What lies did the Nauvoo Expositor print?

[_Jason Bourne]

The Mormon church has not been proven false. So, I see no reason to freak out like some on this forum.

Why do you keep repeating this? It has not been prover true either. Oh and just so you know, it has not been proven false that last night I was visited by God. She looked like Christie Brinkley and told me that I was to start the religion of Christie who is the female incarnation of Jesus Christ. She told me the prescribed dress for women in Church is any swimsuit that would be suitable for the Sports Illustrated annual swimsuit addition. Men must attend naked and be available sex slaves on the alter of the Church for any women who wants a man. One catch. Tithing is to me, in my name and is 50% of annual gross income. But there are lots of nice benefit.

Now go prove this false Why me.

[_sock puppet]

So, anyway, the things that the Nauvoo Expositor claimed to be facts but which were not actually true were....

I guess that the problem is that they are presented with such fire and from an unsympathetic point of view. I can appreciate Nevo's contention that historical context does help one understand that Smith may not have been a simple philanderer (although I have heard that there is some evidence of him sleeping around on Emma as early as the period of the Book of Mormon translation), but I still don't think that this justifies his behavior. Even if we grant that he believed that God wanted him to do this, that does not absolve him of wrongdoing.

I think the bottom line is that Nevo and other thoughtful LDS who believe in Mormonism feel reassured that God told Joseph Smith to do these things, whereas those of us who place less trust in his claims look to the content of the message more than its claimed source. I for one would not trust another person whose claims to divine messages came with demands that I accede to requests that violate my basic sense of right and wrong. Do not commit adultery is one of those ideas I think works well regardless of religion.

This seems to be a theme that JSJr had actually been working on. That is, trusting another person whose claims to divine messages came with demands that I accede to requests that violate my basic sense of right and wrong. Look at 1 Nephi 4. Prime example of this. According to JSJr's Book of Mormon, the Mormon god commanded Nephi to kill another human being, a demand that he acceded to despite it violating Nephi's basic sense of right and wrong.

If JSJr's followers had already swallowed the god-commanded-Nephi-to-kill-Laban whopper that is in the beginning of the Book of Mormon, JSJr could be pretty well assured that these same followers would not be too upset or resistant to believing that god commanded JSJr to have sex with young girls and women other than Emma.

It does seem odd that the Mormon god, who already knows what is in the heart of each of us, would think it worth killing Laban to test and show Nephi his own level of obedience to that god. Likewise, it seems odd that the Mormon god would think it worth the infidelity and adultery to test and show JSJr his own level of obedience to that god.

Rather than decimate their own, innate and personally developed morality, wouldn't a wise god build on what is already there in those he chooses as his oracles?

[cacheman]

It does seem odd that the Mormon god, who already knows what is in the heart of each of us, would think it worth killing Laban to test and show Nephi his own level of obedience to that god. Likewise, it seems odd that the Mormon god would think it worth the infidelity and adultery to test and show JSJr his own level of obedience to that god.

Rather than decimate their own, innate and personally developed morality, wouldn't a wise god build on what is already there in those he chooses as his oracles?

According to LDS doctrine, God gave all of us a conscience, the light of Christ, to tell us what is right and wrong. But if you take the examples of Nephi and Joseph Smith, God wants us to learn how to overcome our conscience and obey.

Surely there is a better way.

[_sock puppet]

It does seem odd that the Mormon god, who already knows what is in the heart of each of us, would think it worth killing Laban to test and show Nephi his own level of obedience to that god. Likewise, it seems odd that the Mormon god would think it worth the infidelity and adultery to test and show JSJr his own level of obedience to that god.

Rather than decimate their own, innate and personally developed morality, wouldn't a wise god build on what is already there in those he chooses as his oracles?

According to LDS doctrine, God gave all of us a conscience, the light of Christ, to tell us what is right and wrong. But if you take the examples of Nephi and Joseph Smith, God wants us to learn how to over our conscience and obey.

Surely there is a better way.

Yes, the Mormon god apparently wanted to snuff out that light of Christ (conscience) in his chosen prophets. Makes perfect sense.

[_EAllusion]

Likewise, Raelism hasn't been proven false. Oh, any rational person should not believe in it, but by "proven" why me has "to absolute certainty" in mind. And virtually nothing has been proven false in this sense. Flat earthism hasn't been proven false. Does this mean why me thinks it is rational to believe in basically anything you want? Probably not, but he's willing to selectively argue that to defend his faith.

[_Kishkumen]

This seems to be a theme that JSJr had actually been working on. That is, trusting another person whose claims to divine messages came with demands that I accede to requests that violate my basic sense of right and wrong. Look at 1 Nephi 4. Prime example of this. According to JSJr's Book of Mormon, the Mormon god commanded Nephi to kill another human being, a demand that he acceded to despite it violating Nephi's basic sense of right and wrong.

One of the interesting things about this is that Joseph Smith dictated this material later than Mosiah. So it is possible that his thought evolved to a point where he believed this position to be theologically and morally acceptable.

[_Darth J]

That's right. The fact of Joseph Smith's polyamory is irrelevant to whether the Expositor was telling the truth about Joseph Smith engaging in polyamory.

The early saints were not living in a bubble. I am sure that the Warsaw Gazette was printing articles about polygamy and Joseph Smith, and the saints were free to read that paper.

No, you are not sure of that. You are supposing that out of convenience. All you are doing is dancing around from one point to the next with no consistent idea other than Joseph Smith being right no matter what. Your failure to make anything resembling a coherent argument makes this clear. You have previously said that Joseph Smith was justified in lying and keeping the secret to "protect life." Now you're saying that everyone knew about this, anyway.

You also have this habit in the various threads in which you post of inadvertently proving that against which you are arguing. You're trying to argue that the Expositor was printing lies, but have failed to articulate a single claimed fact in that paper that was not true. Now, contrary to your previous assertions, you are hypothesizing that Joseph Smith's polyamory was a matter of common knowledge. You don't seem to have realized yet that if what you are guessing at were true, you would be acknowledging that the Expositor was telling the truth when it said Joseph Smith was practicing plural marriage.

William Law could not control his hate for the leadership of the LDS church and it filled the newspaper.

Whatever motives you want to impute to William Law are irrelevant as to whether the factual allegations in the Expositor were true. Motive did not become an element of defamation of a public figure until New York Times v. Sullivan, when the U.S. Supreme Court held that to balance the First Amendment against defamation claims, a public figure has to prove that defamation against them was done with actual malice. That has absolutely nothing to do with the Expositor, however. First, Sullivan was decided 120 years later. Second, truth is still a defense to defamation, and actual malice does not come into the picture until it is established that the alleged defamatory statements were false.

Why Me, perhaps the other residents of the planet you live on find whatever you are trying to say to be cogent. On Earth, however, talking ad infinitum about William Law's supposed motives has no relevance as to whether the Nauvoo Expositor was libelous. Libel is a question of law, not a question of "he's a big, fat meanie for saying that." Libel means that printed statements are harmful and that they are false. If the statements are true, then by definition the statements are not libelous.

The Nauvoo city council had no ground to stand on in claiming that the Expositor was libelous, and neither do you. The claim that the paper was libelous was nothing more than a pretext to silence the truth about what Joseph Smith was doing.

The paper did nothing to quell the hatred that the mobs felt toward the Mormons. In fact, just the opposite. If it were allowed to continue the mobs would have been at the gates burning homes and william law would do nothing about it.

This kind of argument, which is common among defenders of the faith, reminds me of The Terminator, when the soldier sent back in time to protect the mother of the future leader of the human race ends up fathering the guy who sent him back in time in the first place.

The mobs did come to Nauvoo after the Expositor press was destroyed, and the mobs did come and murder Joseph and Hyrum. What you are positing is that the result that Joseph's actions caused (destroying the press) is proof that if he hadn't destroyed the press, the actions that resulted from destroying the press would have happened.

For readers of this board, did that last sentence make any sense at all when you read it? If not, then why would it make any sense when you think it in your head?

It was not what the Expositor said that brought everything to a head; it was the fact that the city council under Joseph Smith destroyed the press. Since you volunteered speculation about what the papers in Warsaw may have said, let's look at what the Warsaw Signal actually did say:

Can you stand by, and suffer such INFERNAL DEVILS!! to ROB men of their property and RIGHTS, without avenging them. We have no time for comment, every man will make his own. LET IT BE MADE WITH POWDER AND BALL!!!

Thomas Sharp is not saying anything here about the substance of what was published in the Expositor. It was destroying the Expositor that enraged him and led to the mobs. There is no reason to speculate about what was happening or why, as Why Me invites everyone to do, when there is clear evidence showing that the situation complained of by defenders of the faith was one of Joseph Smith's own making.

[_Kishkumen]

The mobs did come to Nauvoo after the Expositor press was destroyed, and the mobs did come and murder Joseph and Hyrum. What you are positing is that the result that Joseph's actions caused (destroying the press) is proof that if he hadn't destroyed the press, the actions that resulted from destroying the press would have happened.

Obviously, that makes no sense. And it never has.

It was not what the Expositor said that brought everything to a head; it was the fact that the city council under Joseph Smith destroyed the press. Since you volunteered speculation about what the papers in Warsaw may have said, let's look at what the Warsaw Signal actually did say:

Can you stand by, and suffer such INFERNAL DEVILS!! to ROB men of their property and RIGHTS, without avenging them. We have no time for comment, every man will make his own. LET IT BE MADE WITH POWDER AND BALL!!!

Thomas Sharp is not saying anything here about the substance of what was published in the Expositor. It was destroying the Expositor that enraged him and led to the mobs.

It has long been my contention that ordering the destruction of the Expositor was one of the worst decisions Joseph Smith ever made. It ignited people's fears that the Mormons would not integrate well into a democratic society, by effecting the very kind of thing they dreaded from them.

Maybe it is the case that this was the only way Joseph saw of silencing the press without initiating a legal process that would lead to an investigation of its claims. I think it was the investigation of these claims that Joseph actually feared, because it is likely that the Expositor would have been exonerated and Joseph would have emerged looking like a polygamous theocrat, which he in fact was.

[_harmony]

Maybe it is the case that this was the only way Joseph saw of silencing the press without initiating a legal process that would lead to an investigation of its claims. I think it was the investigation of these claims that Joseph actually feared, because it is likely that the Expositor would have been exonerated and Joseph would have emerged looking like a polygamous theocrat, which he in fact was.

The church is still avoiding investigations.

[_Nevo]

This seems to be a theme that JSJr had actually been working on. That is, trusting another person whose claims to divine messages came with demands that I accede to requests that violate my basic sense of right and wrong. Look at 1 Nephi 4. Prime example of this. According to JSJr's Book of Mormon, the Mormon god commanded Nephi to kill another human being, a demand that he acceded to despite it violating Nephi's basic sense of right and wrong.

This theme didn't originate with Joseph Smith (see, e.g, Gen. 22:2; Hosea 1:2).

Also, the Old Testament deity who commanded the slaughter of the Amalekites, including defenseless women and children and livestock (1 Sam. 15:3), isn't likely to have had any problem commanding Nephi to slay a defenseless Laban—who was, in fact, quite wicked. The prophet Samuel's ruthless butchery of the Amalekite king, a defenseless prisoner, was hardly worse than Nephi's deed (see 1 Sam. 15:33).

It should also be noted that even though Nephi said he didn't want to kill Laban (1 Nephi 4:10), he approached Laban's house that night with the expectation that the Lord would deliver Laban into his hands (see 3:29) and that this deliverance would result in Laban's death: Laban would be "destroy[ed]...even as the Egyptians" (1 Nephi 4:3). Make of that what you will.