- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
GBSmith,thanks for letting me know about this discussion. I haven’t been as active on StayLDS lately–things have been busy. This is definitely a better conversation than the one that got sidetracked at W&T. I think that polygamy is over-emphasized in the destruction of the Expositor. Michael Quinn says that polygamy (while sensational) was a minor reason for the destruction of the press. I wrote about it on this post a few years ago:
http://www.mormonheretic.org/2009/05/10/the-nauvoo-expositor-a-different-perspective/ Morris Thurston wrote the introduction to the Nauvoo City Council Minutes. One of the other issues that doesn’t get much attention with the Expositor is habeus corpus (in addition to the issues Quinn talks about). Because Joseph was constantly hounded by Missouri, the city of Nauvoo expanded the habeus corpus to prevent Joseph from being arrested and brought back to Missouri. As you may remember, Joseph was charged in the assassination attempt on Governor Boggs (many believe that Porter Rockwell was responsible for the actual attempt.) Anyway, the city council passed laws that courts in Nauvoo could review any arrest warrants for any citizen of Nauvoo, basically preventing extradiction of Joseph. This was the most expansive use of a city charter in the nation, and enemies called for the repeal of the city charter.
When the Expositor called for the repeal of the charter as well, everyone knew that Joseph would be arrested and sent to Missouri, and nobody believed Missouri would give Joseph a fair trial. So I’m not saying that polygamy didn’t play a role in the Expositor, but it was not the sole reason (and Quinn argues a minor reason) that the city council ordered the destruction of the presses. Joseph’s life was in danger, and calling for the repeal of the city charter was a troubling development. You get a real understanding of this when reading the city council minutes. City council members brought up Haun’s Mill and problems with mob rule as a reason why such unflattering and troubling things in the Expositor were such a problem.
After Joseph’s death, the tone of the city council changes dramatically, as they try to make amends with the Expositor publishers. But you can see why the city council tried so hard to keep Joseph from facing prosecution outside the city–they had no way to protect him. Because Joseph couldn’t leave Nauvoo, he was almost a prisoner there anyway.
Roy wrote:SilentDawning wrote:but I think cWald made a good point that if the things William Law wrote about were actually true
it doesn’t matter so much to me that the things written were true. It wouldn’t have made it more legal nor I believe would it have mattered much to JS’s opponents if the statements were proved to be false. Remember, when he was murdered he was being held on the charge of treason against the U.S. Government and not for destruction of private property.
My undestanding is that he was brought up on charges of disturbing the peace, not treason. What are the facts???
Quote:Writ of Arrest on the Charge of Treason – Joseph Smith.
STATE OF ILLINOIS
CITY OF NAUVOO
The people of the State of Illinois, to all sheriffs, coroners and constables of said state greeting:
Whereas complaint has been made before me, one of the justices ofthe peace in and for said county aforesaid, upon the oath of Augustine Spencer, that Joseph Smith, late of the county aforesaid, did, on or about the nineteenth day of June. A. D. 1844, at the county and state aforesaid, commit the crime of treason against the government and people of the State of Illinois aforesaid.
These are therefore to command you to take the said Joseph Smith if he be found in your county, or if he shall have fled, that you pursue after the said Smith into another county within this state, and take and safely keep the said Joseph Smith, so that you have his body forthwith before me to answer the said complaint and be further dealt with according to law.
[Seal]
Given under my hand and sea1 this 24th day of June, A,D. 1844.
R. F. SMITH, J. P.
The initial complaint was disturbing the peace. It was changed to treason by a judge who wanted to accept that charge and knew it would put Joseph in jail – unlike disturbing the peace. Again, my point about it being much more complicated than most people understand. MH’s summary is a pretty good one – very good, for such a concise one, actually.
I’m NOT making any kind of comparison other than a legal one by saying the following, but it was very much like the shifting charges against Jesus of Nazareth in order to get him into custody – and that eventually got him killed. In both cases, there were initial charges that actually had some validity, but those initial charges morphed into different charges once the gates opened. Neither of the new charges was upheld legally, but it didn’t matter. Both were dead too soon to complete the process properly. The major difference is that Jesus actually was condemned officially and given over to be killed officially, whereas Joseph’s protection simply was removed – letting those who originally wanted him dead do the killing themselves.
In both cases, however, it was the public flaunting of the “rule of law”, if you will, that brought about the charges that led to their deaths. Iow, although Jesus’ situation generally isn’t portrayed as “he brought it upon himself”, he did – just as much as Joseph did when he approved of the press being destroyed. Jesus riding into Jerusalem in a way that mocked the Romans led inevitably (and quite quickly) to his death. It wasn’t a terrible crime (just as destroying the press wasn’t a terrible crime in that time), but it really torqued the religious-political leaders of the time. We just don’t read about it in those terms, because the descriptions we have are all from his followers.
That’s the most ironic part of this sort of discussion to me – that most Christians have no freaking clue how pristinely white-washed their stories of Jesus might be. That doesn’t change one bit how I view Jesus, but that’s because my view of “perfection” and “godhood” are so radically different than most people’s.
Wow. I agree with you Ray, but, wow. IMO, I don’t think anyone on this planet, should ever be comparing Joseph Smith to Jesus for any reason, and that includes the circumstances of their deaths. That is the kind of fodder the enemies of the church use to show proof that we have deified and worship “the Prophet.” Just my opinion.
Perhaps that makes us even for me calling BY a sexist pig earlier today?
🙂 SD, that is a great question. The legal issues get muddied on this whole thing. Joseph and others were originally sent to Carthage on the charge of “riot” for the destruction of the Expositor. Once incarcerated, the charges were upgraded to treason in order to keep Joseph in jail, because they weren’t sure how long they could keep him in jail on simply the riot charge. Going back in time for a minute, Joseph was originally charged with treason as a result of the Mormon War of 1838. When he was captured, the leader of the Missouri Militia ordered Alexander Doniphan to execute Joseph, but Doniphan replied
“It is cold-blooded murder. I will not obey your order. My brigade will march for Liberty at 8:00 tomorrow morning, and if you execute these men I will hold you personally responsible before an earthly tribunal, so help me God.”Instead, Joseph was sent to the Far West jail where he received the revelation in D&C 122. Smith later escaped (with the help of some of the jailers), but enemies in Missouri were anxious to reinstate the charge. I’m not sure how much of those alliances that Quinn talks about played a role in this treason charge, but certainly Missourians were anxious to try Joseph on treason. CWald, I have to agree with Ray on this. Jesus was originally condemned to death by the Jews for blasphemy, but the charge was upgraded to treason because Rome didn’t recognize blasphemy as a capital crime. The Jews knew this, so they said that Jesus was trying to be a king, and guilty of treason. Certainly treason was a capital crime in Rome. So, whether you like it or not, there are some similarities on the legal proceedings for Jesus and Joseph Smith.
mormonheretic wrote:SD, that is a great question. The legal issues get muddied on this whole thing. Joseph and others were originally sent to Carthage on the charge of “riot” for the destruction of the Expositor. Once incarcerated, the charges were upgraded to treason in order to keep Joseph in jail, because they weren’t sure how long they could keep him in jail on simply the riot charge.
Going back in time for a minute, Joseph was originally charged with treason as a result of the Mormon War of 1838. When he was captured, the leader of the Missouri Militia ordered Alexander Doniphan to execute Joseph, but Doniphan replied
“It is cold-blooded murder. I will not obey your order. My brigade will march for Liberty at 8:00 tomorrow morning, and if you execute these men I will hold you personally responsible before an earthly tribunal, so help me God.”Instead, Joseph was sent to the Far West jail where he received the revelation in D&C 122. Smith later escaped (with the help of some of the jailers), but enemies in Missouri were anxious to reinstate the charge. I’m not sure how much of those alliances that Quinn talks about played a role in this treason charge, but certainly Missourians were anxious to try Joseph on treason. CWald, I have to agree with Ray on this. Jesus was originally condemned to death by the Jews for blasphemy, but the charge was upgraded to treason because Rome didn’t recognize blasphemy as a capital crime. The Jews knew this, so they said that Jesus was trying to be a king, and guilty of treason. Certainly treason was a capital crime in Rome. So, whether you like it or not, there are some similarities on the legal proceedings for Jesus and Joseph Smith.
See, the PBS.org special on Mormonism — the only objective source of history I ever was exposed to beyond the slanted Truth Restored was there. And they said it was disturbing the peace — apparently and incomplete report. Amazing how things get more illuminated the deeper you go into it. MH or anyone in the know — what is a good source of Church history for the casual student — not too much detail, but enough to for the intelligent layperson to get a rudimentary to intermediate knowledge of what happened inour early history — without all this hiding and partial reporting of facts like we saw in the PBS.org special, and Truth REstored? Not anti-Mormon, but not so pro-Mormon it paints everything as roses and candy?
MH, you missed my point. I didn’t question the details of the comparison. Just like ray didn’t really question the facts around my sexist pig comment. Some things just should not be said cwald wrote:MH, you missed my point. I didn’t question the details of the comparison. Just like ray didn’t really question the facts around my sexist pig comment. Some things just should not be said
So, if I understand you correctly, it is kind of like criticizing the prophet Mohammed. Something to avoid to not inflame certain demographics.
I believe it was his biggest mistake. Yeah, cwald, we’re even. :thumbup: I used a big, fat disclaimer, but, still . . . I know.
😳 SD, I think the casual student reads Truth Restored. Rough Stone Rolling, and Great Basin Kingdom are 2 excellent books, though I wouldn’t consider them casual reading. Michael Quinn’s Mormon Hierarchy series is good too, but sometimes I don’t always agree with him, and I don’t think he’s casual either. More Wives Than One by Kathryn Daynes is excellent for polygamy, and perhaps more casual than the others listed. Dallin Oaks has a great book on the Trial of Joseph’s Assassins.
Casual readers don’t get the details that are surprising–you’ve got to be willing to dig in to get the good juicy stuff. All of the books above target a specific time period, not all of church history. I don’t know of any book that covers all of Mormon History in any sort of comprehensive way that a casual reader would get “the rest of the story” as Paul Harvey says.
mormonheretic wrote:Rough Stone Rolling, and Great Basin Kingdom are 2 excellent books, though I wouldn’t consider them casual reading. Michael Quinn’s Mormon Hierarchy series is good too, but sometimes I don’t always agree with him, and I don’t think he’s casual either. More Wives Than One by Kathryn Daynes is excellent for polygamy, and perhaps more casual than the others listed. Dallin Oaks has a great book on the Trial of Joseph’s Assassins.
Great reading list. I love Arrington’s histories, and was amazed at the honesty with which Dallin Oaks expressed the flaws in the revisionist history around the martyrdom in “Carthage Conspiracy” — the trial book you mentioned. I find it interesting that Oaks’ more recent works and talks are much more apologetic in content — a little disappointing.If the fall of Adam and Eve was supposed to happen to bring us into mortality to become like Heavenly Father, then why didn’t Heavenly Father just say to them partake of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Why did Satan say it? And if we’re supposed to dress modestly then why did Satan tell Adam and Eve they were naked after partaking of the fruit? If these things are part of Heavenly Father’s plan then why didn’t he say those things? Even after hearing various explanations by the church, these things don’t make any sense to me. Your thoughts? It’s all symbolic – and there are no universal answers that will satisfy everyone. I know that’s not satisfying to everyone, as well, but it’s how I see it – largely because it’s how I personally want to see it. I want to find meaning and ask questions that make sense to me – and I gave up a long time ago caring if others’ meaning and questions make sense to me. If they make sense to them, great; if the don’t make sense to me, fine.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.