Joseph Smith, as the Mayor of Nauvoo, President of the Church, and Captain of the Nauvoo Legion, used his power to silence dissent. The Nauvoo Expositor was published, which publicized Joseph’s secret polygamous relationships and doctrines, a fact that the church does not deny. The issue is that the church or the public, or the Lord was not ready for this to be public knowledge. Joseph destroyed the press, effectively ending the Nauvoo Expositor. He did it by stating the paper as a “public nuisance.” He feared the outrage it would cause if it continued, the outrage which would be directed at him and his church and followers, due to the evidence that he was a polygamist and thus a liar, after repeatedly and publicly denying having multiple wives. The church admits today that by his death, Joseph was married to 30-40 women!
On Saturday, June 8, and the following Monday, June 10, the Nauvoo City Council convened to determine a course of action… With the sanction of the city council, Joseph Smith ordered a marshal, with the assistance of the Nauvoo Legion, to destroy the printing press. On Monday evening, June 10, the marshal and his posse of approximately 100 men removed the press, scattered the type, and burned the remaining copies of the newspaper… The Nauvoo City Council had reason to believe their actions were legal… Scholars have concluded that the Nauvoo City Council acted legally to destroy copies of the newspaper but may have exceeded its authority by destroying the press itself.
LDS Website: Church History Topics: Nauvoo Expositor
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/nauvoo-expositor
Was destroying the press the “right” thing to do? It is unquestionably the event that led to his imprisonment and death at Carthage Jail. Was he acting in God’s name when he destroyed the press? Was this a legally permissible action of a Mayor, Church President, or Militia leader? Did Joseph break the law in destroying the press and inhibiting the freedom of speech and the press?
This act, the church still argues today, was a “gray area,” and the council (including Joseph Smith) “had reason to believe their actions were legal.” The church article cites “scholars” who have “concluded” that the Nauvoo City Council (meaning Joseph Smith) acted legally!
Who are these scholars? Checking the footnote, conveniently their own Dallin H. Oaks, in his 1965 Utah Law Review called “The Suppression of the Nauvoo Expositor.” When else does the church rest so quickly on a sole scholarly conclusion, as when it declares the church did nothing wrong, as said by a current member of the church’s First Presidency. Oaks wrote an article for Utah Law Review to discuss not Utah Law, but Illinois and Nauvoo law, and debates the assumption nearly all historians make that the city council’s actions were illegal. He distinguishes the council declaring the paper a public nuisance, suppressing the paper, and destroying the press into individual actions.
He concedes that the council correctly declared the paper a nuisance and suppressed further issues to be printed, but that they stepped too far when they destroyed the press. In his review, he even admits that the claims in the Expositor were true, but sidesteps that issue by stating that evaluating such libelous claims of the paper is “beyond the scope” of his article.
Thomas Ford, then Governor of Illinois, called the event a violation of the Constitution and “a very gross outrage upon the laws and the liberties of the people.” Even B. H. Roberts, a Mormon historian, conceded that “the procedure of the city council … was irregular; and the attempt at legal justification is not convincing ….” Roberts placed his defense of the action “on the grounds of expediency or necessity.” …
The religious turmoil was given a sensational focus in 1843-1844 by several new doctrines that the prophet was reportedly introducing, especially polygamy. Personal hostilities were magnified by the excommunication from the Church of several prominent religious and community leaders, including William Law, one of Joseph Smith’s counselors, Wilson Law, a general in the Nauvoo Legion, and Francis M. Higbee…
The first and only issue of the Nauvoo Expositor, the four-page issue of Friday, June 7, 1844, was more sensational than distinguished. While the paper contained a short story, some poetry, a few news items (mostly copied from eastern newspapers), and a scattering of ads, it was principally devoted to attacking Joseph and Hyrum Smith and their unnamed associates in the Church and in the city government. With “lame grammer and turgid rhetoric” that John Hay termed dull or laughable, the paper assailed the Mormon leaders on three fronts: religion, politics, and morality. A summary of the most prominent charges will be set forth here as a basis for the discussion to follow…
This lengthy document commences with an affirmation that the gospel as originally taught by Joseph Smith is true and that its pure principles would invigorate, enoble, and dignify man. However, it proclaims that Joseph Smith is a fallen prophet who had introduced many doctrines that were “heretical and damnable in their influence.” It was resolved that, inasmuch as Joseph and Hyrum Smith and other officials unnamed had “introduced false and damnable doctrines into the Church, such as a plurality of Gods above the God of this universe, and his liability to fall with all his creations ; the plurality of wives, for time and eternity; the doctrine of unconditional sealing up to eternal life, against all crimes except that of shedding innocent blood … they be denounced as apostates from the doctrine of Jesus. The allegation about plurality of wives was buttressed by the affidavits of William and Jane Law and Austin Cowles to the effect that in 1843 Hyrum Smith had read them a written document which he said was a revelation from God sanctioning this practice. The affiants’ descriptions of the revelation were very brief, but, insofar as they were specific about its contents, they gave generally accurate descriptions of portions of the revelation on plural marriage, later published in the Church’s Doctrine and Covenants…
At the political level, the principal complaint was the Mormon leaders’ attempts to unite church and state…
The third and most pervasive theme was the alleged immorality of Joseph and his associates, of whom Hyrum was the only one specifically named. Some of these charges related to financial affairs or vague implications of murderous conduct. Most concerned sexual behavior. … The reference in the “Preamble” to doctrines “taught secretly, and denied openly, (which we know positively is the case) ” was undoubtedly a reference to the doctrine of polygamy. This subject was referred to repeatedly in the paper, sometimes by implication and sometimes directly. … “We are earnestly seeking,” the “Preamble” declares, “to explode the vicious principles of Joseph Smith, and those who practice the same abominations and whoredoms …. It is absurd for men to assert that all is well, while wicked and corrupt men are seeking our destruction, by a perversion of sacred things; for all is not well, while whoredoms and all manner of abominations are practiced under the cloak of religion.”
The first issue of the Expositor produced a furious reaction from the citizens of Nauvoo, which, as one observer reported at the time, “raised the excitement to a degree beyond control, and threatened serious consequence.”…
Mayor Joseph Smith first expressed a concern, often repeated in the council deliberations, that what the opposition party was trying to do by the paper was to destroy the peace of Nauvoo, excite its enemies, and raise a mob to bring death and destruction upon the city… Hyrum Smith then announced himself in favor of declaring the Expositor a nuisance.^^ Councilor John Taylor said that no city on earth would bear such slander and that he was in favor of active measures. He read from the United States Constitution on freedom of the press and concluded : “We are willing they should publish the truth; but it is unlawful to publish libels. The Expositor is a nuisance, and stinks in the nose of every honest man.”
After the mayor read the provisions of the Illinois Constitution on the responsibility of the press for its constitutional liberties, Councilor Stiles read Blackstone’s definition of and comments on abatement of nuisances and declared himself in favor of suppressing any more slanderous publications. Hyrum Smith stated that the best way to suppress it was to smash the press and pi (scatter) the type…
Councilor Warrington, a non-Mormon, considered the proposed action rather harsh. He suggested assessing a heavy fine for libels and then proceeding to quiet the paper if it did not cease publishing libels. Hyrum Smith replied that, in view of the financial condition of the publishers, there would be little chance of collecting damages for libels… the council spent a great deal of time discussing means of stopping the Expositor and of exposing the character of its publishers, but very little time considering and refuting its contents. The synopsis does recite that the paper’s representations about the doctrine and practice of plural marriage were denied, and that the councilors made numerous general references to the paper’s libelous nature without, however, specifically identifying the offensive statements.
The legality of the council’s action in suppressing the Expositor depends upon the nature of the charges in the Expositor and the reaction which the city councilors could reasonably conclude that they were likely to produce in the community and the surrounding areas. While a weighing of conflicting evidence on the truth or falsity of these charges is beyond the scope of this article, some of the charges involve facts that are essentially undisputed or interesting questions of law on which some opinion can be rendered. In addition, it is possible to make some fairly reliable surmises about the probable community reaction in and out of Nauvoo.
The Expositor’s general complaints about the union of the authority of church and state in Nauvoo were essentially true…. (lengthy discussion on the writ of habeas corpus) There was nothing in the Expositor’s political copy that gave the authorities of Nauvoo any legal basis whatever for the suppression of the newspaper.
The same can be said of the Expositor’s charges that Joseph Smith was teaching false religious doctrines, notably polygamy… Consequently, the doctrinal controversy in the Expositor offered no conceivable basis for suppressionary action by city authorities.
Probably the most provocative portions of the Expositor were the claims that Hyrum Smith was a “base seducer, liar and perjurer” and the charges that Joseph Smith had spread “death, devastation and ruin,” that he had committed fraud in handling Church monies, and that he was guilty of practicing whoredoms and had engaged in numerous seductions of the type vividly described, which were said to have caused the untimely death of the women involved.
Volumes have been written about the truth or falsity of these and similar charges relating to the character of the Mormon leaders. For present purposes it is unnecessary — even if it were possible — to resolve the conflicts between their detractors and defenders. Whether the charges were true or false, they were malicious, scandalous, and defamatory. By the standards of that day the account of the young girl’s seduction may have been obscene. In view of the Mormons’ undoubted affection for their leaders, the virulent attacks upon them had a tendency to provoke retaliatory mob action against the newspaper by the citizens of Nauvoo, as the councilmen observed in their deliberations. Finally, the councilmen also feared that the first and subsequent issues of the Expositor would arouse mobs of anti-Mormons to come to Nauvoo to drive out its citizens. Subsequent events, notably the mob murder of Joseph Smith and the eventual expulsion of the Mormons from Nauvoo by armed mobs, suggest that these fears were not groundless. Each of these aspects of the Expositor’s charges was a legitimate concern of the city government, and a possible basis for its suppressionary action….
These cases make clear that there was no legal justification in 1844 for the destruction of the Expositor press as a nuisance. Its libelous, provocative, and perhaps obscene output may well have been a public and a private nuisance, but the evil article was not the press itself but the way in which it was being used. Consequently, those who caused or accomplished its destruction were liable for money damages in an action of trespass…. The most important legal aspect of the Expositor suppression — the one that served to enrage public opinion, disenchant sympathetic historians, and offend the sensibilities of modern students — is the charge that the action violated the freedom of the press.
The major modern bulwark of the free press, the first amendment to the United States Constitution, had no application to the suppression of the Nauvoo Expositor, By its terms the first amendment only restricts the action of the federal government, and it was not until long after the fourteenth amendment was adopted in 1868 that the free-press guarantees became applicable to the agencies of state authority.
A historian friendly to the people of Nauvoo has called the suppression of the Nauvoo Expositor “the grand Mormon mistake …” That its consequences were disastrous to the Mormon leaders and that alternative means might better have been employed cannot be doubted. Nevertheless, the common assumption of historians that the action taken by the city council to suppress the paper as a nuisance was entirely illegal is not well founded. Aside from damages for unnecessary destruction of the press, for which the Nauvoo authorities were unquestionably liable, the remaining actions of the council, including its interpretation of the constitutional guarantee of a free press, can be supported by reference to the law of their day.
Utah Law Review 9, 1965: The Suppression of the Nauvoo Expositor, Dallin H. Oaks
https://archive.org/details/UtahLawReview9/page/n29/mode/2up
The 1965 law review article by Dallin H. Oaks—later a high-ranking apostle and current leader of the LDS Church—presents a troubling apologetic for the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor, a newspaper that dared to speak the truth about Joseph Smith’s secret doctrines and abuses of power. Oaks attempts to argue that the Nauvoo City Council’s suppression of the newspaper, though perhaps excessive in its physical destruction of the printing press, was legally and even morally defensible under the laws and circumstances of 1844. This argument collapses under its own contradictions, historical revisionism, and a blatant disregard for the principles of freedom of the press, transparency, and accountability—principles the LDS Church continues to struggle with today.
Oaks acknowledges, in no uncertain terms, that the Expositor’s central allegations—especially those concerning the introduction of polygamy, theocratic overreach, and ecclesiastical abuse—were essentially true. He even admits that affidavits from William and Jane Law and others accurately described key elements of the secret revelation on plural marriage, which the Church would eventually canonize as Doctrine and Covenants 132. That alone eviscerates any claim of libel or defamation. Truth is a complete defense to defamation. To insist, as Oaks does, that truth can still be “scandalous,” “obscene,” or “malicious” enough to justify suppression is to assert that being offended by the truth is justification for state censorship—an authoritarian proposition wholly incompatible with a free society.
The article’s own framing admits that the Expositor’s criticisms of church-state entanglement were “essentially true” and that the city council’s reaction focused not on refuting the paper’s content but on neutralizing its impact. This is not the lawful redress of slander. It is the suppression of dissent. Oaks concedes that the city’s actions caused harm and were technically illegal in destroying the press, yet he labors to carve out a defense under the rubric of “public nuisance,” relying on selective historical interpretations and a disturbingly utilitarian calculus: that quashing public truth-telling was warranted if it might prevent mob violence. This logic makes the press responsible for the potential violence of its critics—a chilling inversion of justice that places the blame not on the mob, but on those who report uncomfortable facts. Though fitting since later, Oaks places the blame on men’s impure thoughts on women who might dress immodestly.
Even more disturbing is the Church’s continued citation of this article today as a credible defense of one of the most shameful episodes in Mormon history. When Church sources state, with evasive brevity, that “scholars have concluded” the council “acted legally to destroy copies of the newspaper,” they are leaning on Oaks’ strained reasoning while omitting the conclusion—acknowledged even in his article—that the destruction of the press itself was a violation of the law. By invoking his legal credentials while glossing over the actual offense, the Church continues to defend suppression of truth when it serves institutional interests.
Worse still, this article was published during the 1960s—a time when the Church was under pressure for its civil rights record and deeply concerned with controlling its image amid scrutiny. That context makes Oaks’ lawyer-esque apologetics even more disturbing: it reflects a pattern of institutional self-justification, where the maintenance of authority is prioritized over reckoning with truth, past or present. This same impulse persists today in the Church’s approach to transparency, its resistance to historical accountability, and its treatment of internal critics and whistleblowers. Oaks still thinks his calling as an Apostle is foremost about protecting the authority of the church.
Freedom of the press is not a privilege granted by those in power when it is convenient. It is a right designed precisely to challenge power when it becomes corrupt, coercive, or secretive. The Nauvoo Expositor did exactly that. Its pages contained uncomfortable truths—truths that were confirmed by history and even admitted in the very apologetic designed to discredit them. To destroy the press for printing them was not merely “a mistake”; it was an act of religious authoritarianism incompatible with both American values and any meaningful claim to moral integrity. To continue defending that act, as Oaks did then and as the Church does now, is to perpetuate that same authoritarian impulse under the guise of legal rationalization.
This episode—where truth was punished and suppression was justified in the name of order—highlights a persistent thread in Mormon history: when the institution is threatened by truth, it often chooses control over transparency. Whether it’s the destruction of a printing press in 1844, apologetics in a 1965 law review, or vague citations used by church sources today, the pattern remains the same—minimize, justify, and preserve the authority of the institution at all costs.
If you’ve wrestled with this kind of cognitive dissonance—feeling the weight of historical truths buried beneath layers of rationalization—or if you’ve experienced the pain of seeing honest questions dismissed as rebellion, you’re not alone. Many have walked this road, both in and out of the Church, struggling to reconcile their values with a system that often resists scrutiny.
At wasmormon.org, we believe that your story matters. Whether you’re questioning, transitioning, or have already stepped away, sharing your experience can be a powerful act of integrity and solidarity. We invite you to join others who are telling the truth of their journey—truth that no council can suppress and no press should fear to print.
More reading:
- Leadership Suppress Dissenfecting Light – The Nauvoo Expositor
- The Nauvoo Expositor And More Lies From Joseph Smith
- Truth and History are Anti-Mormon
- Some things that are true are not very useful to the Mormon church
- LDS Leadership on Appearances: “Put on a little lipstick,” “Even a barn looks better painted”
- Utah Law Review 9, 1965: The Suppression of the Nauvoo Expositor, Dallin H. Oaks
- LDS Website: Church History Topics: Nauvoo Expositor