Fact Checking the Newspaper Joseph Smith Tried to Silence

How did this paper end the life of Mormonism's founding prophet? And was it true? The Nauvoo Expositor. It's the fiery newspaper that Joseph Smith ordered to be destroyed because it published all sorts of lies about him. This single edition paper accused LDS leaders of secret teachings, polygamy, unchecked political power, and even the distortion of justice. Curious about the paper, I asked a whole bunch of missionaries in Nauvoo about it and they all told me more or less the same thing. It's full of lies. It is deeply slanderous and it called for mob violence against Nauvoo. So I asked them, "Well, what specific claim in the expositor was a lie?" None of them seemed to have any idea.

Again and again and again, people answered, "I'm not really sure." So being the nerd that I am, I decided to read it and figure out what these lies were. In this video, we're going to examine the expositor's claims line by line. What did it allege? How did Joseph Smith respond? And what does the historical record actually show? We cannot allow people to rewrite history. And if what the expositor said is true, then it calls into question Joseph's qualified status as a leader in Christ's church. So, let's take a closer look at the Nauvoo Expositor. Was it full of vicious lies or did it tell the truth?

Fascinatingly enough, this actually is kind of the reason Joseph Smith was killed in 1844. You see, this all started when a man named William Law, who had previously been a part of the first presidency in the LDS church, became disillusioned with Joseph Smith, especially over plural marriage. He was excommunicated in April of 1844 and went on to start a splinter group saying that Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet. Now, not that he was a false prophet. William Law believed in the Book of Mormon and in the Doctrine and Covenants. He just thought that Joseph Smith had lost his way. And so, he really wanted to call Joseph to repentance by exposing what was going on in Nauvoo, hence the name of the paper.

And so, on June 7th of 1844, he published the Nauvoo Expositor. Now, the day after that, Joseph Smith as mayor of Nauvoo called together the city council in order to figure out what to do about this. The city council met on June 8th and also on June 10th for quite a while in order to discuss how they should respond. Joseph and Hyram really pressured the council to declare the paper a public nuisance in order to destroy it. And that's exactly what happened. On June 10th, they destroyed the expositor's printing press. And this really stirred things up in Nauvoo and the surrounding regions. Eventually, the governor of Illinois stepped in and this is what landed Joseph Smith in Carthage jail.

He was charged with inciting a riot and eventually with treason. And it was here that a mob charged the jail. There was some back and forth shooting and Joseph Smith was killed. I want to divide this video into two parts. First, I want to take a look at what Joseph told the Nauvoo City Council. What did Joseph say was slanderous enough to justify destroying the paper? The first and most fundamental thing they identified as being slander had to do with polygamy. Did the expositor lie about Joseph Smith teaching and practicing plural marriage? Joseph told the city council that the expositor makes it a criminality for a man to have a wife on the earth while he has one in heaven according to the keys of the holy priesthood.

Charge: polygamy and D&C 132

So he's talking about here successive ceilings, one wife and then a second after the first one has passed away. The expositor makes the truth of God transformed into a lie. But this was not a lie on the part of the expositor. In fact, the LDS church website uses the expositor as proof that Joseph Smith instituted concurrent plural marriage. But what about the specific details in the expositor? It tells this heart-wrenching story about women who arrive in Nauvoo from overseas with little possessions and absolute trust in the prophet. Eventually, they're invited to a secret meeting with Joseph or an apostle where they are sworn to secrecy on pain of death to never disclose the contents of that meeting.

After they agree, they're introduced to the idea of plural marriage and propositioned. The women are shocked and they're damned by Joseph if they reject. So, is this story a lie? Well, if you require that every detail of this story be true of every woman, or even that every detail be true of any singular woman, then yeah, this is not true as it's presented. If you allow the expositor a degree of literary license to take multiple stories and thread them into a single account, well, then most of the details of the story are all verifiably true at some point. Let me prove that to you. Martha H. Brotherton was a young lady of 17 years old who came to Nauvoo from England.

It seems like her account is the primary source the expositor used in its version of events. In her statement, Martha claimed that after being in Nauvoo for 3 weeks. And after Brigham locked the door, closed the window, and drew the curtain, she was asked by Young, "Do you promise not to mention these few questions to anyone?" Later, speaking to both Brigham and Joseph, "You must promise me you will never mention it to anyone. I do promise it, she said. Well, said Joseph, you must promise me the same. I promised him the same. No, sir, I will lose my life first, said I. She was told that Joseph had received a revelation that it was right to take two wives as in the days of Abraham.

Brighgam asked if she'd like to be his wife, and said that doing this would take her straight to the celestial kingdom. Joseph told her, "I have the keys of the kingdom, and whatever I bind on earth is bound in heaven, and whatever I loose on earth is loosed in heaven. If he don't do his duty to you, come to me and I will make him. If you do not like it in a month or two, come to me and I will make you free again. And if he turns you off, I will take you on. She wrote, "My feelings at that moment were indescribable. God only knows them." "What?" thought I, "Are these men that I thought almost perfection itself, deceivers, and is all my fancied happiness but a dream?" After this, she and her parents, who had left everything they had to move to Nauvoo, left the church.

She died in 1863 and was actually sealed to Brigham. Young by proxy in 1870 after she died. Joseph's propositioning of Nancy Rigdon, that's Sydney Rigdon's daughter, and Sarah Pratt, that's Orson Pratt's wife, and his marriage to the Lawrence sisters all probably served as sources for the expositor's amalgamated account. The paper describes some of these girls as fatherless and motherless. And this is probably a reference to the Lawrence sisters who were orphans that were living with the Smiths that Joseph had married. Nancy Rigdon's brother-in-law actually also recorded that Nancy was locked in a room with Joseph Smith.

She was told that he had an affection for her for several years and wished that she should be his. God had given him all the blessings of Jacob and he enjoined her to secrecy. So, secret meetings, foreign women, claims of divine revelation, orphan girls, all of those things are true. But what about the claim that Joseph swore these women to secrecy on pain of death? We have no evidence for this, at least for any story that I could find. We know that Joseph claimed that he would die if he didn't obey the command of plural marriage. And we also know that capital oaths were used elsewhere in Mormonism, things like the Council of 50 or even the Endowment.

But were these women given capital oaths? The closest thing we get to this is Martha's account where Joseph says, "Upon your honor, you will not tell." And she responds, "No, sir. I will lose my life first." But we have no positive evidence that Joseph ever required these women to take a capital oath. So this is unconfirmed but possibly false. The expositor also says that the prophet dams her if she rejects. This references both claims made by John C. Bennett, but also I think is a reference to Doctrine and Covenants 132, which William Law, who is the principal author of the expositor, had personally seen.

DNC 132 is supposedly a revelation given to Joseph Smith in 1843 about the new and everlasting covenant. I reveal unto you a new and everlasting covenant. And if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned. For no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory. Now, the question is, was the new and everlasting covenant actually about plural marriage? Was it about marriage sealing? Was it about something broader? Well, I actually addressed this exact question in another video I made about John Taylor's 1886 revelation. If you'd like to understand why I think DNC 132's new and everlasting covenant is about plural marriage, check out my video there.

I'll leave the link down below in the description. So, I think that William Law reads in DNC 132 that if you don't abide the new and everlasting covenant, you're damned. And that's what he's talking about here in the paper. But also just think about what Joseph promised the women that he propositioned, what they would receive if they accepted his offer. He promised exaltation. And if exaltation is what you're promised if you accept, what is the implication about what will happen if you reject? Joseph told Sarah Anne Whitney that she would have a diadem of glory in the eternal worlds if she remained in the everlasting covenant to the end.

Helen Mar Kimble was told, "If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation and exaltation and that of your father's household and all of your kindred." Again, what does this imply they'd lose out on if they didn't accept, even if it was never explicitly stated by Smith? Was damnation threatened if they didn't accept? Well, yes, at a minimum in DNC 132 and also possibly by way of implication. So, if we grant some literary license here, most of this section is verifiably true. Moving on to the second thing mentioned in the city council meeting. Was Austin Cowell's affidavit true?

He claimed that there was a revelation presented to the high council about polygamy. In trying to convince the city council to declare the expositor a nuisance, Joseph said this. He never had any private conversation with Austin Cowell's on these subjects that he preached on the stand from the Bible showing the order of plural marriage in ancient days having nothing to do with the present time. Hydram agreed saying that the purported revelation was only about polygamy in Old Testament times not the modern age. Speaking about the revelation that he presented, Joseph said that men in this life must be married in view of eternity.

Otherwise, they must remain as angels only in heaven. In other words, he claimed that the revelation he presented wasn't about plural marriage, but the need for sealing for time and eternity. This was not a lie by the expositor. It was actually a lie by Joseph and Hyram. The revelation that Austin Cowell spoke about is DNC 132. It is the revelation about God prescribed plural marriage, even though it was concealed until 1852. I mean, the revelation even speaks specifically about Joseph and Emma Smith. So, it's really hard to claim that it was only about plural marriage in the Old Testament, not about modern times.

Did Joseph teach different doctrines in private?

Third thing brought up in the city council meeting. Did Joseph teach things differently in private than he did in public? The expositor claimed that Joseph taught many items of doctrine as now taught, some of which, however, are taught secretly and denied openly. Joseph denies this, explaining that he only taught the plural marriage revelation in public, never secretly in private. So, no, the expositor did not slander on this point. Joseph regularly taught things in private with an inner group that he denied in public. The fourth and final thing that the city council specifically decrieded as being slanderous was the account of Jeremiah Smith and Nauvoo's abuse of habius corpus.

Habeas corpus in Nauvoo

And if you have no idea what habius corpus means, that's okay. I didn't either. took a lot of googling, but I'll explain it in a second. They were essentially claiming that leaders in Nauvoo under the influence of Joseph Smith were permitting injustices. The expositor was concerned that if such an order of things is allowed to exist, continued injustice, there is every reason to believe that Nauvoo will become a sink of refuge for every offender who can carry in spoils enough to buy protection. The people of the state of Illinois will consequently see the necessity of repealing the charter of Nauvoo when such abuses are practiced under it.

The Nauvoo City Charter gave the city of Nauvoo a unique authority to enact a wide breath of ordinances and then legally enforce them. The expositor was concerned that the charter allowed the city to abuse the constitutional right of habius corpus and use it as a smokeokc screen for injustice. Habius Corpus constitutionally guarantees that anyone can appeal to a court in order to ensure that their imprisonment or their detainment is legitimate. The city charter allowed the courts to greatly expand their power of habius corpus. I mean Nauvoo could essentially hold a preemptive trial. The expositor's chief evidence for abusing this was a man named Jeremiah Smith.

No relationship to Joseph Smith. According to the paper, Jeremiah was an on the-run fugitive who stole $4,000 from the US government. A US marshal heard he was secreted in Nauvoo. But when he arrived in the city, the marshall discovered Jeremiah under the immediate protection of the prophet and his whereabouts unknown. Eventually, Joseph convinced the marshall to give Jeremiah the benefit of a writ of habius corpus so that the municipal court in Nauvoo could hold a trial to see if the charges against Jeremiah were legitimate or not. If they were legitimate, Jeremiah would go with the US Marshall.

If they were not, he would go free. It's worth noting that the municipal court was headed by Chief Justice Joseph Smith. So Jeremiah Smith was tried by the municipal court and he was discharged and then he was tried again and then discharged again much to the chagrin of the US Marshall who thought this whole thing was illegal and he said as much in the court. So when Smith discusses the expositor's slanders to the city council, he read a liel from the expositor concerning Jeremiah Smith and explained and showed the falsehood of the expositor. Smith was openly in the streets of the city daily. So was this story liable?

Well, the entire occurrence with Jeremiah Smith was certainly true. There are public warrants, court documents, and journal entries confirming that yes, Jeremiah Smith was accused of stealing $4,000 from the US government. that a marshall from Iowa found him in Nauvoo and that rits of habius corpus were issued and that he was set free. There is one detail that is a little bit unclear. The paper says that he was secreted in Nauvoo under the protection of Joseph Smith and that he was unable to be found by the marshall. This seems to be the thing that Smith is denying when he says Smith was openly in the streets of the city daily.

Here's what we do know. Joseph Smith knew that Jeremiah was expecting to be arrested by the US Marshall for getting money which was his due at Washington. Jeremiah even went to Smith asking him to give him a kind of preemptive writ of habius corpus even before the marshall arrived in Nauvoo which was very very unusual. So it's a reasonable claim to say that Jeremiah was under the protection of Joseph. But was Jeremiah hidden away in the city? We just don't know. We have no surviving records of Joseph meeting with the marshall to evaluate. So, is the big picture story of Jeremiah Smith liable? No.

This one detail is unverifiable though and could potentially be false. Well, that's it. These four things are the only things that Joseph and Hyram identified to the city council as being slanderous. These are the reasons that the council decided to declare the expositor a nuisance and destroy it on June 10th of 1844, even though almost all of these details were actually true. But what about the other claims in the expositor? Maybe you could argue it was just so obviously lies that they didn't even have to specifically bring it up. So, let's turn our attention now to the rest of the expositor. Are there other things in here that could be considered slanderous outside of polygamy?

The other major problem the paper wrote about was Joseph's melding of civil and religious authority. Well, just think about what's going on at this time in Nauvoo, 1844. Joseph is running for president. He has other church leaders campaigning for him around the country. He's the mayor of Nauvoo. He's the chief justice for the city courts. He is the commander-in-chief for the Nauvoo Legion. He's also the president of the church and the prophet. So I think it's very fair to say that he was indeed melding the two spheres. The expositor claimed that Joseph contends all governments are to be put down and one established upon its ruins.

You are voting for an enemy to your government. Well, this is almost certainly referencing something that happened in the Council of 50, sometimes called the Kingdom of God. The council of 50 was a secret council that was not actually an extension of the church. It was a civil or political entity that Smith had created. The council set itself up to institute a theocracy according to the will of heaven. When you go through the minutes for the council of 50, it's really evident that they were indeed trying to create a theocracy, a political governing body. The question though is was Smith trying to put down governments in order to establish this theocracy.

Charge: prophesying against the U.S. government

Well, Joseph had prophesied that God was going to put down the US government, destroy it, for not coming to the aid of the church when they most needed help. Their view of the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence was actually quite low. One council member said this, "Those documents have a few pearls, but a tremendous sight of chaff." So the council of 50 was set up to be God's governing body over the whole earth with Joseph Smith as its leader and king. The constitution for the council of 50 says and no other government kingdom authority so on shall be acknowledged by my people.

And it even says that this is the fulfillment of the prophetic promises for a future kingdom over the whole earth. Now they did not want to directly tear down the existing government. rather they really wanted to either influence it politically or just leave and create an entirely new governing system. So Smith is not calling for an act of revolt. He was saying that the government would and should be replaced. So when the expositor says that all governments are to be put down, it's kind of ambiguous. If that is a predictive claim, then this is true. If it's an accusation saying that Smith was calling for revolt, then it's false.

So this claim is plausible. The expositor also says, "We will not acknowledge any man as king or lawgiver to the church, for Christ is our only king and lawgiver." And it claimed that Smith was a self constituted monarch. Is this true? Was Joseph really a selfappointed monarch? Actually, yes, that is true. Just a few months prior to the publication of the expositor, Smith was appointed prophet, priest, and king over the earth, and he was unanimously appointed to these offices by the council. It's actually kind of interesting. Historian Michael Quinn speculates that Joseph wanted the expositor destroyed not just because of what it said about plural marriage, but because it appeared he had a leak in the Council of 50 despite all the members of the council taking an oath to secrecy, a capital oath.

Some of the statements in the council could be construed as treasonous. And it's possible that Joseph feared exposure of those things. And there's some evidence that kind of proves this might be true. After the expositor was published, Joseph never again met with the council of 50. He died before the council was ever reconvened. And what's more, he told his scribe, William Clayton, this burn the records of the kingdom or put them in some safe hands and send them away or else bury them. It seems like the publication of the paper made Joseph want to cover up some of what the council talked about.

All right, moving on. The expositor also claims that Joseph was giving special privileges to certain men undermining the established laws of the United States. We already looked at the issue of Jeremiah Smith and the abuses of habius corpus. That is a big part of this claim. But beyond that, yeah, Joseph did give himself and other men some special legal privileges. Just consider this city ordinance that was made in Nauvoo. If any person shall come with process, demand, or requisition to arrest, said Joseph Smith, he shall be subject to be arrested by any officer of the city with or without process and tried by the municipal court upon testimony, and if found guilty, sentenced to imprisonment in the city prison for life, which convict or convicts can only be pardoned by the governor with the consent of the mayor of said city.

The mayor being Joseph Smith. So in other words, if someone comes to arrest Joseph Smith in Nauvoo, they could be imprisoned for life unless Joseph says they can go free. Yeah, I think it's very evident that Joseph is giving some men certain legal privileges that could seem subversive to US law. Next claim. The paper claimed that Hyram received a revelation that was used to influence an election. Will you support him? that same Hyram Smith who feigned a revelation from God directing the citizens of Hancock County to vote for JP Haj and by so doing blaspheming the name of God. Will you support a man like that who will trifle with the things of God and fain converse with the divinity?

Hyram Smith did in fact receive a revelation instructing Latter-day Saints to vote for Hajj. Brother Hyram tells me this morning that he has had a testimony that it will be better for this people to vote for Hajj. Next, the expositor noted that Joseph taught a plurality of gods above our God. Though recent LDS philosopher Blake Osler says this is not what Joseph taught, many Latter-day Saints and LDS prophets and apostles interpreted Smith's teachings this way. And it seems like the expositor is specifically referencing Joseph's teachings in the King Flet discourse. But after the expositor's destruction, Joseph actually preached a follow-up sermon called the sermon in the grove, where he doubled down on the theology and doctrine of the king followed discourse, even seeming to state that the father has a father of his own.

Right after this, the expositor claims that Joseph taught that God has the ability to fall with all his creations. And if he varies from the law under which he is subjected, he with all his creatures will be cast down as was Lucifer. Well, if we grant that Joseph really was teaching a form of regress that Heavenly Father has a heavenly father who has a heavenly father, then Heavenly Father is subjected to gods and laws outside of himself. And if he violates those laws, he will suffer the consequences for that same as us. And it seems like that is what the paper is referencing here. Now, whether or not you accept that that is really what Smith taught in the King Follow Discourse and the Sermon in the Grove, that follow-up sermon, this is firmly in the realm of controversy.

If you want to learn more about the Kingflet discourse and this whole web of teachings, I made a video specifically about that sermon. Link will also be down below in the description. Moving on to the next point. The expositor stated that church leaders did not follow procedure for excommunication and that the laws William and Wilson were excommunicated without a chance to defend themselves contrary to what doctrine and covenants stipulates. This is true. They were excommunicated without a church trial and without the opportunity to defend themselves. Next claim, it said that Joseph created secret societies which included oaths and obligations.

This is undeniably true. We already talked about the council of 50. That's one example. But you could also point to the Danites or to Joseph's participation in Freemasonry or even to the endowment and the quorum of the anointed. I mean the endowment itself included secret elements filled to the brim with oaths and obligations. The next major claim was that Joseph mismanaged church funds and used those funds for personal profit. History of the church records this. I was unanimously elected sole trustee in trust for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It records that for the trustee in trust to gather up all deeds, bonds, and properties belonging to the church and which are now held either by committees or individuals and take the same in his own name as trustee in trust.

Charge: personal use of church funds

Did Joseph personally benefit from church funds? Yes. 18th president of the church, Don H. Oaks said this. During the first two years of the Mormon settlement in Nauvoo, the financial activities of the church and the personal financial affairs of Joseph Smith were indistinguishable. The church actually gave Joseph a blank check to take church property and give whatever he thought was wise over to his family because of the financial losses that they suffered in the Missouri conflict. After Joseph's death, most of the property thought to belong the church was actually found to legally belong to the Smiths.

It's also true that Joseph required those who moved into Nauvoo who had the money to purchase land from the church through himself. There is in the hands of the trustee in trust a large quantity of lands which is for sale. If the brethren who move in here and want an inheritance will buy their lands of the trustee in trust, they will thereby benefit the poor, the temple and the Nauvoo House. Let all the brethren, therefore, when they move into Nauvoo, consult President Joseph Smith, the Trustian Trust, and purchase their lands of him, and I am bold to say that God will bless them. There were actually even consequences for those who did not purchase land through Smith.

Those brethren who came here having money and purchased without the church and without counsel must be cut off. The expositor authors say that they think that there were funds that were raised for the temple that were actually used for land speculation to purchase land and then sell it at a higher rate. Was the expositor correct here? Was Joseph involved in land speculation? Yeah, he was. But did he mark the land up 10fold like the expositor claimed? I mean, different plots of land were different, but yeah, he would mark it up between 5 to 288 times what he had purchased the land for. Now, he did this.

he said in order to aid those who were poor and needy. Was the expositor correct in saying that Joseph used money that was intended for the temple to do this land speculation? Well, in this case, we just don't know. It does seem plausible given the blurring of the lines or finances at this time. It's worth noting that even the expositor's authors tempered their language here. We do not believe that the monies and property so collected here have been applied as the donors expected. So in summary, did Joseph meld personal and church finances? Yes. Did he participate in land speculation and markup?

Yes. Did he use funds for the temple to do this? Possibly, but unverified. Next, the expositor implied that some leaders in the LDS church, broader than just Joseph, taught quote, the spoiling of the Gentiles, that is stealing from non-members. Indeed, a founding leader of the secret military group of Latter-day Saints known as the Danites said this, "Go out on a scout on the borders of the settlements, and take to yourselves spoils of the goods of the ungodly Gentiles. For it is written, the riches of the Gentiles shall be consecrated to my people, the house of Israel, and thus waste away the Gentiles by robbing and plundering them of their property." I have to note that this quote actually comes from Smith, who was personally opposed to this happening.

Yet, as far as the claims of the espositor go, yes, there were Latter-day Saints who were teaching the spoiling of the Gentiles. Next, the paper claims that Joseph had two active charges against him. One for adultery, the other for perjury. This is true, as Joseph himself notes in his journal. Just two weeks before the expositor was published, Joseph had actually gone to Carthage to face adultery charges, though the trial was delayed. Smith called those prosecuting him false swearers whose indictments were all of the devil. It's worth noting that one of the adultery charges was because of Smith's relationship with Maria Lawrence.

And at this time, Joseph was indeed married to Maria, though their marriage was unknown by most. Last thing on our list, the expositor claims that Joseph Smith taught the unconditional sealing up to eternal life, except in the case of murder. This claim is specifically referencing the language of DNC 132 which says they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise and he or she shall commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant whatever and all manner of blasphemies. And if they commit no murder wherein they shed innocent blood, yet they shall come forth in the first resurrection and enter into their exaltation.

He acknowledges that they'll be destroyed in their flesh and given to the bufferings of Satan, but that their exaltation is secured. A few months earlier, Smith had preached a sermon saying, "Make your calling and election sure until you obtain a promise from God for yourselves that you shall have eternal life." It is to be sealed up unto eternal life and obtain a promise for our posterity. This is the power of Elijah to seal or bind. sealed against all sin, but the sin of shedding innocent blood and the sin against the Holy Ghost. This could also be a reference to the mysterious second anointing ordinance.

Though we have no information about this ordinance from Smith himself, we do know that it includes making your calling and election sure and being unconditionally sealed up to eternal life. So, this is not a lie. We have gone through a lot of content. By and large, most things in the expositor seem to be generally true. There are a couple things that we could quibble about that are either unconfirmed or likely false, but for the most part, the expositor was actually accurate in what it said about Smith. So all of this rhetoric that the expositor is full of slanderous lies about Smith is just not true.

Verdict: the Expositor told the truth

And I would argue that in accusing the expositor of slander, Joseph Smith and Latter-day Saints have actually slandered the expositor and its authors. One of the most substantial slanders against the expositor is the claim that it called for mob violence. This is just not true. I heard this repeated time and time again when I was in Nauvoo. It does not call for mob violence. The expositor actually goes through great pains to establish that they are not calling for a mob or for violence though they are willing to defend themselves. The expositor says that in all our controversies in defense of truth and righteousness, the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty through God.

And therefore we will not use carnal weapons save in our own defense. We hereby give notice to all parties that we are the last in attack but the first and foremost in defense. We would be among the last to provoke the spirit of the public abroad unnecessarily. We say to our friends, keep cool and thereby dishonor ourselves in revenging our own wrongs. Let our motto be last in attack but first in defense. There's even more statements here, but I think you get the point. Some point to this statement made by the expositor as evidence that it's calling for violence. Let us arise in the majesty of our strength and sweep the influence of tyrants and miscreants from the face of the land as with the breath of heaven.

But this was said in the context of not voting for Hyram Smith, not in the context of raising up a mob. In fact, we actually have a really cool insight into the mind of William Law, the principal mover and shaker behind the expositor. He did an interview in 1887 with the Salt Lake Tribune. And here's what he was asked. Had you any idea that there was a sort of conspiracy to kill Joseph in jail? He responded, "No, I had no idea. No idea. I had been ruined by that man. All my property was gone. All my dearest illusions destroyed. And through my connection with him, I got a black spot on my life which will pay me to the very last minute of my existence." But I tell you, I tell you, no.

If I had any idea of any such scheme, I would have taken steps to stop it. I have always considered the killing of Joseph Smith a wrong action. Beyond this, I think it could be argued that Joseph absolutely slandered William and Wilson lie in the city council meeting to bring up the issue of the expositor. Here is how Joseph broached the issue. If I had kept a from Canada here and had done everything, I would have been as good a man as William and Wilson Law. He claimed that Law had offered someone money to kill him, that they were counterfeits, that they were raising up a mob to steal the possessions and property from the Latter-day Saints, that he had brought a band of Missurrians to betray Smith, that he stole money from church projects, that he exploited the poor and needy, that they threatened to shoot Smith at Carthage.

It was even said of all the authors of the expositor that they were as much murderers at heart as David was before the death of Uriah. He claimed that both William and Wilson were adulterers. I just want to point out one thing that so struck me made me actually really upset when I was reading the city council minutes. They talked a lot about Wilson Law, Williams brother, who was involved with the expositor. They had accused him of seducing a young lady, an orphan of 16 or 17 years old. Here's what they said about it. There was only one girl, 16 or 17 years old. Wilson was soon there again and out in the evening.

The girl confirmed to Peter Haw's wife that Wilson had seduced her. Joseph said that certain women came to complain to Emma that they had caught Wilson Law with the girl on the floor at Mr. Haw in the night. Willard Richards in the meeting said that the seduction of such a youthful, fatherless, and innocent creature by such a man in high standing as the mayor general of the Nauvoo Legion, which Wilson Law was, was one of the darkest, damnedest, and foulest deeds on record. This made me so upset because I agree with Willard Richards. That is evil. And if it's true, it was evil for Wilson Law to do that.

But you know who was doing this? Do you know who did seduce 16 17year-old girls who is in high positions of authority in Nauvoo? Joseph Smith did. And this encapsulates my problem with the expositor and the response. They were looking at the expositor and fired up about the lies that were present while neglecting to see the truth of the expositor in Joseph Smith. The source of the controversy in Nauvoo was not the expositor. It was Smith. It was Smith's plural marriage. It was Smith's deception. All the expositor doing was exposing what was already true. So for them to look at Wilson Law with this kind of rhetoric about dark, damnedable deeds, but turn a blind eye to Joseph Smith is, I would argue, hypocrisy.

If you are going to hold the expositor accountable for lying, for sexual immorality, then don't be hypocritical about it. hold Joseph Smith accountable as well. Well, as a born again Christian, I think that these things are grounds for us to look at Joseph Smith and say that he was objectively disqualified from leadership in Christ's church. And I base this off of the teaching of 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, which gives the qualifications needed for church leaders. Here's what Paul writes in 1 Timothy 3. Therefore, an overseer, an elder, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, literally a onewoman man, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent, but gentle, not quarrelome, not a lover of money.

He must manage his own household well, with all dignity, keeping his children submissive. For if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders so that he may not fall into disgrace into a snare of the devil. These are the God-given qualifications for leaders in the New Testament church. It's actually a higher standard than the Old Testament. You could look at the Old Testament patriarchs to Abraham to David and they would not be qualified for leadership in the New Testament church.

These standards are higher as is fitting for the New Covenant. When Joseph Smith fails these things, when the expositor is actually right about a lot of the charges it lays at the feet of Smith, I have grounds as a evangelical Christian to look at Smith and say he is disqualified. If Joseph Smith is disqualified for leadership in Christ's church, then he is not a genuine prophet. He was not the leader of this new dispensation, the leader of the restoration of Christ's church. And thus, the LDS church cannot be Christ's true church on the earth today. Thank you so much for watching. I mentioned two videos here that I just want to draw your attention to.

The first is John Taylor's 1886 revelation video where I discuss the nature of the new and everlasting covenant. And the second is a video on the King Flet discourse. Both of them are right here if you want to learn more about those topics. Thanks so much for watching and God bless.