Some call new LDS Prophet Dallin Oaks a prophet, seer, and litigator. We’ll see what Nathan Oman thinks of Dallin Oaks. Nathan is a legal historian at William and Mary University. He discusses how law has affected Latter-day Saints over the past 2 centuries. We’ll discuss Dallin Oaks perspectives on Joseph Smith’s martyrdom and polygamy up to modern polygamy cases, politics, and LGBT issues. Oman is the author of 2 volumes of Law and the Restoration Volume 1 and Volume 2, from Greg Kofford Books.

Did Joseph Smith Really Violate the First Amendment? A Fresh Look at the Nauvoo Expositor

Few events in Latter-day Saint history generate more debate than the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor. For many people, the issue seems straightforward: Joseph Smith ordered a newspaper destroyed, so he must have violated freedom of the press.

But what if that assumption reflects modern constitutional law rather than the legal world of 1844?

In my latest interview with legal historian Nathan Oman, we explore why one of President Dallin H. Oaks’s earliest scholarly works continues to shape discussions of Mormon legal history more than fifty years later.

As a young legal scholar, Oaks argued that many modern critics unintentionally commit an anachronism when they evaluate Joseph Smith’s actions. The First Amendment, as we understand it today, had not yet been applied to state and local governments. That means the constitutional framework Americans take for granted simply wasn’t the legal landscape in Illinois during the 1840s.

Whether you ultimately agree with Oaks’s conclusions or not, his work forces us to ask an important historical question:

Should historical figures be judged by today’s constitutional standards—or by the laws that existed in their own time?

Our conversation doesn’t stop there.

Nathan Oman traces what he calls three generations of Latter-day Saint legal scholarship. Early historians primarily used court records and legal documents to reconstruct historical events. Later scholars often wrote in response to critics, producing works with an apologetic focus. More recently, legal historians have begun asking a different question altogether: What can the Latter-day Saint experience teach us about American law itself?

That shift has influenced an entire generation of scholarship.

Naturally, the discussion turns to President Dallin H. Oaks. Long before becoming a member of the First Presidency, Oaks helped reshape how historians approached the legal aftermath of Joseph Smith’s death, particularly through his groundbreaking work on the Carthage conspiracy. Today, his legal background continues to influence the Church’s emphasis on defending religious liberty around the world.

We also asked Nathan Oman a fun—but surprisingly difficult—question:

Who are the three most influential lawyers in Latter-day Saint history?

Most readers can probably guess one or two names. But one of Oman’s choices is a largely forgotten figure whose courtroom battles during the federal anti-polygamy campaigns helped shape the Church’s legal future.

His answer may surprise you.

Join the Conversation

I’d love to hear your thoughts.

• Was the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor primarily a constitutional issue, a question of municipal authority, or both?
• Is it fair to evaluate nineteenth-century events using modern constitutional doctrine?
• Who would make your list of the three most influential lawyers in Latter-day Saint history?

Share your thoughts in the comments.

Did Early Latter-day Saints Hope to Build Their Own Nation?

Modern readers often assume that bishops have always served strictly religious roles. But in nineteenth-century Nauvoo, the line between church and civil government looked very different.

In Part 2 of my conversation with legal scholar Nathan Oman, we explore a forgotten chapter of Latter-day Saint legal history that raises fascinating questions about law, religion, and the American frontier.

One of the biggest surprises? Early Mormon bishops didn’t simply settle ecclesiastical disagreements. They frequently acted as civil judges, hearing disputes over contracts, debts, and other financial matters. Rather than relying exclusively on secular courts, many Church members voluntarily brought their disagreements before bishops in hopes of reaching outcomes that reflected both legal principles and Christian ideals.

Those courts reveal a distinctive vision of justice. Members who could afford to honor their financial obligations were generally expected to do so. At the same time, bishops often sought creative ways to help struggling families resolve debts without leaving them destitute. The goal wasn’t merely enforcing contracts—it was preserving the community while pursuing fairness.

Our discussion also revisits the aftermath of the Kirtland Safety Society’s collapse. How did Joseph Smith and Brigham Young respond to creditors after the financial crisis? What obligations did they believe they still owed, even after bankruptcy?

From there, the conversation turns to one of the most intriguing organizations in Latter-day Saint history: the Council of Fifty.

Popular imagination often portrays the Council as a secret government plotting to overthrow the United States. The historical record is more complicated. Nathan Oman explains that the Council wrestled with a practical question many persecuted religious minorities have faced throughout history: Could the Saints establish a place where they could govern themselves without continual conflict?

That discussion even included drafting a proposed constitution for what members envisioned as the Kingdom of God. Prepared by leaders including John Taylor, Parley P. Pratt, and Willard Richards, the document was ultimately set aside because it lacked the practical legal detail needed to function as an actual constitution.

As persecution intensified in Illinois, some leaders also explored whether the Saints might relocate beyond the boundaries of the United States—an idea influenced by recent events like Texas’s successful independence. These conversations reveal how uncertain the future appeared in the final months before Joseph Smith’s death.

The episode concludes by examining the political climate of 1844 and the publication of the Nauvoo Expositor. Why did opponents portray Joseph Smith as a dangerous political figure rather than simply a controversial religious leader? Nathan Oman explains how long-standing Protestant fears about prophetic authority, communal religion, and plural marriage combined to shape public perceptions of Joseph Smith in ways that ultimately heightened tensions throughout Illinois.

Join the Conversation

What surprised you most about early Latter-day Saint legal history?

• Should bishops have served as civil judges, or was that arrangement destined to create conflicts?
• Was the Council of Fifty primarily preparing for self-government, or did it represent something more ambitious?
• How much did misunderstandings about Mormon political ambitions contribute to the events leading to Joseph Smith’s death?

I’d love to hear your perspective in the comments.