MMM and the Nauvoo Expositor

[Scott Lloyd]

I never claimed due election to officership in a state-chartered town militia or election to city office justifies ill will on the part of outsiders.

So your use and emphasis of the titles "General" and "Mayor" were to show due deference to his secular authority then? Color me unconvinced.

I never implied religious folk shouldn't hold public office.

Your posts today -- the rhetoric about the Prop 8 activism in California and Joseph Smith running for president, the out-of-context reference to the action of the Council of Fifty -- have been dripping with that underlying presumption.

What I claimed is that Joseph Smith made a long series of awful political decisions. For example, it was an awful decision on his part to purchase legal advice from Cyrus Walker in exchange for votes. Or do you think that was a great decision on his part that fostered sympathy for himself and for the Saints?

As another example, it was an awful decision on his part to allow Hyrum Smith to say he had a

[Analytics]

What it means is, you don't know the players and you don't know the plays.

Whyever would you offer to comment on Salt Lake City/County politics, offered as an example of block voting that's apparently permissible specifically because it's antiMormon, if you don't know the players and you don't know the plays?

I didn

[Scott Lloyd]

... the UU

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

But rather influential in city politics.

Anderson was first elected mayor in 1999. His re-election was in 2003.

Consider that RA is not pro LDS and seems to hold a differnet view with most things LDS, I was amazed that he got re-elected. I would say that what you have said would indeed seem to be the case. That is that the UU was influential in the election of RA.

[Nemesis]

Knock off the politics.

Nemesis

[Analytics]

So your use and emphasis of the titles "General" and "Mayor" were to show due deference to his secular authority then? Color me unconvinced.

No, I was emphasizing that in addition to being a religious leader, he was also a powerful political and military figure. It's important to recognize all of the hats he wore when evaluating why he was hated.

Your posts today -- the rhetoric about the Prop 8 activism in California and Joseph Smith running for president, the out-of-context reference to the action of the Council of Fifty -- have been dripping with that underlying presumption.

Not at all. Crocket was arguing that it was his religion more than his politics that got him into trouble. I

[Black Moclips]

It

[paulpatter]

I think I already have.

But, here's an analogy. The City Council determines, and this is a real case from before modern Fire Departments, that your house and the houses of your neighbors would be a fire hazard for the rest of the City. They vote to burn down your houses and they do. Under the U.S. constitution, the government owes you compensation for that decision. But, they can't go to jail for it.

It probably depends on the jurisdiction, but it's my understanding that a court-conducted condemnation proceeding would be required. Melvin Belli in Everybody's Guide to the Law writes: "If you don't think the government is offering you enough [for the condemned property], you can challenge the amount in court" (p. 230). Under the scenario you describe, the home owner would be denied due process (just as were the publishers of the Expositor).

. . . .

: These rules apply today. (I note that there have been criminal penalties added since 1963 for violations of civil rights which could lead to criminal penalties, but nothing like that existed in Joseph Smith's day.) That means that if the City Council takes a vote, and determines that they don't like the fact that you run an auto repair shop in a ritzy area of town, they can vote to burn down your business. Today. And, it isn't a crime.

Burning down the business would be a convenient way to avoid paying the auto repair shop owner fair market value for his business, and would be illegal without a formal court hearing. In short, it isn't as cut-and-dried as you make it out to be.

: The vote the City Council took and the actions of scattering the type and destroying the press, was it "lawful"? Well, it violated the First Amendment (but, at that time, the First Amendment did not apply to the states.) It destroyed private property, so the City Council was required to pay for it. And when they didn't, that was unlawful. But, there were no crimes there.

I have already covered this extensively by citing Dallin H. Oaks' article in the Utah Law Review. The Nauvoo City Council acted illegally when they destroyed the printing press on the ground that it was a nuisance. Oaks points out that the press proper wasn't a nuisance but that its output was. Under nuisance abatement law in effect at that time, destroying the press was illegal and without justification. This situation reminds me of headlines that read "SUV Kills Three on Fairmont Road" or "Shotgun Takes Life of Sacramento Man" (I think you will see the fallacy).

[USU78]

I didn

[Analytics]

Hi Pahoran,

I just wanted to let you know I read your post. I

[Analytics]

???? You answered a yes/no question as though you knew the answer. If you didn't know the answer, you should have answered the yes/no question, "I don't know." That, you see, is what we call being both candid and accurate.

Give me a break.

No, that wasn't the point. The point was, the UU delivered a block vote for RA not once but twice. Favorite son Frank Pignanelli (the "Pig" I referred to), former studentbody president at East HS and the UofU and at the UofU's law school, as well as minority whip in the Utah House for several terms representing the highly liberal avenues area of SLC, was snubbed by the UU in one of those elections.

They voted as a block for the antiMormon candidate, you see.

In Nauvoo, the Mormons voted as a block in state-wide and county-wide elections. Sometimes they voted for the Dems, sometimes for the Whigs. Since the tenor of your complaints about Mormon and specifically JSJr include and sometimes focus on their political activity in Illinois up to 1844, and since the contemporaneous complaints, which you seem to echo, is that block-voting is evil and Unamerican and, therefore, there was an organic and not morally significant reason for the antiMormon outrages in Nauvoo.

My position has always been that anybody can vote for anybody the want to, and if Hyrum Smith has a revelation from God that the Saints ought to double-cross the guy who already purchased their vote from Joseph Smith, he has every moral and legal right to instruct the Saints to vote that way, and the Saints have the right to obey their leader and vote as instructed to.

But that doesn't mean that they will make a lot of friends with that course of action.

Scott and I have spoken about block voting right here in li'l ol' SLC, and not all that long ago, pointing out the high irony. Perhaps you missed it?

The only irony I see is how upset you guys both are for the UU's political activism, which totally illustrates my point about how mixing politics and religion isn't a great way to make friends.

The only reason I have for resenting the UUs in SLC is their abandonment of a favorite son who happens to be a personal friend in favor of a former East Ogden Princeling who abandoned the religion of his youth and fomented antiMormon feeling for political advantage.

May he rot in 7734!

Your seething hatred doesn't make me think you have a very dispassionate grasp of this.

I'll just note that none other than Mitt Romney endorsed him in his reelection campaign and speculate that just maybe the UU

[Nemesis]

It

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott and I have spoken about block voting right here in li'l ol' SLC, and not all that long ago, pointing out the high irony. Perhaps you missed it?

And if I recall correctly, Analytics is an adherent to Unitarianism -- making it all the more ironic.

Added: In response to the thread just begun by Analytics over at the Compound -- to which I was just alerted -- I don't feel disgust toward the Unitarians -- or any other religious group -- for participating in the political process. I just find it, well, remarkable that Analytics appears to feel that way toward such participation by Mormons, past or present. On principle, I don't post there. But in the interest of accuracy, perhaps Analytics would like to post a clarification.

[Scott Lloyd]

Your seething hatred doesn't make me think you have a very dispassionate grasp of this.

"Seething hatred"?

Were you and Scratch separated at birth?

[Calm]

I think I already have.

But, here's an analogy. .....It destroyed private property, so the City Council was required to pay for it. And when they didn't, that was unlawful. But, there were no crimes there.

Nonetheless, Joseph Smith was arrested for an act which was not criminal. When efforts were made to bail him out, he was charged with treason, an unbailable offense..

Thank you for taking the time to explain, I think I actually get it now and why there are so many positions being promoted as the 'legal' one.

add-on: okay, now after reading pp's post I am now confused a bit again, perhaps though if the thread lasts long enough between the two of you I'll eventually get it.

[Scott Lloyd]

The only irony I see is how upset you guys both are for the UU's political activism, which totally illustrates my point about how mixing politics and religion isn't a great way to make friends.

Again, I'm not upset at the Unitarians. I was only wondering if you were willing to train your guns on them for doing essentially what you condemn Joseph Smith and Mormons past and present for doing: participating in the political process. (And Nemesis, that was my only reason for bringing up Salt Lake City politics.)

[USU78]

"Seething hatred"?

Were you and Scratch separated at birth?

This is just rich. "Seething hatred!" There's only one of those I hold . . . and it involves yBu. The folks on 6th South and 13th East I don't really care about one way or the other.

USU "The offspring of a Unitarian and a Jehovah's Witness went door to door religiously every Saturday afternoon . . . for no apparent reason" 78

[Analytics]

And if I recall correctly, Analytics is an adherent to Unitarianism -- making it all the more ironic.

Added: In response to the thread just begun by Analytics over at the Compound -- to which I was just alerted (thanks, ttribe), I don't feel disgust toward the Unitarians -- or any other religious group -- for participating in the political process. I just find it, well, remarkable that Analytics appears to feel that way toward such participation by Mormons, past or present. On principle, I don't post there. But in the interest of accuracy, perhaps Analytics would like to post a clarification.

The reason I brought the conversation over there was out of respect for the moderator's no-politics rules here. If you'd like to clarify your position there, that is your choice.

Again, I'm not upset at the Unitarians. I was only wondering if you were willing to train your guns on them for doing essentially what you condemn Joseph Smith and Mormons past and present for doing: participating in the political process. (And Nemesis, that was my only reason for bringing up Salt Lake City politics.)

I'll tell you what. If the UU's do the things I criticize Joseph Smith of doing (e.g. selling votes in exchange for legal advice and then announcing a revelation that God wants you to double-cross him and have the adherents vote for his opponent), I

[Analytics]

"Seething hatred"?

Were you and Scratch separated at birth?

What would you call the attitude displayed when somebody wishes that somebody rots in hell? Christian love?

[ttribe]

All I

[USU78]

What would you call the attitude displayed when somebody wishes that somebody rots in hell? Christian love?

I'm always entertained by the critic who doesn't share the belief of the object of his critique, yet finds it necessary to lecture those objects on the proper mien and method that ought to be followed in responding to the critique.

Comic irony arises out of the critic's unawareness of the ridiculousness of his schoolmarmics.

[Scott Lloyd]

The reason I brought the conversation over there was out of respect for the moderator's no-politics rules here. If you'd like to clarify your position there, that is your choice.

I'll tell you what. If the UU's do the things I criticize Joseph Smith of doing (e.g. selling votes in exchange for legal advice and then announcing a revelation that God wants you to double-cross him and have the adherents vote for his opponent), I

[Skylla]

Analytics:

You are done in this thread.

Skylla

[ttribe]

Analytics:

You are done in this thread.

Skylla

For the derail?

[Nemesis]

This thread has been moved so far off from the op that it might be time to shut it down instead. I suggest a fresh start and try to keep it from modern politics.

Nemesis