MMM and the Nauvoo Expositor

[AddamS]

Against those in your analogy.

The WBs?

[volgadon]

Yep.

[Scott Lloyd]

So in your analogy, if I offered to pay for the mailboxes and windows all would be forgiven?

Maybe. It wouldn't make me inclined to say I was wrong in stopping your offenses at the time you were committing them.

And when did the publishers of the Expositor apologize for their inflammatory libel? I must have missed that chapter in Church history.

[AddamS]

Maybe. It wouldn't make me inclined to say I was wrong in stopping your offenses at the time you were committing them.

And when did the publishers of the Expositor apologize for their inflammatory libel? I must have missed that chapter in Church history.

I'm speaking more about the idea that paying for property after intentionally destroying it excuses any wrongdoing.

If JS didn't think he was (at least partly) in the wrong, why would he offer to pay for the press?

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm speaking more about the idea that paying for property after intentionally destroying it excuses any wrongdoing.

If JS didn't think he was (at least partly) in the wrong, why would he offer to pay for the press?

Why does a decent-minded offer to recompense others for the loss of property amount to an admission of wrongdoing in halting them in the perpetration of nefarious acts? I think you are presenting a false dichotomy here.

To put it in terms of the analogy at hand, why do you think my offer to replace your tires amounts to an admission that I was wrong to stop you from destroying mailboxes and breaking windows? That makes no sense.

[Obiwan]

MMM - They were hugely mistaken, but they had their reasons.

The Fancher/Baker party I don't think was at all "white" as the pure driven snow.

I think they were big anti-mormon bigots, and that gave the mormons plenty of evidence to justify the other facts and or their suspicions of the party. No doubt what the mormons did was very wrong, AND unacceptable, but things don't just happen in a box.

Expositor - No city government is under ANY obligation constitutional or not to allow a group that is inciting "violence" and disturbing the peace to continue operating. In fact, ALL governments have every right to limit AND deny the operation of such. Just because it gave the anti-mormons more fodder doesn't mean anything, other than to further "prove" that anti-mormonism HAD gone way overboard, and needed to be limited.

[AddamS]

MMM - They were hugely mistaken, but they had their reasons.

The Fancher/Baker party I don't think was at all "white" as the pure driven snow.

I think they were big anti-mormon bigots, and that gave the mormons plenty of evidence to justify the other facts and or their suspicions of the party. No doubt what the mormons did was very wrong, AND unacceptable, but things don't just happen in a box.

Expositor - No city government is under ANY obligation constitutional or not to allow a group that is inciting "violence" and disturbing the peace to continue operating. In fact, ALL governments have every right to limit AND deny the operation of such. Just because it gave the anti-mormons more fodder doesn't mean anything, other than to further "prove" that anti-mormonism HAD gone way overboard, and needed to be limited.

Easy cowboy, I never said JS and his crew were wrong for stopping the paper from continuing. They may have been in the wrong for destroying the property, but that's never going to be agreed on by all parties here no matter what studies of historical law may or may not show.

What I am taking issue with is the idea espoused by some people here that since JS offered to pay for the property he had destroyed, he couldn't have been wrong.

[Darth J]

Expositor - No city government is under ANY obligation constitutional or not to allow a group that is inciting "violence" and disturbing the peace to continue operating. In fact, ALL governments have every right to limit AND deny the operation of such. Just because it gave the anti-mormons more fodder doesn't mean anything, other than to further "prove" that anti-mormonism HAD gone way overboard, and needed to be limited.

Oh. Well, then by this exact same reasoning, this was also justified:

Headquarters of the Militia,

City of Jefferson, Oct. 27, 1838.

General John B. Clark:

Sir Since the order of this morning to you, directing you to cause four hundred mounted men to be raised within your division, I have received by Amos Reese, Esq., of Ray county, and Wiley C. Williams, Esq., one of my aids, information of the most appalling character, which entirely changes the face of things, and places the Mormons in the attitude of an open and avowed defiance of the laws, and of having made war upon the people of this state. Your orders are, therefore, to hasten your operation with all possible speed. The Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the state if necessary for the public peace--their outrages are beyond all description. If you can increase your force, you are authorized to do so to any extent you may consider necessary. I have just issued orders to Maj. Gen. Willock, of Marion county, to raise five hundred men, and to march them to the northern part of Daviess, and there unite with Gen. Doniphan, of Clay, who has been ordered with five hundred men to proceed to the same point for the purpose of intercepting the retreat of the Mormons to the north. They have been directed to communicate with you by express, you can also communicate with them if you find it necessary. Instead therefore of proceeding as at first directed to reinstate the citizens of Daviess in their homes, you will proceed immediately to Richmond and then operate against the Mormons. Brig. Gen. Parks of Ray, has been ordered to have four hundred of his brigade in readiness to join you at Richmond. The whole force will be placed under your command.

I am very respectfully,

your ob't serv't,

L. W. Boggs,

Commander-in-Chief

[Scott Lloyd]

Easy cowboy, I never said JS and his crew were wrong for stopping the paper from continuing. They may have been in the wrong for destroying the property, but that's never going to be agreed on by all parties here no matter what studies of historical law may or may not show.

What I am taking issue with is the idea espoused by some people here that since JS offered to pay for the property he had destroyed, he couldn't have been wrong.

Again with the false dichotomy. His offer to pay for the property could have amounted to a magnanimous gesture or a willingness to answer the requirements of the law, neither of which amounts to an admission of wrongdoing.

[AddamS]

Why does a decent-minded offer to recompense others for the loss of property amount to an admission of wrongdoing in halting them in the perpetration of nefarious acts?

Which nefarious acts? Slander or destruction of private property?

To put it in terms of the analogy at hand, why do you think my offer to replace your tires amounts to an admission that I was wrong to stop you from destroying mailboxes and breaking windows? That makes no sense.

If it isn't an admission of wrongdoing in principle, it is certainly at least an admission of heavy-handedness.

[AddamS]

Again with the false dichotomy. His offer to pay for the property could have amounted to a magnanimous gesture or a willingness to answer the requirements of the law, neither of which amounts to an admission of wrongdoing.

A willingness to answer the requirement of the law in this situation doesn't amount to an admission of wrongdoing?

[Scott Lloyd]

Which nefarious acts? Slander or destruction of private property?

I was referring to the inflammatory libel perpetrated by the Expositor publishers. I would have thought that was clear.

If it isn't an admission of wrongdoing in principle, it is certainly at least an admission of heavy-handedness.

That may be your reading of it, but it is not self-evident.

[AddamS]

I don't know what the argument about this is.

JS and the city council wanted to stop the paper that was printing defaming information (some true, some not) about their practices.

They understandably and justly decided they were in accordance with the law to supress the paper from printing based on other events that had recently taken place.

The people that went down to supress ended up destroying private property.

JS knew this was going to lead to bad PR so he made a public offering to pay for the damaged items thinking it would soften the PR blow the church would receive, and it may have to some degree.

[Scott Lloyd]

A willingness to answer the requirement of the law in this situation doesn't amount to an admission of wrongdoing?

Haven't you ever disagreed with a law but obeyed it anyway, just because it is the law? If not, can you not conceive of doing so?

[Scott Lloyd]

JS knew this was going to lead to bad PR so he made a public offering to pay for the damaged items thinking it would soften the PR blow the church would receive, and it may have to some degree.

What happened to your argument that his payment for the damages amounts to an admission of wrongdoing? Now you're saying he did it because it was good PR.

[AddamS]

I was referring to the inflammatory libel perpetrated by the Expositor publishers. I would have thought that was clear.

So only the libelous parts, then. The stuff about polygamist practices that were actually happening wasn't nefarious?

That may be your reading of it, but it is not self-evident.

OK. Nobody can be 100% certain of what JS was thinking when he offered to pay for what he and his followers destroyed. But being a a smart man who was no stranger to dealing with controversy and public relations, he must have known that paying for the damages would look like an admission of some guilt.

[AddamS]

What happened to your argument that his payment for the damages amounts to an admission of wrongdoing? Now you're saying he did it because it was good PR.

The appearance of admitting wrongdoing is good PR.

[Obiwan]

Oh. Well, then by this exact same reasoning, this was also justified:

Headquarters of the Militia,

City of Jefferson, Oct. 27, 1838.

General John B. Clark:

Sir Since the order of this morning to you, directing you to cause four hundred mounted men to be raised within your division, I have received by Amos Reese, Esq., of Ray county, and Wiley C. Williams, Esq., one of my aids, information of the most appalling character, which entirely changes the face of things, and places the Mormons in the attitude of an open and avowed defiance of the laws, and of having made war upon the people of this state. Your orders are, therefore, to hasten your operation with all possible speed. The Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the state if necessary for the public peace--their outrages are beyond all description. If you can increase your force, you are authorized to do so to any extent you may consider necessary. I have just issued orders to Maj. Gen. Willock, of Marion county, to raise five hundred men, and to march them to the northern part of Daviess, and there unite with Gen. Doniphan, of Clay, who has been ordered with five hundred men to proceed to the same point for the purpose of intercepting the retreat of the Mormons to the north. They have been directed to communicate with you by express, you can also communicate with them if you find it necessary. Instead therefore of proceeding as at first directed to reinstate the citizens of Daviess in their homes, you will proceed immediately to Richmond and then operate against the Mormons. Brig. Gen. Parks of Ray, has been ordered to have four hundred of his brigade in readiness to join you at Richmond. The whole force will be placed under your command.

I am very respectfully,

your ob't serv't,

L. W. Boggs,

Commander-in-Chief

False example.... The "mormons" WERE NOT being "rebellious" were not doing anything "immoral" etc. Anti-mormon bearing false witness is not the "truth". His order was based on a LIE and completely and fully BIGOTRY ALONE, thus, he WAS NOT "justified" in any sort of way.

In contrast the Expositor was actually the "cause" of many of the problems the mormons were having. Thus, the city government had every "reasonable" right to stop the business. Your example only works if the mormons "actually were" in "open rebellion" against the state. And such is completely false. Thus, you indicate a false equivalency.

[Scott Lloyd]

So only the libelous parts, then. The stuff about polygamist practices that were actually happening wasn't nefarious?

When placed in a context of falsehood, even half-truths convey lies.

OK. Nobody can be 100% certain of what JS was thinking when he offered to pay for what he and his followers destroyed. But being a a smart man who was no stranger to dealing with controversy and public relations, he must have known that paying for the damages would look like an admission of some guilt.

I'm really not interested in armchair psychoanalysis of Joseph Smith, some 160 years removed from the facts.

[Scott Lloyd]

The appearance of admitting wrongdoing is good PR.

I'm afraid you're arguing in circles, and I don't have time for it. I'm hopping off the carousel.

[AddamS]

I'm really not interested in armchair psychoanalysis of Joseph Smith, some 160 years removed from the facts.

Then why have you replied about anything posted here?

[Darth J]

Haven't you ever disagreed with a law but obeyed it anyway, just because it is the law? If not, can you not conceive of doing so?

Wait a minute. Joseph Smith offered to pay for the damages because he wants to respect the rule of law even if the law is wrong? I thought Joseph Smith and early church members believed in civil disobedience.

Polygamy was certainly declared illegal during the Utah-era anti-polygamy crusade, and was arguably illegal under the Illinois anti-bigamy statutes. This is hardly new information, and Church members and their critics knew it. Modern members of the Church generally miss the significance of this fact, however: the practice of polygamy was a clear case of civil disobedience.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy

http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Polygamy_Prophets_and_Prevarication.html#head03

Should I understand your argument to be that civil disobedience is acceptable with respect to plural marriage, but that civil disobedience is not the order of the day with respect to paying for a damaged printing press?

[Scott Lloyd]

Wait a minute. Joseph Smith offered to pay for the damages because he wants to respect the rule of law even if the law is wrong? I thought Joseph Smith and early church members believed in civil disobedience.

Polygamy was certainly declared illegal during the Utah-era anti-polygamy crusade, and was arguably illegal under the Illinois anti-bigamy statutes. This is hardly new information, and Church members and their critics knew it. Modern members of the Church generally miss the significance of this fact, however: the practice of polygamy was a clear case of civil disobedience.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy

http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Polygamy_Prophets_and_Prevarication.html#head03

Should I understand your argument to be that civil disobedience is acceptable with respect to plural marriage, but that civil disobedience is not the order of the day with respect to paying for a damaged printing press?

Why does civil disobedience have to be applied in each and every instance? Some battles are worth fighting; others are not.

[Scott Lloyd]

Then why have you replied about anything posted here?

I didn't think amateur psychoanalysis of Joseph Smith was the intent of the thread.

[Darth J]

False example.... The "mormons" WERE NOT being "rebellious" were not doing anything "immoral" etc. Anti-mormon bearing false witness is not the "truth". His order was based on a LIE and completely and fully BIGOTRY ALONE, thus, he WAS NOT "justified" in any sort of way.

In contrast the Expositor was actually the "cause" of many of the problems the mormons were having. Thus, the city government had every "reasonable" right to stop the business. Your example only works if the mormons "actually were" in "open rebellion" against the state. And such is completely false. Thus, you indicate a false equivalency.

Oh, so you mean that there should be some sort of process to determine whether a group "actually is in open rebellion against the state?"

I see. Lillburn Bogg's allegations against the Mormons were false, so the extermination order was not justified.

The allegations against the publishers of the Expositor were true, so destroying their facilities was justified.

Three questions, Obiwan:

1. What was the process that was used to determine whether the allegations against the publishers of the Expositor were true?

2. What specific, factual allegations in the Nauvoo Expositor were false? http://en.fairmormon...sitor_Full_Text

3. Regarding your statement that, " the Expositor was actually the 'cause' of many of the problems the Mormons were having," was the paper itself the cause of the problems, or was public knowledge that Joseph Smith was practicing plural marriage and had been crowned king of Israel on Earth the cause of the problems? In other words, would these facts becoming knowledge from a source other than the Expositor have caused problems for the Mormons?