Was the Nauvoo Expositor telling the truth?

Their affidavits say they read the document, and the surviving revelation authorizes plural marriage. I would compare their specific claims with the text.

You grant the strongest evidence. William describes Hyrum’s reading and then his own. Jane describes her own reading. Their testimony and the surviving text each contribute to the comparison.

Since they opposed Joseph, I would set aside what they said.

Their conflict with Joseph is relevant background. Compare their specific testimony against the surviving text before deciding what weight it deserves.

It promises eventual exaltation under stated conditions and excepts shedding innocent blood. It also says there are serious consequences before redemption.

This preserves the real promise and the consequences in verse 26. The paper’s label “unconditional” leaves out material qualifications.

It’s just about a couple staying married, so the allegation has no basis.

Verse 26 specifically addresses transgressions after sealing. Read the promise and the penalties together before answering.

Clayton’s April notes record a head God and other Gods in a council. That supports the basic charge. I would check the stronger claim that God could fall separately.

You use a source that predates the paper. Joseph’s June 16 sermon provides a later response and is best read in that sequence.

We only have Joseph’s June 16 response, so the June 7 paper had no basis for the claim.

The April 7 sermon notes predate publication. They record Joseph speaking about a council of gods.

I would judge the accuracy of each charge and the city’s decision separately. I believe Joseph was called by God, and I regard the order to destroy the press as wrong.

You answer the historical and moral questions directly. An inaccurate charge calls for a response to that charge. Destroying the press is a separate exercise of power.

The council called the press a nuisance, so that settles whether its destruction was justified.

The resolution records what the council decided. Assessing the decision takes a separate argument about its authority and consequences.