[toc]Former Mormons frequently accuse the church of distorting or whitewashing its history. Does this charge have any credibility? Perhaps we can recruit the readers of this blog to answer this question regarding a key event in LDS History – the publication and contents of the Nauvoo Expositor. Allow me to explain:
The Faithful Assertion
The LDS Primary manual 5, Lesson 37 describes the account of the martyrdom of the prophet Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum. The lesson includes a summary of the events that led up to the imprisonment of the Prophet at Carthage Jail, including the publication of the Nauvoo Expositor. Because the lesson is targeted to primary age children complex details are not included about the events, however the lessons describes the Expositor in the following terms:
Primary 5, Lesson 37 – “Joseph and Hyrum are martyred.” Excerpt regarding the Nauvoo Expositor
While precise detail is not provided, the lesson makes a very bold assertion about the contents of the newspaper – that it told “many vicious lies.” This was the party line that I was taught growing up and it wasn’t until I had a chance to actually become familiar with the details of events that I learned there may be more to the story than the official church history lessons contain.
The Challenge
So to explore this question of whether or not the church distorts, conceals or misrepresents it’s history I am issuing a challenge to any reader to provide an example of a “vicious lie” contained in the Expositor. If such lies can be substantiated – then we will have defended the Church’s teaching of its history. If no such lies can be demonstrated, then a key example of the Church’s whitewashing of its history will have been shown.
I have produced a transcript of the Expositor in wiki format, divided by section for easy reading, which can be viewed at MormonBookshelf.com. Additionally a scan of the actual Nauvoo Expositor itself is available for review at archive.org. Readers wanting to keep to “faith promoting” sources can read the same text of the expositor at FairMormon.
The Terms
The claim must be a statement or accusation of fact against the prophet Joseph Smith which can demonstrably be proven to be false. An opinion or hearsay does not count – unless those are presented as statements of fact. We will allow any lie to qualify – even if it is not technically vicious.
Readers wishing to vindicate the church and prove that it is truthful are invited to submit at least one of the “many vicious lies” that the Expositor contains and may do so by posting a comment at the bottom of this page containing the quote from the Expositor and references which demonstrate the claim to be false.
Reward!
Be prepared to have any submission thoroughly researched and verified by third parties. The first reader who can provide one of the many vicious lies will receive $50 payable to a PayPal account as a reward. That’s a powerful incentive!
There were so many vicious lies that they couldn’t take the time to list them in the primary manual, so your task is likely to be an easy one.
I will update this post as responses come in. Ready, set, go!!
Update
Okay, there have been several submissions which I will include in chronological order
Submission 1
From Vincente:
In summary, Vincente claims that this is a lie because he believes that the lives and teachings of Joseph Smith were, in fact, true to the proclamations of faith, hope, virtue and charity. Since the Expositor states that those words were simply ornaments to Joseph et all, then Vincente believes that this is a lie. See his full comment below.
My response:
The author of the quote above was making the point that the words that Joseph Smith use to preach faith, hope, virtue, etc. are only words and are betrayed by actions which would contradict those worthy principles.
Vincente makes the argument that since Joseph’s life was characterized by faith and those other virtues, then this statement in the expositor is a lie.
His assertion is only valid to him because he sees Joseph’s actions as faithful, and reflecting those other virtues. Since evil deceptive men have professed false faith long before Joseph Smith ever arrived, the question is how one can tell whether or not a professor of faith is authentic or false.
There is a scripture for that.
“18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.”
(James 2:18)
The author of the quote from the expositor his assertion with the numerous other accusations in the expositor to make the case that the works that those accusations represent reveal the faith and other virtues Joseph espoused to be deceptive and shallow. This, of course, assumes that those other accusations are false.
If the other accusations in the expositor regarding the works and actions of joseph smith are false, then you might consider the provided statement to be a lie. Until then, however, this quote does not represent a lie.
Vincente rebutted my response, but I remain unconvinced. Feel free to read and decide for yourself.
Submission 2
From Michael Waltman
In summary, Michael states that he believes that Joseph did not teach that God was ever in a state where he was liable to a fall.
My Response:
So the question before us is this – Did Joseph Smith teach that God was at one time a man who went through a probationary state of existence as we are in now – subject to the consequences of a fall?
Michael correctly identified the King Follett sermon as the discourse which contains most of the relevant doctrine around this question.
You must put yourself in the position of a congregant listening to that discourse and hearing statements such as these from the lips of Joseph:
“God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!… He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; and I will show it from the Bible. … [Joseph quoting jesus referring to God the Father] ” My Father worked out His kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to My Father, so that He may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt Him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take His place, and thereby become exalted myself. ”
(King Follett Discourse)
These quotes establish that God was once in the same sort of temporal existence that man is currently in. Further details from the sermon establish that We can become Gods ourselves by doing what “all Gods have done before us” – that is learning by degrees – becoming more and more perfect (which implies that you are not perfect from the beginning) this would presume to include God the father based on the discourse:
“Here, then, is eternal life—to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power.”
(King Follett Discourse)
There are other supporting quotes, but this is enough to establish that it is entirely legitimate for the Expositor to claim that Joseph taught that God himself once endured a temporal trial wherein he was tested (subject to “fear and trembling”) and therefore liable to a fall (just like all of his creations are tested). This is not a lie.
Michael rebutted my response, but I remain unconvinced. Read his comments and decide for yourself.
Submission 3
From Michael
“That, notwithstanding our extensive acquaintance with the financial affairs of the Church, we do not know of any property which in reality belongs to the Church (except the Temple) and we therefore consider the injunction laid upon the saints compelling them to purchase property of the Trustee in trust for the Church, is a deception practiced upon them: and that we look upon the sending of special agents abroad to collect funds for the Temple and other purposes as a humbug practiced upon the saints by Joseph and others, to aggrandize themselves, as we do not believe that the monies and property so collected, have been applied as the donors expected, but have been used for speculative purposes, by Joseph, to gull the saints the better on their arrival at Nauvoo, by buying the lands in the vicinity and selling again to them at tenfold advance; and further that we verily believe the appropriations said to have been subscribed by shares for the building of the Nauvoo House to have been used by J. Smith and Lyman Wight, for other purposses, as out of the mass of stock already taken, the building is far from being finished even to the base.”
My Response:
See this post for the full details.
In summary, there is documentation to demonstrate that Joseph’s personal finances were intermingled with church finances, he was given official approval by the twelve to take any church property for himself, he required members to buy land from him or else be cut off, he consolidated all church holdings to himself as trustee-in-trust, he made sure he would know if anyone bought land from anyone other than himself by becoming the registrar of deeds, and he got official sanction to sell some lots of land at a greater than tenfold markup. Wow. Not bad for an uneducated farm boy!
Submission 4
From Steven
Smith was not held to bail or indicted for adultery or perjury. I also think it is fair to say that he was not one of the blackest and basest scoundrels since Nero and Caligula.
My response
This first question is whether or not Joseph was indicted for adultery or perjury. Joseph recorded in his journal:
“Saturday, 25.—At home, keeping out of the way of the expected writs from Carthage. Towards evening, Edward Hunter and William Marks, of the grand jury returned from Carthage; also Marshal John P. Greene and Almon W. Babbitt, who informed me there were two indictments found against me, one charging me with false swearing on the testimony of Joseph H. Jackson and Robert D. Foster, and one charging me with polygamy, or something else, on the testimony of William Law, that I had told him so! The particulars of which I shall learn hereafter. There was much false swearing before the grand jury. Francis M. Higbee swore so hard that I had received stolen property, &c., that his testimony was rejected. I heard that Joseph H. Jackson had come into the city. I therefore instructed the officers to arrest him for threatening to take life, &c.”
(History of The Church 6:405, archive.org)
It would seem that Joseph himself acknowledged that there were indictments against him sufficient for him to try to avoid arrest for them (it says ‘arrests’ rather than ‘writs’ in the above quote in Joseph’s actual journal entry). Next the question of whether he was out on bail for these indictments. Joseph and his attorneys appeared before the Circuit Court and his trial was postponed until the next term of the court. Also from the History of the Church:
“My lawyers, Messrs. Richardson, Babbitt, and Skinner, used all reasonable exertions to bring forward my trial on the charge of perjury; but the prosecuting party were not ready,—one Withers, a material witness (as they asserted in court), being absent. My attorneys frequently called on me to report the state of things in court, and I was ready to go in at a moment’s warning, being anxious for my trial; but the case was deferred till next term. I was left to give bail to the sheriff at his option. He told me I might go home, where he would call and take bail at his own convenience.”
(History of The Church 6:413, archive.org)
Therefore it is not unreasonable to make the assertion that Joseph was indicted for perjury and polygamy (adultery) and on bail for the same. The assertion is not a lie and the Expositor is once again vindicated.
Submission 5
From Seth
It goes on to explain that women are brought from England for the sole purpose of being married to Joseph Smith against their will, combined with a lot of incendiary language. Of all the women who were sealed to Joseph Smith, none of them were converts from England, or anywhere in the Eastern hemisphere. There is no record, that I am aware of, of any women from England who were forced, against their will to marry Joseph Smith, or those who were threatened with death if they refused.
my response
See Defending the Expositor: Indecent Proposals Part 1 to cover how the account given in the Expositor is an amalgamation of 3 separate accounts of Joseph’s failed polygamous proposals.
See Defending the Expositor: Indecent Proposals Part 2 to understand why the authors of the Expositor had very good reason to believe the accounts of the women as published by John C Bennett.
Submission 6
from Seth
There is zero evidence of any of this happening in Nauvoo at the time.
My response
This is likely a reference to two orphaned sisters, Maria and Sara Lawrence, who came to live with the Smiths and were subsequently wed to Joseph as plural wives. You can read more about them here and here.
Submission 7
From Seth
Joseph Smith was worse than the Spanish Inquisition?
My response
This is a statement of opinion and as such cannot be said to be a lie.
Submission 8
from Seth
There is no evidence that Joseph Smith ever did this. However, it did happen in Kirtland. Ironically, one of the men alleged to do this was none other than Robert Foster, one of the men who produced the Nauvoo Expositor. William law himself had a few run ins over land and profiteering. William had his own quarrels with Joseph and seems a bit too fond of his own financial state, rather than helping the poor of the Church. William and his brother Wilson had bought the higher land on the outskirts of Nauvoo; the Church (through Joseph) owned the land in the river bottom. Joseph declared that new arrivals should purchase lands from the Church (this was in part an effort to help liquidate the Church’s debts), but William objected to this plan as prejudicial to his own financial interests.
My Response
See the exploration of Joseph Smiths activities as a land speculator in Nauvoo here.
Submission 9
From independent LDS researcher Brian Hales:
There are many problems with claims made in the Nauvoo Expositor, but since you only ask for one, consider this statement: “She is thunder- struck, faints, recovers, and refuses. The Prophet d*mns her if she rejects.”
Joseph Smith’s offers of plural marriage were apparently turned down by several women. The historical record indicates that his preferred response to these rebuffs was to quietly let the matter rest. No evidence of retaliatory excommunications or other vengeful reactions have been found, although twice he sought to counteract allegations he considered untrue.
Benjamin F. Johnson wrote of one rejection, relating that the Prophet “asked me for my youngest sister, Esther M. I told him she was promised in marriage to my wife’s brother. He said, ‘Well, let them marry, for it will all come right.” Johnson further quoted the Prophet: “If your Sister is engaged, it is all right” and then added “in the presence of my family he talked to her on the Subject, but as I had Suspected, She was promised to be married. The counsel Joseph Smith gave to Esther in the setting is not mentioned, but it appears that there the matter ended. Esther and her future husband were married by Almon Babbit in Nauvoo on April 4, 1844.
In another case, on September 15, 1843, William Clayton recorded an incident regarding Lydia Moon: “He [Joseph Smith] finally asked if I would not give Lydia Moon to him I said I would so far as I had any thing to do in it. He requested me to talk to her.” Two days later, Clayton wrote: “I had some talk with Lydia. She seems to receive it kindly but says she has promised her mother not to marry while her mother lives and she thinks she won’t.” Lydia was not sealed to Joseph.
Another unsuccessful proposal occurred with Sarah Granger Kimball, who was legally married to non-Mormon Hiram Kimball: “Early in 1842, Joseph Smith taught me the principle of marriage for eternity, and the doctrine of plural marriage. He said that in teaching this he realized that he jeopardized his life; but God had revealed it to him many years before as a privilege with blessings, now God had revealed it again and instructed him to teach with commandment, as the Church could travel (progress) no further without the introduction of this principle. I asked him to teach it to some one else. He looked at me reprovingly and said, ‘Will you tell me who to teach it to? God required me to teach it to you, and leave you with the responsibility of believing or disbelieving.’ He said, ‘I will not cease to pray for you, and if you will seek unto God in prayer, you will not be led into temptation.’” After this described snub, Sarah Kimball sent Joseph Smith on his way. His response was to encourage her and to pray for her.
Cordelia C. Morley recounted a similar situation: “In the spring of forty-four, plural marriage was introduced to me by my parents from Joseph Smith, asking their consent and a request to me to be his wife. Imagine if you can my feelings, to be a plural wife, something I never thought I ever could. I knew nothing of such religion and could not accept it. Neither did I.” However, Cordelia had second thoughts and was sealed to the Prophet after his death.
Another rejection was chronicled by Rachel Ivins’ biographer: “When Joseph sought an interview with her [Rachel], she believed he wished to ask for her hand in plural marriage. Her personal turmoil over this prospect must have been excruciating.” Despite Rachel Ivins initial response, she was also sealed to Joseph Smith by proxy in the Endowment House in Salt Lake City, on November 29, 1855.
All five of these rejections came and went, unbeknown to most Nauvooans. According to available records, these women suffered no consequences at Joseph Smith’s hand, directly or indirectly, for spurning him. Had the woman not personally recounted the events afterwards, knowledge of the proposals may have been lost to later generations.
Joseph Smith’s interactions with two women, Sarah Pratt and Nancy Rigdon, demonstrate that he would defend himself against claims he considered to be false. It appears Joseph Smith proposed plural marriage to Nancy who declined. While she did not publicly accuse the Prophet, she also did not keep the episode secret. One account claimed that “she like a fool had to go & blab it.” Immediately thereafter, Joseph met with the Rigdons twice and “matters were satisfactorily adjusted between them and there the matter ended.”
Even Sarah Pratt, who accused Joseph of making an improper proposal, did not accuse Joseph Smith of threatening to damn her if she rejected. John C. Bennett accused the Prophet of threatening to destroy the reputation of any woman her turned him down, but Bennett is not reliable and no one else made the claim. See John C. Bennett, The History of the Saints: Or an Exposé of Joe Smith and Mormonism. Boston: Leland & Whiting, 1842, 231 (Sarah Pratt) and 253 (Widow Fuller).
Anyway, I would call the Expositor’s claim that Joseph would “d*mn” any woman who rejected him to be a “vicious lie.” As we have seen, he was rejected multiple times and nothing happened. Even the two women who broadcasted their version of the interactions did not make that accusation.
Personally I think this whole exercise is nit-picky, but someone referenced it and so I’ve taken the time to respond. When it comes to Joseph Smith and plural marriage, I would also recommend that you read what the believers had to say as well as the unbelievers. We wouldn’t want to embrace a skewed view of what happened would we? Both views are referenced in my books, JOSEPH SMITH’S POLYGAMY: HISTORY AND THEOLOGY.
Thanks,
Brian Hales”
See original comment here.
I have made a full 3 part response to this submission.
- In part 1 “Then are ye damned” it is established that the actual claim made in the Expositor was factually accurate and represented a reference to the warning included in Section 132:4, which the authors of the Expositor were familiar with and which women approached by Joseph confirmed matched their instruction by him.
- In part 2 “The Women who said Nope!” there is an exploration of the 5 examples Hales proposed as proof that Joseph was not retaliatory and it is shown that Hales case is weaker than he makes it out to be, with only 2 of those 5 actually documenting a proposal. Furthermore it is demonstrated that the authors of the Expositor could not have known about these women and so any claim in the expositor on that issue was made in good faith and hardly a “vicious lie.”
- In part 3 “Picking the Nits” The premises of Hales’ argument are examined and it is discovered that Hales has proposed a straw man argument of the actual allegation of Joseph. The actual allegation made by John C Bennett and other contemporaries is that he retaliated against women who would publicly expose him – not simply women who rejected him. There is further review of the rhetorical pitfalls of tunnel vision and the invisible exception illustrating some difficulties with Hales’ explanations and rationalizations.
So, as I posted on Facebook, I think every fact claim there other than Joseph’s land speculation is true. I’m pretty persuaded by Bushman on that point. There is no evidence Smith was using donated temple funds for personal purchase of land. There is evidence that he increased the price of church owned land greatly in some situations for those who could afford it, but he was selling adjacent land cheaper or giving it away for free to those who couldn’t afford it. Not only is there no evidence he personally profited, there is evidence that the land sale overall wasn’t profitable. It may have been, as Law believed, tyrannical. It may have been redistributive in a manner contrary to liberty. However the claims that it was land speculating, that it was profiting at the expense of poor saints and that it was personally profitable seem to be intentional lies. It’s possible Law and others actually believed these claims, though it seems strongly supported by the evidence that the claims were untrue.
So, does pointing to RSR in general count as sufficient evidence?
Digging to find a more specific citation isn’t worth $50. However, if this is enough, please make payment in the form of a $50 donation to Mormon Stories Podcast
So… Michael may win on a technicality here, but does anyone really buy that Joseph and the Nauvoo City Council acted to destroy a press… because Joseph was speculating with land?
It’s not really a stretch of the imagination to assume he was covering up his polyandry and polygyny. He had been secretly marrying other women– including women married to faithful LDS men– while publicly criticizing/shaming those who publicized it. The Nauvoo Expositor was a threat to his secrets.
I certainly think the Expositor was probably destroyed to cover up polyandry.
The claims about embezzlement and land speculation may be enough legal justification under the contemporary libel laws to have confiscated and destroyed the copies of the paper itself, but even Dallin H. Oaks article be write while a law professor drew the conclusion that there were no legal grounds to destroy the press.
So, despite the fact that there are two or three (possibly intentional) lies in the Expositor on this issue, the primary manual’s depiction is pretty clearly false.
I’d be ok with something like “The Expositor was trying to discredit the Church and Joseph Smith. Some of its criticisms were true and some were not. Joseph Smith and the Nauvoo City Council wanted to stop the publication of further criticism. They believed they had the legal right to destroy the press, but they were wrong. After the press was destroyed, enemies of Joseph Smith saw it as an opportunity to arrest and imprison Joseph Smith for breaking the law.”
It’s still told through a rose colored faith promoting lens, but it is a possible interpretation that isn’t clearly telling a falsehood. Honestly, if I were writing curriculum as a TBM it’s what I’d write. It’s clearly far, far better inoculation than what is there now. Owning up to the fact that the destruction of the press actually was illegal seems the essential part of inoculation re: the expositor.
Please forgive my auto correct fails. “be write” should of course be “he wrote”
I removed my post under my facebook name. It is submission #4. I received a threat to my email that I suspect was inspired by my post here. I don’t want to make any accusations and I am sure that the people who run this blog had nothing to do with it, but I also need to protect my privacy and safety.
Personally I’d focus on the Bogus Book of Abraham as the most damning piece of evidence of Smith’s fraud or his arrest record for deceptive thievery but this is an internecine argument among Mormons they apparently want to hash out. Searches for deeper meaning in the shallow waters of religion abound, no matter the faith. Enjoy.
Expositor says “they are told, after having been sworn in one of the most solemn manners, to never divulge what is revealed to them, with a penalty of death attached”. There is no evidence of a penalty of death.
Have you seen the pre-1990 temple ceremony?
Yes, but the Nauvoo expositor is not talking about the temple ceremony. It specifically mentions the circumstances surrounding a sealing proposal. Again, I have seen no evidence of a penalty of death with any proposal.
I feel like the mark has been missed in trying to refute assertion #2. ” and his liability to fall with all his creations”. A reasonable person would read this as our God, as he is now can fall like the rest of us. It is not asserting that he could fall in the past. That would read a bit differently. Supporting this is the premise that he didn’t create the “worlds without number” until he was perfected. I feel that a reasonable person would perceive this as the lie you were searching for.