G.Palmer Mormon Discussions Podcast on Joseph Smith Sexual Allegations

[_Fionn]

The church had many enemies and this would have just added fuel (which Law did) to the fire. This was one of the reasons (and the other slanderous junk it was printing) the press was destroyed in fact.

What was slanderous?

It really was a public nuisance and it was legal in that day to put a stop to it.

Destroying private property was lawful in the state of Illinois?

[_Equality]

Tobin is wrong. Even Oaks' apologetic didn't go so far as to say the destruction of the press was legal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauvoo_Expositor#Legal_opinions_and_analyses

[_Equality]

This makes no sense. It's like saying you don't believe a whistleblower because he reports a crime he witnesses at work. How does taking steps to expose a fraud make the person exposing the fraud less credible?

Law wasn't a whistleblower. He was a troublemaker. Who was he attempting to inform with his actions? Clearly not the leadership of the church (they knew).

Law's only crime was breaking omerta, the law of silence. I suppose you would also condemn Sammy the Bull Gravano as being not credible, and a troublemaker. At least he was from the perspective of those on whom he informed. I mean, the mob bosses already knew they were committing crimes, so Gravano's telling the cops about it wasn't whistleblowing; it was troublemaking. Right?

Law was trying to inform law-abiding citizens and Mormons who were not in on all the secret shenanigans taking place by those at the highest levels of church government about what was taking place. Again, only 100 people in Nauvoo, a city of 18,000, knew about Joseph's polygamy, and far fewer still knew about Joseph's polyandry. The Expositor was going to expose it for the general membership who were in total darkness about what was going on. You've admitted that the polygamy accusations were true, so it wasn't that the Expositor was going to spread lies about Smith--it's that it was going to expose the truth. And it is precisely because William Law WAS credible that the paper posed such a grave threat. He was a member of the First Presidency, a close intimate associate of the Prophet. He wasn't some yellow journalist raking up muck. The Mormons tolerated all sorts of criticism from outsiders. They could chalk all that up to ignorant anti-Mormon bias. But this was coming from upstanding citizens and faithful members and believers in the restoration who knew what they were talking about.

Clearly the members of the church weren't impressed, they didn't believe his slanderous accusations nor join his "newly" minted church in droves. As I said, Law isn't credible. You may characterize him however you want and believe his non-sense. I certainly don't believe him and I really doubt many Mormons today will either.

What was slanderous? Point to something in the Expositor that Law said that wasn't true. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. On the one hand, you say polygamy wasn't a secret; that people knew about it or could have known about it, and that it was no big deal. Then you say that what Law was saying was "slanderous" and "non-sense." Which is it? Old hat common knowledge or slanderous non-sense?

[_Equality]

A whistleblower (whistle-blower or whistle blower)[1] is a person who tells the public or someone in authority about alleged dishonest or illegal activities (misconduct) occurring in a government department, a public or private organization, or a company. The alleged misconduct may be classified in many ways; for example, a violation of a law, rule, regulation and/or a direct threat to public interest, such as fraud, health/safety violations, and corruption. Whistleblowers may make their allegations internally (for example, to other people within the accused organization) or externally (to regulators, law enforcement agencies, to the media or to groups concerned with the issues).

Whistleblowers frequently face reprisal, sometimes at the hands of the organization or group which they have accused, sometimes from related organizations, and sometimes under law.

I will leave it to the informed reader to decide whether William Law fits the definition of whistleblower.

[Guest]

Law's only crime was breaking omerta, the law of silence. I suppose you would also condemn Sammy the Bull Gravano as being not credible, and a troublemaker. At least he was from the perspective of those on whom he informed. I mean, the mob bosses already knew they were committing crimes, so Gravano's telling the cops about it wasn't whistleblowing; it was troublemaking. Right?

Wrong. If he felt there was wrong-doing going on, he certainly could have gone to the state officials with his accusations. They certainly weren't friendly with Joseph Smith. That is not what he did.

Law was trying to inform law-abiding citizens and Mormons who were not in on all the secret shenanigans taking place by those at the highest levels of church government about what was taking place. Again, only 100 people in Nauvoo, a city of 18,000, knew about Joseph's polygamy, and far fewer still knew about Joseph's polyandry. The Expositor was going to expose it for the general membership who were in total darkness about what was going on. You've admitted that the polygamy accusations were true, so it wasn't that the Expositor was going to spread lies about Smith--it's that it was going to expose the truth. And it is precisely because William Law WAS credible that the paper posed such a grave threat. He was a member of the First Presidency, a close intimate associate of the Prophet. He wasn't some yellow journalist raking up muck. The Mormons tolerated all sorts of criticism from outsiders. They could chalk all that up to ignorant anti-Mormon bias. But this was coming from upstanding citizens and faithful members and believers in the restoration who knew what they were talking about.

The membership were not a concern actually. They already had seen the publication and rejected it. The concern and why it was shutdown was it would incite those outside the church.

What was slanderous? Point to something in the Expositor that Law said that wasn't true. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. On the one hand, you say polygamy wasn't a secret; that people knew about it or could have known about it, and that it was no big deal. Then you say that what Law was saying was "slanderous" and "non-sense." Which is it? Old hat common knowledge or slanderous non-sense?

Oh please, read it yourself. I'm not going to get into it with you since you have excused his diary entries already, which contain awful stuff as well. Here is a link for objective readers to make up their own mind http://en.fairmormon.org/Primary_source%20...%20_Full_Text

[_just me]

Wrong. If he felt there was wrong-doing going on, he certainly could have gone to the state officials with his accusations. There certainly weren't friendly with Joseph Smith. That is not what he did.

Who did go to the law? Someone did.

[_Tobin]

Tobin is wrong. Even Oaks' apologetic didn't go so far as to say the destruction of the press was legal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauvoo_Expositor#Legal_opinions_and_analyses

Wow, nice way to mischaracterize it. William Law had the right to sue for damage to the press. Question: did he EVER exercise his right?

[_Buffalo]

Tobin is wrong. Even Oaks' apologetic didn't go so far as to say the destruction of the press was legal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauvoo_Expositor#Legal_opinions_and_analyses

Wow, nice way to mischaracterize it. William Law had the right to sue for damage to the press. Question: did he EVER exercise his right?

Dumbest question ever. Joseph Smith was dead 20 days later. You can't sue a corpse, not even in Illinois.

[_Tobin]

Wow, nice way to mischaracterize it. William Law had the right to sue for damage to the press. Question: did he EVER exercise his right?

Dumbest question ever. Joseph Smith was dead 20 days later. You can't sue a corpse, not even in Illinois.

Really? The city of Nauvoo was responsible for the damages, not Joseph Smith.

[_Chap]

What was slanderous? Point to something in the Expositor that Law said that wasn't true. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. On the one hand, you say polygamy wasn't a secret; that people knew about it or could have known about it, and that it was no big deal. Then you say that what Law was saying was "slanderous" and "non-sense." Which is it? Old hat common knowledge or slanderous non-sense?

Oh please, read it yourself. I'm not going to get into it with you since you have excused his diary entries already, which contain awful stuff as well. Here is a link for objective readers to make up their own mind http://en.fairmormon.org/Primary_source ... _Full_Text

Here is a link to the Expositor that works, unlike Tobin's, from the post I already made citing interesting chunks of the Expositor.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Primary_source ... _Full_Text

It's time for Tobin to put up or shut up on this issue. What factual statement in that document was substantially false? If he can't cite any, we may reasonably conclude that Tobin can't find any.

It's clear that Joseph Smith hated having his secret polygamy and despotic style of church government revealed, and it is likely that the possible consequences scared him.

But ordering the press to be destroyed was just about the most ill-judged thing Smith could have done in response. It confirmed to those Gentiles who were already suspicious of his motives that any public criticism unacceptable to Mormon leadership would not be tolerated, and clearly confirmed Law's warnings about Smith's blurring of the boundaries between church and state. It also suggested that Law's revelations were just too true to be allowed to continue in subsequent issues of the Expositor.

No-one was entitled to kill Smith because of what he had done. But didn't he see that violence against him and the church was a likely response to the violence of destroying a printing press in an effort to gag his critics?