I wish to record in this place. These I have met in prosperity and they were my friends, I now meet them in adversity, and they are still my warmer friends. These love the God that I serve; they love the truths that I promulge; they love those virtuous, and those holy doctrines that I cherish in my bosom with the warmest of feelings of my heart; and with that zeal which cannot be denied. I love friendship and truth; I love virtue and Law; I love the God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob and they are my brethren, and I shall live, and because I live, they shall live also. These are not the only ones, who have administered to my necessity; whom the Lord will bless. There is brother John D. Parker, and brother Amasa Lyman, and brother Wilson Law, and brother Henry G. Sherwood, my heart feels to recoprocate the unweried kindnesses that have been bestowed upon me by these men. They are men of noble stature, of noble hands, and of noble deeds; possessing noble and daring, and giant hearts and souls. There is brother Joseph B. Nobles also, I would call up in remembrance before the Lord. There is brother Samuel Smith, a natural brohter; he is, even as Hyrum. There is brother Arthur Millikin also, who married my youngest sister Lucy. He is a faithful, an honest, and an upright man. While I call up in remembrance before the Lord these men, I would be doing injustice to those who rowed me in the skiff up the river that night, after I parted with the lovely group, who brought me to this my safe and lovely and private retreat. Brother Jonathan Dunham and the other whose name I do not know. Many were the thoughts that swelled my aching heart, while they were toiling faithfully with their oars. They complained not at hardship and fatigue to secure my safety. My heart would have been harder than an admantium stone, if I had not have prayed for them with anxious and fervent desire. I did so, and the still small voice whispered to my soul, these that share your toils with such faithful hearts, shall reign with you in the kingdom of their God; but I parted with them in silence and come to my retreat. I hope I shall see them again that I may toil for them and administer to their comfort also. They shall not want a friend while I live. My heart shall love those; and my hands shall toil for those, who live and toil for me, and shall ever be found faithful to my friends. Shall I be ungrateful? Verily no! God forbid! The above are the words and sentiments, that escaped the lips of President Joseph Smith on this the 11th day of August A.D. 1842 in relation to his friends and has now quit speaking fo the moment but will continue the subject again. William Clayton, clerk. (Joseph Smith, The Book of the Law of the Lord, August 11, 1842, 164-165, Online here, accessed January 25, 2015).

It would be incredible that William Law, who fought for Joseph during the attempted extradition of 1842 (See other entries in the Book of the Law of the Lord) would have been secretly in cahoots with the Missourians. And who does Joseph use to back up this accusation? Daniel Carn, the same man who publicly accused Law and Marks of being “traitors” and that they should be killed. Carn was a Danite and likely one of the “prophets” standing witnesses who Edward Bonney claimed would testify to anything to protect Smith. Smith actually admitted in that City Council that it was he himself, who named the Danites, though he denied their existence, of course.

D. Michael Quinn writes,

In December 1843, Joseph Smith organized the "Police Force of Nauvoo," with Jonathan Dunham and Hosea Stout (former Danites) as captain and vice-captain. Among the forty police were such other Danites from Missouri as Charles C. Rich, John D. Lee, Daniel Carn, James Emmett, Stephen H. Goddard, Abraham C. Hodge, John L. Buffer, Levi W. Hancock, Abraham O. Smoot, Dwight Harding, and William H. Edwards. (D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, 117).

Goddard was one of Smith’s witnesses against Sarah Pratt and her supposed affair with John C. Bennett. Are you seeing the pattern here, folks? These are the last tumultuous days of Joseph Smith. No wonder there was no escape for him if he stuck around. But he had weathered the storm in '42 and '43, and thought he could do so again. He was wrong.

On the 13th of June, Smith related this dream which he claimed to have had,

In the evening I attended meeting in the Seventies' Hall. George J. Adams preached and I made some observations afterwards, and related a dream which I had a short time since. I thought I was riding out in my carriage, and my guardian angel was along with me. We went past the Temple, and had not gone much further before we espied two large snakes so fast locked together that neither of them had any power. I inquired of my guide what I was to understand by that. He answered, "Those snakes represent Dr. Foster and Chauncey L. Higbee. They are your enemies and desire to destroy you; but you see they are so fast locked together that they have no power of themselves to hurt you. I then thought 1 was riding up Mulholland street, but my guardian angel was not along with me. On arriving at the prairie, I was overtaken and siezed by William and Wilson Law and others, saying, "Ah! ah! we have got you at last! We will secure you and put you in a safe place!" and, without any ceremony dragged me out of my carriage, tied my hands behind me, and threw me into a deep, dry pit, where I remained in a perfectly helpless condition, and they went away. While struggling to get out, I heard Wilson Law screaming for help hard by. I managed to unloose myself so as to make a spring, when I caught hold of some grass which grew at the edge of the pit.

I looked out of the pit and saw Wilson Law at a little distances attacked by ferocious wild beasts, and heard him cry out, "Oh! Brother Joseph, come and save me!" I replied, "I cannot, for you have put me into this deep pit." On looking out another way, I saw William Law with outstretched tongue, blue in the face, and the green poison forced out of his mouth, caused by the coiling of a large snake around his body. It had also grabbed him by the arm, a little above the elbow, ready to devour him. He cried out in the intensity of his agony, "Oh, Brother Joseph, Brother Joseph, come and save me, or I die!" I also replied to him, "I cannot, William; I would willingly, but you have tied me and put me in this pit, and I am powerless to help you or liberate myself." In a short time after my guide came and said aloud, "Joseph, Joseph. what are you doing there?" I replied, "My enemies fell upon me, bound me and threw me in." He then took me by the hand, drew me out of the pit, set me free, and we went away rejoicing. (History of the Church, Vol. 6, 462).

This appears to be an elaboration of a dream that Smith recorded in his diary from January 5, in which Smith recorded that he, “ Dreamed about 2 serpents swallowing each tail foremost.” [several lines left blank] (Scott H. Faulring, An American Prophet's Record, 438).

It then becomes all about the Law Brothers. What an imagination Smith had! Unfortunately it was Smith who threw himself into the deep pit and could not get out, not William and Wilson Law.

William Law was not in Carthage when Joseph Smith was murdered. His diary records what transpired on the last days of Joseph’s life:

25th [June 1844]. I leave Burlington in company with Robert Hicks for Carthage; take a boat at Madison and from there by land, arrive at Carthage the same day and find a large army and the Governor, as Commander in chief, at their head. The Smith[s] and others, finding the Governor and a heavy force was after them, gave themselves up and were on trial before Esq. Smith of Carthage, on the charge of riot; a bill being found, they gave bail and the Smiths were then arrested on the charge of Treason, and sent to jail, to be tried tomorrow.

26th [June 1844]. The Smiths are brought to the Court House, for examination, but plead a continuance for two days, which being granted (to obtain witnesses) they are remanded to jail.

27 [June 1844]. This morning 8 o'clock Gov. Ford disbands all of the troops but two companies, one to go as an escort with him to Nauvoo, and the other to guard the jail (8 men at a time) . Immediately after breakfast Wilson Law, R.D. Foster and myself leave Carthage for Burlington, and arrive at Appanose about noon, take dinner and conclude to leave our horses there, and go to Burlington on a steamboat, as we would need our horses again on Sunday to carry us to Carthage to the trial, as we were call'd on as witnesses. About two o'clock we crossed over the river to Ft. Madison, as we had some business there and the boats generally land at that place; we remained there all the afternoon and night, no boat having come up. In the morning by daylight we heard the news of the death of the Smiths. We could hardly believe it possible, and the manner of it was the most astonishing part of all, but it was true; the judgment of an offended God had fallen upon them. During the latter part of their lives they knew no mercy, and in their last moments they found none. Thus the wicked may prosper for a time, but the hour of retribution is sure to overtake them.

We get our horses over the river and return home to Burlington by 1 land this morning. being the 28th of June 1844 . One of Joe Smith's weakest points was his jealousy of other men. He could not bear to hear other men spoken well of. If there was any praise it must be of him; all adoration & worship must be for him. He would destroy his beat friend rather than see him become popular in the eyes of the Church or the people at large. His vanity knew no bounds. He was unscrupulous; no man's life was safe if he was disposed to hate him. He sat the l aws of God and men at defiance. He was naturally base, brutish and corrupt and cruel. He was one of the false prophets spoken by Christ who would come in sheep's clothing but inwardly be a ravening wolf . His works proved it. One great aim seemed to be to demoralize the world, to give it over to Satan, his master; but God stopped him in his made career & gave him to his destroyers. He claimed to be a god, whereas he was only a servant of the Devil, and as such met his fate. His wife was about as corrupt as he was. (William Law Diary, 12-14).

So who was being truthful here? NOT JOSEPH. This evidence is almost all from sources friendly to Smith. It shows the contradictions in Smith's words. How he continually publicly lied. So please, MG, show us from the evidence, how the Laws, the Higbees and the Fosters were the liars?

[_Chap]

There's where things get muddled. And then folks pick and choose which and whose testimony they're going to rely on as the default 'truth'.

So, just to unmuddle things - is it your considered view that at the time he made those statements about 'only find[ing] one [wife]' Joseph Smith only had one woman in his life with whom he currently had some kind of formal and binding commitment, involving the possibility of sexual relations, and that woman was Emma?

(Let's leave aside the quibbling about whether we can use the words 'married' or 'wives in this context - for a start, unless we accept some extra-legal definition of 'wife', Joseph Smith can only have had one at a time under the laws then in force, no matter what else he was getting up to and with whom.)

[_sock puppet]

And then folks pick and choose which and whose testimony they're going to rely on as the default 'truth'.

I think that there is a lot of cherry picking that goes on. Both sides do it. One side tends to pick the word of the apostates and the other side the word of those that were faithful to the restoration narrative.

Regards,
MG

MG, the LDS church began the cherry-picking exercise by whitewashing its history and teaching it to us when we were young and impressionable as if it was the whole story. I for one critic do not discount Heber C Kimball, Willard Richards, Frederick G Williams, et al., any more so than I do later in life discovered accounts of William Law and what is found in the LDS church's own, History of the Church, for example. I point these latter sources out to balance the skewed narrative that the LDS church fashioned and shoved down my eager throat when I was a kid, and does to young people to this very day. It would only mitigate the imbalance created institutionally by the LDS church to reiterate JSJr's sycophants' accounts along with those that are coming to light more and more of his detractors.

Like you, I did not meet Orson Pratt or John C Bennett or Robert Foster. We have records, first hand and secondary accounts. We look for internal consistency, and external corroboration both from what others wrote as well as the reported circumstances. The more that keeps coming out of the historical closet by way of contemporaneous writings of the 1830s and 1840s, the more and more corroboration there is for the unsavory JSJr.

But if you feel the need to claim it's all just cherry picking on both sides, at least have the balls to point out that it was your beloved institution that set the course initially for all this cherry picking, and also that there is a balancing effect by the critics doing their "cherry picking".

[_sock puppet]

There's where things get muddled. And then folks pick and choose which and whose testimony they're going to rely on as the default 'truth'.

So, just to unmuddle things - is it your considered view that at the time he made those statements about 'only find[ing] one [wife]' Joseph Smith only had one woman in his life with whom he currently had some kind of formal and binding commitment, involving the possibility of sexual relations, and that woman was Emma?

(Let's leave aside the quibbling about whether we can use the words 'married' or 'wives in this context - for a start, unless we accept some extra-legal definition of 'wife', Joseph Smith can only have had one at a time under the laws then in force, no matter what else he was getting up to and with whom.)

Maybe JSJr only considered a woman his wife, other than Emma, in the moments he was having sex with the other woman. Since he wasn't having sex with any of them while he was giving the 5/26/1844 sermon, the others that he'd previously had sex with were not at that moment his wives.

[_Chap]

Maybe JSJr only considered a woman his wife, other than Emma, in the moments he was having sex with the other woman. Since he wasn't having sex with any of them while he was giving the 5/26/1844 sermon, the others that he'd previously had sex with were not at that moment his wives.

I suppose it is not completely impossible that this was the case ... You clearly have the talents to become a great apologist.

What you really need to make a success of your new career is to get DCP and the rest to adopt the doctrine of "probable opinion" put forward by 16th century Jesuit casuists, which held in effect that if an opinion has been seriously put forward by at least one theologian, it may safely be followed even if it is not very likely to be true - and hence in your case we may safely believe that Joseph Smith did not knowingly say anything untrue, even while thinking that the evidence currently known tends the other way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_ ... osed_views

This view was attacked by Pascal (he of the wager) in his Provincial Letters. But since Pascal would probably have been an anti-Mormon, we can ignore him. (Bet he's been baptized a few times, though).

[_mentalgymnast]

[In many of] the incidents that Smith and his detractors were engaged in...both parties [took] opposite sides of an argument. With each new confrontation emotions ran hotter and hotter [with the Higbee's, Law's, and others]...More and more accusations and hostility were manifested. Joseph was [in their opinion] their tyrant and they were his usurpers of authority.

With a few alterations to the statement you made in your earlier post I think you are close to the truth. I think that Joseph's detractors came at him from a place of great hostility and hatred. Their words (a lot of taking the Lord's name in vain...what's up with that?) in your earlier post seem to demonstrate that.

There are indications that Joseph had found the Higbee's...and others, Bennett(?)...in compromising situations. If so, they would have had reason to lash out at him and try to bring him down. It then comes down to who are you going to believe?

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

...is it your considered view that at the time he made those statements about 'only find[ing] one [wife]' Joseph Smith only had one woman in his life with whom he currently had some kind of formal and binding commitment, involving the possibility of sexual relations, and that woman was Emma?

No. I haven't said otherwise. He was, as can be shown without much effort, very secretive about it. The disbanding of the Nauvoo Relief Society demonstrates this to be the case. Also the secretive nature of the temple endowments given to the 'elect'. And don't forget the destruction of the Expositor.

So would it surprise me if he did lie? No.

The million dollar question at the end of the day is whether or not Joseph had illicit relations with other women in the eyes of God...OR was he honoring/obeying God's commandment? And if he did make some mistakes along the way (again, assuming he was under commandment)...would that not be between him and his maker?

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

But if you feel the need to claim it's all just cherry picking on both sides, at least have the balls to point out that it was your beloved institution that set the course initially for all this cherry picking, and also that there is a balancing effect by the critics doing their "cherry picking".

I think that it is important to point out that both sides cherry pick the 'evidence'. And yes, I have the balls to admit that the LDS Church hasn't done itself a favor by accepting Mormon history according to JFS/McConkie, et al. as being 'gospel truth'. It has come back to bite them in the butt.

But times they are a changin'.

That should make you happy.

Regards,
MG

[_honorentheos]

I still can't get over how Joseph Smith could stand in front of an audience of hundreds, maybe thousands, and say with a straight face, "What a thing it is to be accused of having seven wives when I can only find one". He was speaking to people who knew he was lying, to people who suspected, and for those of us who believe in God, the God of Truth himself.
Calling such words "a carefully worded denial" only extends the deception, and is sad indeed.

Here's what my family says to this type of comment. This is fast becoming their canned response to anything critical and it's annoying as hell:

"We can't be sure that this is actually what happened or what was said. This comes through multiple dubious sources like gossip. The fact is, we just don't know what exactly happened."

And you know, I think this answer works pretty well because I never know how to respond to that besides by shaking my head and throwing up my arms.

Hey zeezrom,

Next time they are in town you should invite them to a rousing family home evening game of, "Deconstruct the D&C Section". It's the fun family game where family members get to look at accepted Mormon scripture in light of it's varied sources of authorship and the timing for when those became accepted as scripture. For the High Priests in the family who want to chew on some meat they might tackle Section 130, prepared by Orson Pratt from multiple accounts of a sermon preached by Joseph Smith in April 1843. The section, compiled by Orson Pratt in 1876, relied on the Manuscript History of the Church which was, in turn, a compilation from two diary accounts of the sermon: William Clayton's diary account and Joseph Smith's diary recorded in the hand of Willard Richards. However, as Willard Richards was not present at the meeting it is likely his is a second-hand or even third-hand account and is not a record of the sermon as it was spoken.

The MSH version of the sermon also includes sections that had been erased and edited. In some cases, the original text that was removed is unknown.

This link is very useful in comparing the sources for D&C 130 and provides interesting background information on the sermon. It should be noted that the sermon was delivered in part as follow-up to doctrine taught by Orson Hyde: "I (meaning Joseph Smith) told Elder Hyde I was going to offer some corrections to his sermon this morning, he replied they shall be thankfully received."

So despite being both completely attributable directly to Joseph Smith and being a hodge-podge of journal accounts then compiled decades after the fact and rewritten as if being spoken in the first person as revelation rather than some speculative discussion at the breakfast table on a Sunday afternoon it gets to be accepted as gospel truth.

So while what your family claims is true it begs the question of why they then accept anything as having being spoken by Joseph Smith? Why accept the D&C as scripture if the overwhelming majority of it's content is not easily traced to firsthand direct transmission by Joseph Smith?

I'd volunteer for dessert that FHE.

[_grindael]

[In many of] the incidents that Smith and his detractors were engaged in...both parties [took] opposite sides of an argument. With each new confrontation emotions ran hotter and hotter [with the Higbee's, Law's, and others]...More and more accusations and hostility were manifested. Joseph was [in their opinion] their tyrant and they were his usurpers of authority.

With a few alterations to the statement you made in your earlier post I think you are close to the truth. I think that Joseph's detractors came at him from a place of great hostility and hatred. Their words (a lot of taking the Lord's name in vain...what's up with that?) in your earlier post seem to demonstrate that.

There are indications that Joseph had found the Higbee's...and others, Bennett(?)...in compromising situations. If so, they would have had reason to lash out at him and try to bring him down. It then comes down to who are you going to believe?

Regards,
MG

I love how you selectively edited my statement to make it say something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than what I wrote. How disingenuous of you. This is why presenting evidence to people like you doesn't do any good. You read what you want to read. You completely ignore all of the evidence that clearly shows that it was SMITH who instigated the problems, SMITH who slandered everyone, and SMITH who threatened them. They were simply retaliating. Joseph WAS a TYRANT. He was dishonest, and a megalomaniac.

Joseph didn't find anyone in a compromising situation. That was all made up by him. Francis Higbee did not have a social disease (as Smith claimed). He was the boyfriend of Nancy Rigdon, who Smith wanted for HIMSELF. What REALLY happened, is that Bennett, William Smith, Chauncey Higbee and others saw what Joseph was doing, and copied his behavior. Like Hiram Page with his own peepstone, Joseph didn't like that. Their shenanigans were from "Satan" while Joseph's were from "God". William Smith told the women that they had Joseph's approval. Joseph REFUSED to go after his brother, and went instead, after Bennett and Higbee. (Convienent scapegoats, since Bennett had prior problems that Joseph KNEW ABOUT, but made him a "Counselor" anyway). One of those who participated in the sexual escapades of that time was Lyman Littlefield, who had the audacity to try and make himself some kind of polygamy expert later in Utah. What a damned joke. He later decried the same men that he was hanging out with and ravishing vulnerable women, same as his mentor, Joseph Smith.

Actually, Bennett was not excommunicated right away, but forgiven, with Joseph pleading in his behalf! Imagine if Bennett had kept his mouth shut like Joseph’s brother William Smith. He would probably have been completely restored to his former positions in the Church as were so many others. In fact, almost everyone except Higbee and Bennett were restored who were accused in 1842.

After Joseph died, there was a rash of men who went out and did the same thing. Brigham let William Smith go for a long time before they axed him. They tried to cover up his indiscretions. W.W. Phelps was ex'd and then immediately rebaptized in 1847 for the same thing. Ditto, Joseph E. Johnson in 1850, who claimed that he saw Joseph Smith damned his mother in law. I'm not "cherrypicking" ANYTHING.

You have no idea what you are talking about. You are so dishonest that I can't imagine how you live with yourself.