MMM and the Nauvoo Expositor

[Darth J]

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

That doesn't answer the question.

And the Church---at least the main branch of the Church---decided this battle wasn't worth fighting, anyway. http://scriptures.lds.org/od/1

So, again, why civil disobedience for polygamy but not for the relatively trivial issue of paying for the damages in destroying the Expositor?

[AddamS]

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

I'm with Scott on this one. I'm sure these decisions were made on a cost/benefit analysis on a case by case basis.

Murder was illegal too, but the "saints" didn't ravage the countryside in a murderous rampage.

If one thing about humans is true, it's that we lack consistency.

[Scott Lloyd]

That doesn't answer the question.

It answers the question quite well. You just don't like the answer.

And the Church---at least the main branch of the Church---decided this battle wasn't worth fighting, anyway. http://scriptures.lds.org/od/1

That's a deceptively simplistic summation of a rather complicated and involved chain of events extending over a half-century.

So, again, why civil disobedience for polygamy but not for the relatively trivial issue of paying for the damages in destroying the Expositor?

Apparently, Expositor gets it. I don't see why you're having trouble with it.

[AddamS]

Apparently, Expositor gets it. I don't see why you're having trouble with it.

Yeah, and I'm a moron!

[Scott Lloyd]

Yeah, and I'm a moron!

Name calling is disallowed! Board rules.

[Darth J]

I'm with Scott on this one. I'm sure these decisions were made on a cost/benefit analysis on a case by case basis.

Murder was illegal too, but the "saints" didn't ravage the countryside in a murderous rampage.

If one thing about humans is true, it's that we lack consistency.

So in a cost/benefit analysis:

1. In offering to pay for the damages in destroying the Expositor, the benefits of complying with the law outweighed the costs; but

2. In the practice of plural marriage, which Joseph Smith had to hide from the general public, many members of the Church, and his own (original) wife, and the public exposure of which was the real damage done by the Expositor, ultimately leading to Joseph and Hyrum Smith's death, the main body of the Church having to migrate to Utah, confrontation the U.S. Army, and the Church being dissolved by act of Congress, the benefits of defying the law outweighed the costs? When God eventually told Wilford Woodruff that the benefits of defying the law did not outweigh the costs?

Is that what you are saying?

[Scott Lloyd]

So in a cost/benefit analysis:

1. In offering to pay for the damages in destroying the Expositor, the benefits of complying with the law outweighed the costs; but

2. In the practice of plural marriage, which Joseph Smith had to hide from the general public, many members of the Church, and his own (original) wife, and the public exposure of which was the real damage done by the Expositor, ultimately leading to Joseph and Hyrum Smith's death, the main body of the Church having to migrate to Utah, confrontation the U.S. Army, and the Church being dissolved by act of Congress, the benefits of defying the law outweighed the costs? When God eventually told Wilford Woodruff that the benefits of defying the law did not outweigh the costs?

Is that what you are saying?

You've already linked to Greg Smith's excellent article about this, exploring the reasons why the Mormons were unwilling to abandon their ideals, even in the face of government heavy-handedness. That you are unable/unwilling to grasp his reasoning cannot be helped.

[Darth J]

It answers the question quite well. You just don't like the answer.

Okay. The behavior of the Church is arbitrary. I get it.

That's a deceptively simplistic summation of a rather complicated and involved chain of events extending over a half-century.

That's true. The Church did continue to practice polygamy for 14 years after the Manifesto was issued, despite ceasing the practice of polygamy being a condition of Utah obtaining statehood. And Joseph F. Smith later had to issue a second manifesto.

However, this still leads to the same place: did the Church eventually decide that "civil disobedience" wasn't worth it anymore? Yes or no?

Apparently, Expositor gets it. I don't see why you're having trouble with it.

So in a cost/benefit analysis:

1. In offering to pay for the damages in destroying the Expositor, the benefits of complying with the law outweighed the costs; but

2. In the practice of plural marriage, which Joseph Smith had to hide from the general public, many members of the Church, and his own (original) wife, and the public exposure of which was the real damage done by the Expositor, ultimately leading to Joseph and Hyrum Smith's death, the main body of the Church having to migrate to Utah, confrontation the U.S. Army, and the Church being dissolved by act of Congress, the benefits of defying the law outweighed the costs? When God eventually told Wilford Woodruff that the benefits of defying the law did not outweigh the costs?

Is that what you are saying?

[Darth J]

You've already linked to Greg Smith's excellent article about this, exploring the reasons why the Mormons were unwilling to abandon their ideals, even in the face of government heavy-handedness. That you are unable/unwilling to grasp his reasoning cannot be helped.

No. It is that I am unable/unwilling to agree with his reasoning.

I know it is a common trope for defenders of the faith to equate not agreeing with something with being too intellectually limited to understand it, but who am I to judge another's security blanket?

[Darth J]

You've already linked to Greg Smith's excellent article about this, exploring the reasons why the Mormons were unwilling to abandon their ideals, even in the face of government heavy-handedness. That you are unable/unwilling to grasp his reasoning cannot be helped.

Are you willing to concede that the FLDS Church is engaging in morally justifiable civil disobedience under the same standards discussed in Greg Smith's excellent article?

[Scott Lloyd]

Okay. The behavior of the Church is arbitrary. I get it.

Actually, you don't appear to.

However, this still leads to the same place: did the Church eventually decide that "civil disobedience" wasn't worth it anymore? Yes or no?

Insisting on a yes-or-no answer is the hallmark of the fallacy of the loaded question.

So in a cost/benefit analysis:

1. In offering to pay for the damages in destroying the Expositor, the benefits of complying with the law outweighed the costs; but

2. In the practice of plural marriage, which Joseph Smith had to hide from the general public, many members of the Church, and his own (original) wife, and the public exposure of which was the real damage done by the Expositor, ultimately leading to Joseph and Hyrum Smith's death, the main body of the Church having to migrate to Utah, confrontation the U.S. Army, and the Church being dissolved by act of Congress, the benefits of defying the law outweighed the costs? When God eventually told Wilford Woodruff that the benefits of defying the law did not outweigh the costs?

Is that what you are saying?

I'm of the opinion, in retrospect, that plural marriage had a certain objective which was accomplished within the roughly 50-year time frame leading up to the turn of the century. To the Latter-day Saints, obedience to God was a non-negotiable. After plural marriage had pretty much served its purpose, God no longer required it.

[AddamS]

So in a cost/benefit analysis:

1. In offering to pay for the damages in destroying the Expositor, the benefits of complying with the law outweighed the costs; but

2. In the practice of plural marriage, which Joseph Smith had to hide from the general public, many members of the Church, and his own (original) wife, and the public exposure of which was the real damage done by the Expositor, ultimately leading to Joseph and Hyrum Smith's death, the main body of the Church having to migrate to Utah, confrontation the U.S. Army, and the Church being dissolved by act of Congress, the benefits of defying the law outweighed the costs? When God eventually told Wilford Woodruff that the benefits of defying the law did not outweigh the costs?

Is that what you are saying?

I would think that an LDS believer would say that polygamy was commanded by "God". The destruction of a printing press was not. If someone is of that belief, I would wager they would risk more to obey "God" than man.

I don't agree with it, but my guess is their conception of the cost of disobeying "God" was worse than all of the events you list combined.

[Scott Lloyd]

Are you willing to concede that the FLDS Church is engaging in morally justifiable civil disobedience under the same standards discussed in Greg Smith's excellent article?

To some extent. I disapprove of the heavy-handed actions of the officials in Texas.

[Scott Lloyd]

No. It is that I am unable/unwilling to agree with his reasoning.

I know it is a common trope for defenders of the faith to equate not agreeing with something with being too intellectually limited to understand it ...

That seems to be the critic's MO.

I'm just saying that the soundness of an argument is not nullified by an opponent's inability or refusal to agree with it.

[Darth J]

Actually, you don't appear to.

Scott, are you willing to concede that the FLDS Church is also engaging in morally justifiable civil disobedience against the government's heavy hand?

Insisting on a yes-or-no answer is the hallmark of the fallacy of the loaded question.

Refusing to answer a yes-or-no question is the hallmark of being uncomfortable in dealing with the facts.

But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil. Matthew 5: 37

And there is nothing loaded about this question. It is what the Lord told Wilford Woodruff.

The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue

[Ariarates]

I'm not a lawyer but I tend to disagree with the assumption that the City of Nauvoo had the right to act against the Expositor. If memory serves me correct, the Nauvoo charter explicitly adopted the Illinois and US constitutions (I'd have to look it up to be more exact, it's in B.H. Roberts' History of the Church somewhere) and these certainly guarantee a certain freedom of the press.

I think the destruction of the Expositor was merely the spark that set an already volatile situation ablaze, so I think it would be too simplistic to say Joseph and Hyrum were murdered because of this one incident.

[Darth J]

To some extent. I disapprove of the heavy-handed actions of the officials in Texas.

To what extent are they not engaged in justifiable civil disobedience under the standards set forth in Greg Smith's article?

[Darth J]

I would think that an LDS believer would say that polygamy was commanded by "God". The destruction of a printing press was not. If someone is of that belief, I would wager they would risk more to obey "God" than man.

I don't agree with it, but my guess is their conception of the cost of disobeying "God" was worse than all of the events you list combined.

You wouldn't think that the LDS believer's position would tend to be that the Church is always right?

[Darth J]

That seems to be the critic's MO.

I'm just saying that the soundness of an argument is not nullified by an opponent's inability or refusal to agree with it.

Really? If Joseph Smith was engaging in civil disobedience, why did he hide it? Since the purpose of civil disobedience is public, nonviolent defiance to get the government to change an unjust law or policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience), how did practicing plural marriage in secret amount to civil disobedience?

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm not a lawyer but I tend to disagree with the assumption that the City of Nauvoo had the right to act against the Expositor. If memory serves me correct, the Nauvoo charter explicitly adopted the Illinois and US constitutions (I'd have to look it up to be more exact, it's in B.H. Roberts' History of the Church somewhere) and these certainly guarantee a certain freedom of the press.

I think the destruction of the Expositor was merely the spark that set an already volatile situation ablaze, so I think it would be too simplistic to say Joseph and Hyrum were murdered because of this one incident.

One could speculate about what the flash point -- and consequences -- might have been had the Expositor not been suppressed. Would the inflammatory rhetoric have brought the surrounding communities into a state of open warfare against the Nauvoo residents -- similar to what actually did happen later? Perhaps the actions of Joseph and the city council delayed violence and averted what would have become a blood bath.

That's why I say it's impossible to conclude definitively that the suppression of the newspaper was a mistake.

[Ariarates]

One could speculate about what the flash point -- and consequences -- might have been had the Expositor not been suppressed. Would the inflammatory rhetoric have brought the surrounding communities into a state of open warfare against the Nauvoo residents -- similar to what actually did happen later? Perhaps the actions of Joseph and the city council delayed violence and averted what would have become a blood bath.

That's why I say it's impossible to conclude definitively that the suppression of the newspaper was a mistake.

It's certainly interesting to speculate about. There are two main aspects to consider, I think. First is the reaction of the surrounding communities to the military buildup at Nauvoo and the open lawlessness that was claimed to prevail there. It would probably have forced the governor to intervene at some point. The other thing to consider is that Joseph may have lost a lot of support from his own followers if the Expositor would have been allowed to continue (that, to me, seems a very powerful possible motive for suppressing the Expositor). That might have led to a defusion of tension from the inside out, who knows? Joseph could have flown again (as he initially set out to do) and start over again someplace else.

[Lamanite]

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

Do you think maybe we could say, "Man, in retrospect there was probably a waaaaaaaay better way to handle that situation!" (am I supposed to put a question mark somewhere?)

I'm of the opinion that if we could admit to the former declarative then would could easily say, "We made a mistake", and leave it at that.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Analytics]

I

[Doug the Hutt]

I think Mormons on the whole can finally look at the MMM and say that the events of that day are unjustified and inexcusable. (At least the normal non-Danite Mormons can say this )

Couldn't we say the same about the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor? I'm wondering if we shouldn't say, "we really messed up on that one." And then not qualify it with a million legal justifications and so on. A simple admission that maybe those guys made a huge mistake might be a refreshing departure from a legal brief on the suppression of the Nauvoo Expositor. (Suppression is a wonderful euphemism for breaking into the printing office and throwing the press into the street where it was beat on with sledgehammers.)

We can certainly discuss the socio-political climate of the time. We can discuss religious persecution. But we don't need to use context to excuse a major screw up.

Can we view this event from our current vantage point and simply say, "perhaps we were wrong? Looking back maybe we shouldn't have destroyed that press." And then resist the urge to start talking again.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Heya Lamanite,

You have a good point. I'm onboard:

1. Joseph should never have ordered or argued for the destruction of the printing press.

2. Illinois should never have allowed such an independent-city-state-style charter.

3. The LDS leaders should never have tried to set up a city charter that gave the Prophet too much unbalanced power.

4. Law printed something true -- Joseph was secretly practicing 'plural marriage'. The truth should be allowed to be spoken without retaliation.

5. It's clear that Joseph was protecting his position of authority as Prophet and not just his position of authority as Mayor when he demanded the printing press detailing his dalliances to be destroyed.

6. Law's descendants should receive recompense for the damage to the printing press and loss of income as a direct result of its destruction by the Mormon leaders.

7. Every LDS person should know about the thing that got Joseph killed, and sadly you'll find that many people have a very limited view of what actually did him in.

8. To a skeptic the convoluted discussions of how their climate is, and how we can't apply a modern view on something that happened 160 years ago, and how he was Mayor and they debated the legality of it all for two days....all of that sounds to an unbiased outsider to be lame excuses drummed up to spin doctor the problem off into oblivion.

9. THEY, the Mormons back there in Nauvoo, were completely wrong in how they handled the Nauvoo Expositor, among other things.

The only problem we have about recognizing fault is that part of the Restored Gospel about not finding fault with your leaders -- we're not supposed to recognize fault even if there is fault because it undermines the perception of our Prophets, Seers and Revelators, but we're supposed to watch out for ravenous wolves and call attention to them when we find them ..... .I suddenly feel like I'm stuck in a feedback loop....

[Darth J]

I