What lies did the Nauvoo Expositor print?

[_Buffalo]

Why do they have to be on the same page?

So if I am going to post the exact same thread as I have already posted I merely have to wait until it goes to "page two"?

No one is going to be confused by two threads with the same title that are months apart. But keep sniveling. :)

[_Analytics]

We need to see the context of what happened in Nauvoo. Once we see the context, we can understand the reaction of the nauvoo citizens against the Expositor. First, the LDS came to Nauvoo for peace and quiet after being persecuted by other communities. They begin to build a wonderful city complete with temple to worship freely. In the neighboring community we have a yellow paper in Warsaw printing inciteful language against the LDS and Joseph Smith. We need to try to imagine just what the reaction of the Mormons to this paper. Were they concerned with mobs? I think so. Were they concerned with the mobs coming to burn them out once again? I think so.

And now William Law decides with some help to set up a similiar paper in the heart of mormonland. What should the Mormons do? And we know that the paper was founded by a man who desired vengence against Joseph Smith and the Mormon leadership. To close down such a paper was just. But it was how it was done that became the problem. And to my understanding, Joseph Smith offered to pay for any damages. But it was refused. Why?

What you need to understand is that the Nauvoo Expositor was a pro-Mormon newspaper. As the paper itself said,

As for our acquaintance with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, we know, no man or set of men can be more thoroughly acquainted with its rise, its organization, and its history, than we have every reason to believe we are. We all verily believe, and many of us know of a surety, that the religion of the Latter Day Saints, as originally taught by Joseph Smith, which is contained in the Old and New Testaments, Book of Covenants, and Book of Mormon, is verily true; and that the pure principles set forth in those books, are the immutable and eternal principles of Heaven, and speaks a language which, when spoken in truth and virtue, sinks deep into the heart of every honest man.--Its precepts are invigorating, and in every sense of the word, tend to dignify and ennoble man's conceptions of God and his atributes [sic]. It speaks a language which is heard amidst the roar of Artillery, as well as in the silence of midnight: it speaks a language understood by the incarcerated spirit, as well as he who is unfettered and free; yet to those who will not see, it is dark, mysterious, and secret as the grave.

Again, the Nauvoo Expositor was a pro-Mormon paper. It was in favor of Mormon doctrine, and it was in favor of the Mormon people.

Joseph Smith destroyed the paper because he didn't want his own people to know the truth about how he was abusing his authority. It's as simple as that.

[_LDS truthseeker]

The criticism of Smith was focused on three main points: The opinion that Smith had once been a true prophet, but had become a fallen prophet in the last few years because of his introduction of plural marriage, exaltation and other controversial doctrines; the opinion that as church president and Nauvoo mayor, Smith held too much power; and the belief that Smith was corrupting young women by forcing, coercing or introducing them to the practice of plural marriage.

Read it for yourself here: http://solomonspalding.com/docs/exposit1.htm

[_moksha]

The OED defines slander as "the utterance or dissemination of false statements or reports concerning a person, or malicious misrepresentation of his actions, in order to defame or injure him."

By that standard, the Expositor was certainly slanderous.

The word false would need to mean not true. I think that is where this defense falls apart. A better argument would be that the Expositor was treasonous to the Church and the sovereign city-state-kingdom of Nauvoo. Thus the Expositor was acting as a Wiki-Leaks and was revealing state secrets and so was subject to summary execution by a righteous posse of LDS individuals.

[_harmony]

The OED defines slander as "the utterance or dissemination of false statements or reports concerning a person, or malicious misrepresentation of his actions, in order to defame or injure him."

By that standard, the Expositor was certainly slanderous.

The word false would need to mean not true. I think that is where this defense falls apart. A better argument would be that the Expositor was treasonous to the Church and the sovereign city-state-kingdom of Nauvoo. Thus the Expositor was acting as a Wiki-Leaks and was revealing state secrets and so was subject to summary execution by a righteous posse of LDS individuals.

No TBM or LDS apologist wants to hear that, Moksha. It interferes with entire world views, kinda like the whole secrecy thing undermines any argument about the community knowing what Joseph was up to and tacitly supporting it.

[_Nevo]

The word false would need to mean not true. I think that is where this defense falls apart...

The word "false" does mean "not true". The Expositor printed things that were false and/or malicious misrepresentations. It was slanderous and—you're quite right—seditious. It's no surprise that the Nauvoo City Council considered it dangerous.

[_Quasimodo]

The word false would need to mean not true. I think that is where this defense falls apart...

The word "false" does mean "not true". The Expositor printed things that were false and/or malicious misrepresentations. It was slanderous and—you're quite right—seditious. It's no surprise that the Nauvoo City Council considered it dangerous.

Just a point of correction. "False" and "not true" do not mean the same thing in arguments concerning logic. "False" means that something is provably untrue (the moon is made of chocolate ice cream, etc.). "Not true" means that something cannot absolutely be proven to be false (God exists, etc.).

Things that are accepted as "not true" are usually things that cannot be proved as true.

[_beefcalf]

The word false would need to mean not true. I think that is where this defense falls apart...

The word "false" does mean "not true". The Expositor printed things that were false and/or malicious misrepresentations. It was slanderous and—you're quite right—seditious. It's no surprise that the Nauvoo City Council considered it dangerous.

Can you be specific? To which statements in the Expositor do you refer?

[_Nevo]

Can you be specific? To which statements in the Expositor do you refer?

Take your pick.

Per the Expositor, Joseph Smith is "pernicious and diabolical", a man of "vicious principles" who teaches "heretical and damnable doctrines", practices "abominations and whoredoms", and is promoting an inquisition in Nauvoo to rival the Spanish Inquisition—"we can appeal to the acts of the inquisitorial department organized in Nauvoo, by Joseph and his accomplices, for specimens of injustice of the most pernicious and diabolical character that ever stained the pages of the historian." And so it goes.

I'll leave it to the logicians on the board to determine whether these statements are false or merely not true. In any case, they are malicious misrepresentations. Joseph Smith was not addicted to vice, profligate, or especially wicked. He was guilty of marrying multiple women, but that is not necessarily the same thing as whoring. He was not another Torquemada: nobody was burned at the stake in Nauvoo.

[_harmony]

I'll leave it to the logicians on the board to determine whether these statements are false or merely not true. In any case, they are malicious misrepresentations. Joseph Smith was not addicted to vice, profligate, or especially wicked. He was guilty of marrying multiple women, but that is not necessarily the same thing as whoring. He was not another Torquemada: nobody was burned at the stake in Nauvoo.

Depends on your point of view, I suppose.

You obviously weren't related to Martha or any of the other women who rejected him.