[toc]In our series on “Discrediting the Expositor” we are examining the response of Joseph Smith and the members of the Nauvoo City council to the publication of the Nauvoo Expositor in the summer of 1844. It was the publication of the Expositor and the City Council’s subsequent destruction of its press which set off a chain of events culminating in the death of Joseph Smith in the weeks that followed. Immediately after its publication on June 7, 1844,  the Nauvoo City council met on Saturday June 8 and then adjourned and reconvened on Monday June 10 to decide the fate of the paper. The debate over what to do was initiated by the Mayor and consisted primarily of bringing witness after witness to bear testimony of the wicked nature of the individuals who were the authors and publishers of the Expositor. Each witness bore testimony to some depravity or defect of character of one of the authors and publishers of the Expositor and answered some questions to further elaborate on the charge. No tangible evidence beyond witness testimony was brought forth. The council ultimately voted to destroy all issues of the paper and the press that produced it – the action was carried out immediately.

Related blog post

In Part 1 “The Conflicted Men of the Nauvoo City Council” we examined the various conflicts of interest that the members of the City Council had regarding Joseph and the issue of the Expositor. In this post we are going to look at the various witnesses that testified in the council and see if there are similar potential conflicts. In a follow-up post we will examine the specific allegations made in that testimony.

Ad Hominem?

One question that is bound to arise is whether or not examining the background ties and conflicts of interest of these witnesses is, in itself, a form of ad hominem attack. One might make the case that by examining the character and background of the witnesses against the men of the Expositor, we are on no greater standing than the city council itself. There are a few key principles to keep in mind. First, it would be incorrect to assert that any examination of personal character or conflicted motives is a foul. There are certain times when assessment of a statement can and should involve an examination of the individual making the statement. This is particularly true in the case of statements of fact or testimony. When considering testimony it can be crucial to examine the credibility and potential conflicts of interest of the witness. The examination should not be confined to those elements, but the findings may speak to the reliability of that testimony.

This concept is often invoked when Mormons encounter what they perceive to be Anti-Mormon material. Before even examining the material, they look at the background and motives of the person producing the material. If the individual is not Mormon themselves, then they conclude that the person is unreliable and no examination of the material statements or facts is even considered.  The difference between this and our analysis of the witnesses is that we are going to examine both the credibility of the witnesses AND the content of their testimony.

Witnesses

Theodore Turley

Theodore Turley

Mr. Turley was the first witness who presented testimony in the city council meeting. He is recorded as testifying that “the Laws (William and Wilson.) had brought bogus dies to him to fix.” This amounted to accusation that the Law brothers were involved in counterfeiting. In this case, the dies are the templates for stamping out counterfeit coins.

As Turley was a mechanic, it would not be surprising that someone might come to him for assistance in a metal/mechanical issue such as the equipment needed to counterfeit currency. This allegation may seem very believable, however there are some aspects of Mr. Turley that may call into question his credibility in giving this testimony.

Like Joseph, Turley was a Master Mason ((Minutes of the Nauvoo Lodge, archive.org)) and as such bound by oath to keep his fellow mason’s secrets and defend him.

Turley was also a secret polygamist at the time he gave this testimony, having taken Mary Clift as a plural wife “prior to 1842” ((see Bergera “The Earliest Mormon Polygamists” archive.org)) As such he gave this testimony knowing well that Joseph was secretly practicing and teaching plural marriage, just as the Expositor stated. It would be to Turley’s advantage for the publishers of the Expositor to be discredited and the Expositor destroyed.

Furthermore, events that happened in the years that followed may shed light on Turley’s credibility. Specifically, in 1845 Elder Turley was arrested on charges of counterfeiting. Brigham Young recorded on 16 November 1845 that “Elder Theodore Turley has been arrested at Alton on a charge of bogus-making.” ((History of the Church Vol. 7, pg. 525 byu.edu)) The results of the interview and investigation from the arrest of Turley was brought before a grand jury and 12 indictments were made. A document((National Archives Record Group 206)) showing those indictments lists Theodore Turley at the top:

Indictments of several church members on charges of counterfeiting.

The handwritten note by Turley’s entries states the following:

“This is an indictment for counterfeiting the current coin of the U.S. The defendant, who is the chief manufacturer of dies &c resides at Nauvoo. From the testimony before the Grand Jury, it appeared that counterfeiting coin has been largely carried on at that place for some years. The defendant evades the service of process.”

It would seem that Turley had been a chief player in the Nauvoo counterfeiting circle and this was what lead to his arrest and indictment.

These charges did not come out of nowhere. Indeed Turley was specifically trained in the art of creating dies for the coin stamping process, having been apprenticed to a “master stamper and piercer” in his native Birmingham England prior to coming to the states ((see “Theodore Turley: A Biography” at turley-eyring.org)). Furthermore, Turley’s departure from his home country of England was motivated by a business venture gone sour – a contract to make dies in England for which he was left with the expenses after his partner absconded with the payment. ((see “Theodore Turley: A Biography” at turley-eyring.org)) Turley was a master mechanic who was specifically trained and experienced in the creation of coins. His background was exactly what would be needed in the counterfeit trade.

It was not just this circumstantial background that tied Turley to counterfeiting.  Several months earlier a letter referring to Turley’s involvement in the Bogus Business was published in the Messenger and Advocate stating:

“Can you tell me what that powerful press, with a long lever, is intended for, or to what use it has been appropriated, in the rom in the N.W. corner of Theodore Turley’s brewery and gun-smith shop, in Nauvoo? And what use that crucible was put to, standing on a small furnace in one corner of said room? I once made free to ask Mr. T. to what use that lever was put, and he said it was to “mash” fingers and toes under. But, to be candid, if I did not know better, I should think it was to mash (make) heads under. And just now I would like to ask brother Turley a question. Pray where did you get that five dollar counterfeit bill from which you passed upon me about three days before I left Nauvoo? Can you answer that question, brother Turley?” ((Letter of J. Gibson Divine, March 24, 1845, Messenger and Advocate vol. 1 no. 10 pg 157-58; archive.org))

Note that the letter refers to a machine designed to mint (mash) fake coins (heads) which was kept in a room in Turley’s gun-smith shop. A few years later in 1949 after Turley had left Nauvoo he was residing at Kanesville Ohio where counterfeiting was again discovered among the saints. A letter sent by Apostle George A Smith to Brigham Young describes the disciplinary proceedings of men discovered to be engaged in the “Bogus Business.”

“That the Machinary which was intended to operate as a branch mint, was in full operation in a shop, which had no outside door; and which was to be carried on for the ostensible purpose, of manufacturing and repairing Fire Arms, but for the real purpose of relieving the pressure of the Money Market.”
(“Bogus Business” letter from George A Smith, archive.org)

It should be noted that Mormon apologists assert that these indictments were trumped up for the purpose of expediting the departure of the Saints out west. For example, FairMormon’s wiki states “…it is unlikely that indictment was anything but a ploy to make sure the Mormons left.” ((fairmormon.org)). If this is true, then it would be unlikely that any additional corroborating evidence would be found. We will see later that this is not the case as Brigham Young’s Manuscript History will document.

Washington Peck

Washington Peck was a 23 year old man who gave testimony regarding Joseph H Jackson, stating that Jackson had borrowed money from him using stolen jewelry as collateral. He also testified that Jackson informed him that leaders of the church, understanding it to be the Law brothers, but not Joseph Smith, were involved in the business of counterfeiting. His testimony further linked the Laws with the darkest elements of Nauvoo notoriety.

Peck testified that Jackson gave him stolen jewelry as loan collateral

Washington was the son of Hezekiah Peck ((See family record at ancestry.com)) The Peck family was closely tied to Joseph. Hezekiah’s sister Polly Peck, Washington’s aunt, was married to Joseph Knight Sr.((See record at familycentral.net)) and it was Joseph Knight Sr. who hired a young Joseph Smith Jr. and even assisted Joseph in his courtship with Emma((“the Knight Family Ever Faithful to the Prophet” Ensign 1989 lds.org)) not to mention supporting the prophet during the acquisition and translation of the Gold Plates.((“The Joseph Knight Family” Ensign 1978 lds.org ))

The Peck family was intimately linked to the Smith and Knight families.  When he was 9 years old, Washington’s father and mother were baptized on the same day as Emma Smith under the hand of Oliver Cowdery.((see History of the Church Vol 1, Ch 9 byu.edu)). “After the Smiths, the Joseph and Polly [Peck] Knight family may be the second family of the Restoration.”((See “Knight Family” from Ensign 1989,  at lds.org))

Further ties to Joseph include the fact that Washington’s father Hezekiah was a fellow Master Mason((History of the Grand Lodge of Iowa archive.org )), sharing the same sublime degree as Joseph Smith.

Lorenzo Wasson

Wasson testified Jackson wanted to “live by highway robbery”

Lorenzo Wasson was a 25 year old man who gave further testimony that Joseph H Jackson had reported that “bogus making” was going in in Nauvoo, but clarified that “General Smith” did not go into it. He also testified that Jackson had made a death threat against Joseph Smith and had intended to live a life of highway robbery.

Wasson was related to Joseph by family. His mother Elizabeth was sister to Emma Hale Smith, Joseph’s wife, making Lorenzo Joseph’s nephew in law.((Lorenzo Wasson record at geni.com)) Lorenzo had lived for a time with Joseph and Emma in Nauvoo.((Lorenzo Wasson profile at JosephSmithPapers.org)) He also was a fellow mason who attended the Nauvoo Lodge((Founding Minutes of Nauvoo Lodge, pg. 31, archive.org)), a church Elder and was a member of the secret Council of Fifty((Lorenzo Wasson profile at JosephSmithPapers.org)).

Lucien Woodworth

Lucien Woodworth was a 45 year old man who testified in support of Joseph account of the interaction with Dr. Foster – specifically to deny that Joseph had made any offer of settlement with Dr. Foster. He further testified that he himself had sent Dimick Huntington to Dr. Foster without the knowledge of Joseph.

Nauvoo House

Woodworth had been hired by Joseph as the architect of Nauvoo House((Lucien Woodworth profile at JosephSmithPapers.org)) and was an aide-de-camp in the Nauvoo Legion under Joseph. He was a fellow Mason at the Nauvoo Lodge((Founding Minutes of Nauvoo Lodge, pg. 32, archive.org)) and had been admitted to the secret Council of Fifty three months prior((Lucien Woodworth profile at JosephSmithPapers.org)). He was a member of the secret Quorum of the Anointed under Joseph((History of the church, vol 6 pg. 39, byu.edu)) and, importantly, a year prior he had given consent to Joseph in secret illegal plural marriage to his 17 year old daughter Flora Ann.((Jenson, Historical Record Vol 6, pg 234, archive.org))

Daniel Carn

Daniel Garn[Carn]

Appointed Bishop of the Nauvoo 6th ward.((Church History entry at 20 August 1842, JosephSmithPapers.org)). Carn was under Mayor Joseph’s direct authority as a Sergeant in the Nauvoo night watch police force((See list of police force in History of the Church vol 6 pg 149 byu.edu)) and was also a former Danite who was listed as a signator of the Danite Constitution which “vested executive authority in JS and his counselors in the First Presidency.” ((see ‘Danites’ at JosephSmithPapers.org and original record of the Constitution scanned at archive.org.)) He was also a fellow member of the Nauvoo Masonic lodge((see entry mistyped as “Daniel Cames” under May 5  here and original at archive.org)).

Cyrus Hills

Hills is a complete stranger and there is no record of who this individual is or where he came from. He gave testimony to support Joseph’s version of the interaction with Dr. Foster. Specifically he denied that any offer of money was made.

Orrin P. Rockwell

Porter Rockwell

Orrin Rockwell was a 30 year old man who testified in support of Joseph’s narrative regarding the interaction with Dr. Foster. He also denied any mention of a financial offer between Joseph and Dr. Foster.

Friends from childhood, Rockwell was a close ally of Joseph. At age 16 he was baptized on the day that the church was founded in 1830. He served as one of Joseph Smith’s personal bodyguards and was a fellow Mason at the Nauvoo Lodge in addition to having been recently made a member of the secret Council of Fifty.((See Orrin Porter Rockwell profile at JosephSmithPapers.org))

Andrew L. Lamoreaux

Andrew Lamoreaux was a 31 year old man((record at wikitree.com)) who gave testimony regarding the character of Dr. Robert Foster. He read a prepared statement at the council which was an account of a visit by Dr. Foster in accompaniment with Joseph Smith and others to Dayton OH en route to Washington DC.((At the time of the Prophet’s mission to Washington D.C. in 1839, Robert Foster was a 28 year old physician who had just recently joined the church. He was invited to accompany Joseph to Washington on account of the poor health of Sidney Rigdon. Dr. Foster  ended up staying in Dayton with Rigdon while Joseph and the others went on to DC.(See article “Joseph Smith Goes to Washington, 1839-40” byu.edu))) Lamereaux gives an account of Dr. Foster behaving licentiously with a young woman at a social event and laying his hand upon her leg. His account includes later reporting that behavior to Joseph and confronting Foster about it with Foster admitting guilt and promising to reform.((There is a parallel to this story in the life of John Lamoreaux, Andrew’s father. The minutes of the Kirtland Elders Quorum record that John Lamoreaux was ordained an Elder in the church on 25 April 1841.(See 25 April, 1841 entry in Kirtland Elders’ Quorum Record 1836-1841, archive.org).  The very next entry records an embarrassing moment in the life of one “John Lamoreaux” that is reminiscent of that which Andrew reported about Dr. Foster: “The Elders quorum met in the House of the Lord A charge was preferred against Elder John Lamoreaux for unchristian conduct manifested to different females by F [Fleullen]. Knapp the case was taken up and tried the right hand of fellowship was withdrawn and he had until the next sabbath to make restitution. The quorum met on the following sabbath Brother Lamoreaux came forward and made his confession the hand of fellowship was restored the meeting dismissed” (Kirtland Elders’ Quorum Record, 11 May 1841, archive.org)))

Lamoreaux lived in Dayton at the time of the event in 1839. It would be remembered later by his family that during the Prophet’s visit at Dayton he would pronounce a blessing and prophecy on Lamoreaux that he would serve a mission in France and die a martyr in that cause.((See entry in Jenson’s Latter-day Saint Biographical Encyclopedia, Vol 3, pg. 667 archive.org)) After joining with the saints in Nauvoo, he was ordained a High Priest in 1843.

Peter Hawes

Peter Hawes was a 48 year old man who gave testimony against both William and Wilson Law. Against William, Hawes testified that after taking a loan from William to provide for the poor Hawes was unable to pay the loan back in full and thereafter William Law threatened and intimidated his family to attempt to collect the debt. Next he testified that he had given William Law food to give to the poor at a social event and Law distributed it, but gave credit to himself rather than to Hawes for the provision. Third Hawes testified that he had given wheat to William Law to grind to flour for his family in his absence, only to find that his family had been deprived that flour and threatened with starvation. Against Wilson Law, Hawes testified that an orphan girl taken into Hawes family was seduced by Wilson Law.

Hawes was a fellow Mason at the Nauvoo Lodge((see Founding Minutes of the Nauvoo Lodge at archive.org)) and a member of the secret Council of Fifty((William Clayton Journal entry of 18 April 1844, archive.org)). In 1841 Hawes had been called by God though Joseph in the revelation given in D&C 124:61 to serve as a trustee in the Nauvoo House Association, overseeing the building of Nauvoo House, a hotel and residence which the Lord had commanded be built for Joseph and the church.((See description of the Nauvoo House Association at JosephSmithPapers.org))

Coins minted by Peter Hawes

Peter Hawes was a “private coiner”((see footnote 15 in “The Beehive and Deseret: Mormon Symbols in Salt Lake City” byu.edu)) whose name also appeared on the indictment for counterfeiting that we previously saw brought against Theodore Turley and others. Confirmation of his involvement in the counterfeit trade is found in an account in the manuscript history of Brigham Young:

“While I was standing with Prest. Kimball at his tent, an outcry was heard from Peter Haws’ Camp; we repaired thither and found that Haws and Thomas Williams and two others had a quarrel about some property, etc. that Haws had let Williams have some bogus money on shares and Williams had not paid him his share of the profits. I reproved them for dealing in base coin and told Haws he could not govern himself, his family, or a company; and unless he repented and forsook such dishonesty, the hand of the Lord would be against him and all those who partook of such corruption.”
(“Manuscript History of Brigham Young,” May 12, 1846, typed copy, original account in the diary of Willard Richards, vol 14. archive.org) 

Despite being caught in counterfeiting, which authenticated the indictments, Hawes continued serving in the Council of Fifty along side Brigham Young.

John Birney

John Birney gave testimony that William Law and Francis Higbee “declared they had commenced their operations, and would carry them out, law or no law.”

Nothing more is known of Birney.

Stephen Markham

Stephen Markham was a 44 year old man who testified that Higbee stated that “the interest of this city is done the moment a hand is laid on their press.”

Markham was a Lt Colonel in the Nauvoo Legion under Joseph Smith. He was an Elder in the church and also a fellow mason at the Nauvoo Lodge.((See Stephen Markham profile at JosephSmithPapers.org))

Warren Smith

Warren Smith was a 39 year old blacksmith who testified that Francis Higbee had attempted to recruit him to the business of counterfeiting.

Warren was also a member of the Nauvoo Police force((See list of police force in History of the Church vol 6 pg 149 byu.edu)) who had allegedly made threatening statements regarding William Law and William Marks which were the subject of a hearing in early Jan 1844. ((See History of the Church Vol 6 pg. 166, byu.edu)) He was also a fellow Mason at the Nauvoo Lodge.((see Founding Minutes of the Nauvoo Lodge, archive.org))

Summary of Witnesses

[table]

Witness Name, Church Member, Freemason, Council of Fifty, Other

Theodore Turley, Yes, Yes, No, Current secret polygamist. Counterfeiter

Washington Peck, Yes, No, No, Long time family friend of Joseph. Son of a Master Mason

Lorenzo Wasson, Yes, Yes, Yes, Nephew-in-law to Joseph. Architect of Nauvoo house.

Lucien Woodworth, Yes, Yes, Yes, In Nauvoo Legion. In Anointed Quorum. Father-in-law to Joseph by secret polygamy.

Daniel Carn, Yes, Yes, No, Former Danite. Member of Police Force.

Cyrus Hills, ?,?,?,?

Orrin Porter Rockwell, Yes, Yes, Yes, Longtime friend of Joseph. Personal bodyguard of Joseph.

Andrew Lamoreaux, Yes, ?, No, Subject of prior prophecy by Joseph.

Peter Hawes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Counterfeiter. Trustee of Nauvoo House Association.

John Birney, ?,?,?,?

Stephen Markham, Yes, Yes, No, In Nauvoo Legion.

Warren Smith, Yes, Yes, No, In Nauvoo Police Force.

[/table]

In light of the various connections of the 10 known witnesses the following should be kept in mind:

• Members of the LDS church are under the ecclesiastical authority of Joseph as Prophet and president of the Church. (10/10)
• Freemasons are oathbound to protect fellow Masons, such as Master Mason Joseph and to keep their secrets, excepting murder and treason.((See Breast to Breast in the 5 points of Fellowship of Masonic ritual as one source critics cite as a justification for concealing crimes of fellowmasons. Masons reject this argument.)) (8/10)
• Members of the Council of Fifty are oath-bound to support Joseph as their quorum president and recently anointed “Prophet, Priest and King” ((see recollection of the 11 March 1844 meeting of the Council of Fifty entered on 1 Jan 1845 in William Clayton’s Journal archive.org)) (4/10)
• Members of the Anointed Quorum are oath-bound to support the church, and by extension the Prophet, Joseph (1/10)
• Members of the Danites were oathbound to support the leaders of the church (1/10)
• Members of the Nauvoo Police force were under the direct authority of the Mayor, Joseph. (2/10)
• Individuals who were introduced to the doctrine and practice of polygamy were enjoined to secrecy on the matter. (2/10)
• Individuals related to Joseph had a strong incentive to defend his interests. (2/10)

Conclusion

As we saw with the members of the Nauvoo City council itself, each one of the known witnesses that gave testimony in the sessions regarding the Nauvoo Expositor had significant ties and conflicts of interest in the matter. Every one of the witnesses for which anything is known were members of the church and under Joseph’s ecclesiastical authority. All but one or two of them were Freemasons. Four of them were members of the Council of Fifty. Some were members of the Police, subject to Joseph’s authority as mayor and others were members of the Anointed Quorum or former members of the controversial Danite band. Yet others were related by family or secret polygamy or were criminals themselves engaged in counterfeiting or were active polygamists. These significant facts of their background were not covered in their testimony or cross examination.

Related Blogpost

These relevant facts alone do not invalidate their testimony, but it makes the reader aware of potential biases and incentives that the witnesses may have had. We have previously seen that Joseph had sufficient influence over people bound to him by these secret groups to induce them to lie to cover up his activities (see False Witnesses and Lost Credibility). By modern standards these issues would significantly affect the credibility of their statements – particularly if those statements are not backed up by the factual and documentary record of events. In our next post, we will examine the content of the testimony given and see what can be determined about the allegations against the men of the Nauvoo Expositor.