What lies did the Nauvoo Expositor print?

[_Kishkumen]

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.

As a reader of Cicero, I recognize good invective when I see it. That's essentially what the Expositor is.

I would call the language hyperbolic. Surely it is conceivable that one could accuse the man who married some 30 odd women, some of them teenagers, some sisters, and some already married, of being "addicted to vice." So, I think you are really arguing from a different perspective, and that you can't really say this opinion is wholly out of the range of likely interpretations of what Smith was doing. The Laws really objected to polygamy and theocracy. That much is clear.

By the way, moksha has been on quite a tear with his deadpan sense of humor. Just thought you should know.

[_Joseph]

Thank you Analytics!!! Below is what you posted directly from the Nauvoo Expositor - a plain statement that is not true. Finally, someone gets a lie from the paper - and it is a whopper.

"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;"

[_Darth J]

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.

Those are statements of opinion, and the facts on which those opinions were based were true.

Opinion is not libel, and truth is a defense to libel.

[_Nevo]

Surely it is conceivable that one could accuse the man who married some 30 odd women, some of them teenagers, some sisters, and some already married, of being "addicted to vice."

An honest mistake, perhaps. But even Brodie recognized, as MCB pointed out a few weeks ago, that "Joseph was no careless libertine...there was too much of the Puritan in him."

Joseph was not blasé about issues of sexual morality. He worried about committing adultery by undertaking polygamy (see D&C 132:41). After all, he had recorded numerous revelations condemning extra-marital sexual relations:

• D&C 42:22-24 (February 1831)
  
  22 Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her and none else. 23 And he that looketh upon a woman to lust after her shall deny the faith, and shall not have the Spirit; and if he repents not he shall be cast out. 24 Thou shalt not commit adultery; and he that committeth adultery, and repenteth not, shall be cast out.
  
  
• D&C 42:80 (February 1831)
  
  80 And if any man or woman shall commit adultery, he or she shall be tried before two elders of the church, or more, and every word shall be established against him or her by two witnesses of the church, and not of the enemy; but if there are more than two witnesses it is better.
  
  
• D&C 59:6 (August 1831)
  
  6 Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Thou shalt not steal; neither commit adultery, nor kill, nor do anything like unto it.
  
  
• D&C 63:14-16 (August 1831)
  
  14 There were among you adulterers and adulteresses; some of whom have turned away from you, and others remain with you that hereafter shall be revealed. 15 Let such beware and repent speedily, lest judgment shall come upon them as a snare, and their folly shall be made manifest, and their works shall follow them in the eyes of the people. 16 And verily I say unto you, as I have said before, he that looketh on a woman to lust after her, or if any shall commit adultery in their hearts, they shall not have the Spirit, but shall deny the faith and shall fear.
  
  
• D&C 66:10 (October 1831)
  
  10 Commit not adultery...
  
  
• D&C 76:103-106 (February 1832)
  
  103 These are they who are liars, and sorcerers, and adulterers, and whoremongers, and whosoever loves and makes a lie. 104 These are they who suffer the wrath of God on earth. 105 These are they who suffer the vengeance of eternal fire. 106 These are they who are cast down to hell and suffer the wrath of Almighty God, until the fulness of times, when Christ shall have subdued all enemies under his feet, and shall have perfected his work.
  
  
• D&C 88:121 (December 1832)
  
  121 Therefore, cease from all your light speeches, from all laughter, from all your lustful desires, from all your pride and light-mindeness, and from all your wicked doings.
  
  
• D&C 93:35 (May 1833)
  
  35 ...man is the tabernacle of God, even temples; and whatsoever temple is defiled, God shall destroy that temple.

Interestingly, none of the women who actually married Joseph Smith ever denounced him or accused him of impropriety. They do not seem to have regarded his behavior toward them as incompatible with his divine calling.

Joseph Smith, it should be remembered, was—like Jesus—a millenarian prophet. They do things differently. Discussing Jewish messianic movements, Gershom Scholem noted: "There seems to be an intrinsic connection between active messianism and the courage for religious innovation."

New Testament scholar Dale Allison further observes that, "in breaking with traditional customs and values, millenarian groups—like sectarian movements generally—often replace familial and social bonds with fictive kin....'the break with ancient custom' helps weld 'devotees together in a new fraternity of people.'" "Millenarian leaders regularly mediate the sacred through new channels..."
"Millenarianism involves intense commitment and unconditional loyalty..." (see Dale C. Allison, Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998], 87–89).

Joseph Smith's unorthodox marriage practice—like Jesus'—fits within this broader context.


So here's to the crazy ones.

[_Darth J]

Nevo, let me simplify this for you:

Joseph Smith had a total of one legally recognized wife. He entered into numerous adulterous relationships with other females. He was engaging in secret sexual relations mainly unknown to his legal wife and unknown to the majority of his followers. The Puritan in him just means he felt guilty about it, and guilt is mixed up with sex in the grandest WASP tradition in America. But I'm sure Joseph Smith was a perfect gentleman every time he committed adultery with the female followers he had talked into doing this.

He lied about engaging in secret sexual liaisons in violation of his legally-recognized marriage to Emma. He lied about it to Emma. He lied about it to most of the members of his church. He lied about it to his closest followers. He lied to the city council in Nauvoo when they were deciding whether the Expositor was libelous---which by definition means that the factual allegations in the paper were false. He did not even follow the requirements for taking a plural wife in the self-serving revelation in which Emma is informed that she is going to hell if she keeps complaining about Joseph's harem.

Even with those among his concubines (they were not wives; husband and wife is a legal relationship) for whom there is no clear evidence of sexual relations, it is still a reasonable presumption that two people claiming to be husband and wife are in a sexual relationship. And the absence of sexuality in Joseph Smith's version of spiritual wifery (which is what it was; they were not legal marriages) would be contrary to Jacob in the Book of Mormon and the revelation later codified as D&C 132. (Generally, the way you raise up a righteous seed with a female is you have sex with her until she gets pregnant.) Not only could Joseph Smith not hold himself to current legal, societal, or moral standards, he could not even hold himself to his own religious teachings. Whether it was for sex, or some neurotic need for an expansive "family," or both, plural marriage was for the gratification of Joseph Smith.

And as I predicted, there is a lot of talk in this thread about William Law's motives without mentioning that Joseph propositioned William Law's wife. As soon as you find out from your wife that Thomas S. Monson tried to talk her into having a polyandrous relationship with him, then you can come back and tell me all about how evil William Law was.

As far as I have been able to determine from the Bible, Jesus of Nazareth did not have secret, illegal sexual relations with female members of his flock. He did not have God command his followers to purchase stock to build a big, nice house for him to live in. When Jesus was arrested, he told his followers to put away their weapons. He did not send them an order to arm themselves and come rescue him.

If you want a millennial prophet to whom Joseph Smith's behavior is comparable, including the circumstances of his death, the name you are looking for is not Jesus of Nazareth. It is David Koresh.

[_why me]

Interestingly, none of the women who actually married Joseph Smith ever denounced him or accused him of impropriety. They do not seem to have regarded his behavior toward them as incompatible with his divine calling.

I also read somewhere but now I can't find the quotation that the people of nauvoo knew about the polygamy and that Joseph Smith wanted to make it public but many of the people of nauvoo did not want him to do so because they were afraid of the reaction from the local communities. Is this true?

I have also written on the forum that none of the women involved with the sealings ever complained about the behavior of Joseph Smith. And this does say much about the behaviour of Joseph. I have never got the impression that lust was involved at all.

[_why me]

Nevo, let me simplify this for you:

.

8 January 1844
William Law released as Second Counselor in the First Presidency; Joseph Smith noted that William “was injuring him by telling evil of him…” William considered his release to be “illegal,” since he had been called “by revelation,” but wrote “I cannot fellowship the abominations which I verily know are practiced by this man [Joseph], consequently I am glad to be free from him."[6] One of William’s key concerns seems to have revolved around plural marriage. His non-member son, Richard, later recounted:
About the year 1842, he was present at an interview between his father and the Prophet Joseph. The topic under discussion was the doctrine of plural marriage. William Law, with his arms around the neck of the Prophet, was pleading with him to withdraw the doctrine of plural marriage, which he had at that time commenced to teach to some of the brethren, Mr. Law predicting that if Joseph would abandon the doctrine, 'Mormonism' would, in fifty or one hundred years, dominate the Christian world. Mr. Law pleaded for this with Joseph with tears streaming from his eyes. The Prophet was also in tears, but he informed the gentleman that he could not withdraw the doctrine, for God had commanded him to teach it, and condemnation would come upon him if he was not obedient to the commandment.
During the discussion, Joseph was deeply affected. Mr. Richard S. Law says the interview was a most touching one, and was riveted upon his mind in a manner that has kept it fresh and distinct in his memory, as if it had occurred but yesterday.
Mr. Law also says, that he has no doubt that Joseph believed he had received the doctrine of plural marriage from the Lord. The Prophet's manner being exceedingly earnest, so much so, that Mr. Law was convinced that the Prophet was perfectly sincere in his declaration


http://en.fairmormon.org/City_of_Nauvoo ... _Expositor

Now this is pretty simple. :=)

[_Inconceivable]

I also read somewhere but now I can't find the quotation that the people of nauvoo knew about the polygamy and that Joseph Smith wanted to make it public but many of the people of nauvoo did not want him to do so because they were afraid of the reaction from the local communities. Is this true?

You're nuts, why me.

Are you attempting to say that Law and others stood idly by for 5+ years knowing that Smith was wandering from house to house with his pants around his knees? Obviously, the quote of Richard Laws says differently. You are also confusing Richard with William. Richard was the idiot that thought Smith was inspired - not William.

No one knew but those that participated OR were vilified by Smith. Please tell me you understand the difference between rumor and knowledge.

You will never find the quote because it never existed. Wish all you want. However, I'm confident that if you asked, many of us can reference the instances where Smith condemned what he was secretly practicing.

[_harmony]

Nevo, let me simplify this for you:

Joseph Smith had a total of one legally recognized wife. He entered into numerous adulterous relationships with other females. He was engaging in secret sexual relations mainly unknown to his legal wife and unknown to the majority of his followers. The Puritan in him just means he felt guilty about it, and guilt is mixed up with sex in the grandest WASP tradition in America. But I'm sure Joseph Smith was a perfect gentleman every time he committed adultery with the female followers he had talked into doing this.

He lied about engaging in secret sexual liaisons in violation of his legally-recognized marriage to Emma. He lied about it to Emma. He lied about it to most of the members of his church. He lied about it to his closest followers. He lied to the city council in Nauvoo when they were deciding whether the Expositor was libelous---which by definition means that the factual allegations in the paper were false. He did not even follow the requirements for taking a plural wife in the self-serving revelation in which Emma is informed that she is going to hell if she keeps complaining about Joseph's harem.

Even with those among his concubines (they were not wives; husband and wife is a legal relationship) for whom there is no clear evidence of sexual relations, it is still a reasonable presumption that two people claiming to be husband and wife are in a sexual relationship. And the absence of sexuality in Joseph Smith's version of spiritual wifery (which is what it was; they were not legal marriages) would be contrary to Jacob in the Book of Mormon and the revelation later codified as D&C 132. (Generally, the way you raise up a righteous seed with a female is you have sex with her until she gets pregnant.) Not only could Joseph Smith not hold himself to current legal, societal, or moral standards, he could not even hold himself to his own religious teachings. Whether it was for sex, or some neurotic need for an expansive "family," or both, plural marriage was for the gratification of Joseph Smith.

And as I predicted, there is a lot of talk in this thread about William Law's motives without mentioning that Joseph propositioned William Law's wife. As soon as you find out from your wife that Thomas S. Monson tried to talk her into having a polyandrous relationship with him, then you can come back and tell me all about how evil William Law was.

As far as I have been able to determine from the Bible, Jesus of Nazareth did not have secret, illegal sexual relations with female members of his flock. He did not have God command his followers to purchase stock to build a big, nice house for him to live in. When Jesus was arrested, he told his followers to put away their weapons. He did not send them an order to arm themselves and come rescue him.

If you want a millennial prophet to whom Joseph Smith's behavior is comparable, including the circumstances of his death, the name you are looking for is not Jesus of Nazareth. It is David Koresh.

Amen.

[_harmony]

Interestingly, none of the women who actually married Joseph Smith ever denounced him or accused him of impropriety.

The only woman he was married to objected stenuously.

They do not seem to have regarded his behavior toward them as incompatible with his divine calling.

At that point, his calling was in tatters.

Joseph Smith, it should be remembered, was—like Jesus—a millenarian prophet.

Hold the phone... Jesus was God when he walked this earth. Joseph was a man. There is no comparison.

They do things differently. Discussing Jewish messianic movements, Gershom Scholem noted: "There seems to be an intrinsic connection between active messianism and the courage for religious innovation."

Messianic movements = God as Messiah. Joseph was neither God nor Messiah, so this comparison is not accurate.

New Testament scholar Dale Allison further observes that, "in breaking with traditional customs and values, millenarian groups—like sectarian movements generally—often replace familial and social bonds with fictive kin....'the break with ancient custom' helps weld 'devotees together in a new fraternity of people.'" "Millenarian leaders regularly mediate the sacred through new channels..."
"Millenarianism involves intense commitment and unconditional loyalty..." (see Dale C. Allison, Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998], 87–89).

This only works if Joseph was God... and Joseph was not God.

Joseph Smith's unorthodox marriage practice—like Jesus'—fits within this broader context.

This comparing Joseph Smith to Jesus sickens me, and makes me wonder if you understand the difference between men/prophet and God/Savior at all.

Joseph = David Koresh/Jim Jones... not God our Savior. Your blasphemy is noted.