MMM and the Nauvoo Expositor

[selek]

In fact, the owners were permanently deprived of their property because the Expositor never resumed publishing; it became extinct.

This is false on it's face. They were paid the fair value of the destroyed press. They recieved full value for the property of which they were deprived. The decision to resume publishing was entirely in their hands. They were permanently deprived of nothing to which they were entitled.

That were paid the value of their property- that they chose to instead spend that money on women and liquor, or furs, or blew it all at the racetrack instead of replacing the press is their responsibility, not the Church's and not the town of Nauvoo's.

It was their choice not to replace the press and resume publishing (of course, with the murders accomplished, Nauvoo pillaged and the rapes and murders well underway, there was little need for them to continue to incite. Their mission was accomplished).

Their victims, on the other hand, were not given a choice.

Selek finds himself opposing, on a point of law no less, a former law professor, former BYU president, and former Utah State Supreme Court justice, and a man who would become a general authority of the LDS Church. He also questions the judgment of B. H. Roberts and the editor of BYU Today.

No- Selek finds himself disagreeing with their OPINIONS and thanks you kindly for ceasing to utter inflammatory falsehoods.

It has yet to be demonstrated, however, that the destruction of the press was in any way causal to [the] assassination.

No responsible historian/scholar of whom I am aware agrees with this statement.

Then you should try re-reading your sources.

Every source you've cited has agreed that the destruction of the Expositor press was a prime factor in the murders of Joseph and his brother. Not one has claimed, however, that said destruction was the direct cause of those assasinations.

I cited the following from the March, 1976, issue of BYU Today: "They seized upon this [press destruction] to inflame the public even more, and this led directly to the assassination [emphasis added].

And you ignored my rebuttal- namely that the mobs were ALREADY inflamed and the death warrants had already been (metaphorically) signed.

The mob had already decided (and threatened) to murder Joseph- there were simply looking for an opportunity to do so. If it had not been the destruction of the Expositor, it would have been upon another occasion and upon another pretext.

The destruction of the Expositor was an excuse for the murders. It was never the cause- and all the Handwavium-113 you can apply cannot change that fact.

Some people may be disturbed by the suggestion that Joseph Smith acted illegally in this instance

Yes- especially since that pretense has never been proven.

, but it is important to understand that under the tense pressure of the times he too, may have made a mistake."

Well....you're finally admitting that he was under pressure from the outside mobs and the craven surrender of the State. Progress at last.

People and institutions make mistakes.

Including Dallin Oaks, B.H. Roberts, and BYU Today.

It's an instructive, necessary part of the mortal journey.

It's equally instructive and necessary to point out that Oaks' and Roberts' opinion, as well as the BYU Today editorial were their considered opinions- not legal findings, and certainly not the findings of a court of law.

Owning up to those mistakes is a critical component of our eternal progression.

And as soon as you demonstrate conclusively and precisely WHERE that "mistake" occured, I shall be more than happy to admit it.

In the meantime, since you seem intent to argue my positions for me (whether they're actually my positions or not- such as my supposed "opposition" to Dallin Oaks), I'll leave you to it.

Since you seem intent upon handling both sides of this disagreement, and have no interest in either other views or contradictory fact, there's little further need for my participation.

[Jeff K.]

I noted that "impounding" rarely results in permanent loss of one's property." Then I added, "The same cannot be said about utterly destroying one's property."

Based on what? Police auctions are repleat with impounded materials. Refrigerators, MWO's, cars, computers, printers, the list goes on, granted, the vast majority are cars, but the word "rarely" (impound versus eventual impound sale) is questionable at best.

Oak's point was nuanced, he felt that position was that the press company be removed, but the press equipment itself was not the perpetrator and thus should not be destroyed. Based on this, the press could be permanently "removed" from use by law. From the Expositor's position this would be the same as destruction.

[paulpatter]

This is false on it's face. They were paid the fair value of the destroyed press. They recieved full value for the property of which they were deprived. The decision to resume publishing was entirely in their hands. They were permanently deprived of nothing to which they were entitled.

So it's your position, given the mordant hatred that prevailed on both sides, that "the decision to resume publishing was entirely in their hands." No it wasn't. The publishers would have been harassed/pushed into their graves.

: That were paid the value of their property- that they chose to instead spend that money on women and liquor, or furs, or blew it all at the racetrack instead of replacing the press is their responsibility, not the Church's and not the town of Nauvoo's.

Sources? Or is this just your OPINION?

: No- Selek finds himself disagreeing with their OPINIONS and thanks you kindly for ceasing to utter inflammatory falsehoods.

Hence, you place no credence on the opinion of a former Utah State Supreme Court justice who interpreted the law as it existed in 1844.

. . .

: Every source you've cited has agreed that the destruction of the Expositor press was a prime factor in the murders of Joseph and his brother. Not one has claimed, however, that said destruction was the direct cause of those assasinations.

What do these words mean to you: "They seized upon this [press destruction] to inflame the public even more, and this lead directly to the assassination" [emphasis added], (BYU Today, March 1976, p. 10)? Did you notice the word "directly"?

: And you ignored my rebuttal- namely that the mobs were ALREADY inflamed and the death warrants had already been (metaphorically) signed.

I ignored it because it's v-e-r-y old news and contributes nothing to your argument.

: The mob had already decided (and threatened) to murder Joseph- there were simply looking for an opportunity to do so. If it had not been the destruction of the Expositor, it would have been upon another occasion and upon another pretext.

That's probably true. Still, it doesn't excuse the city council's brash, irrational action--one that directly hastened the deaths of Joseph and Hyrum.

: The destruction of the Expositor was an excuse for the murders. It was never the cause- and all the Handwavium-113 you can apply cannot change that fact.

It was, in fact, the tipping point. Obviously, it would have been a blessing if Joseph and Hyrum could have remained with the Saints for a season longer.

: Yes- especially since that pretense has never been proven.

Dallin H. Oaks proved it; it was a blatant violation of the nuisance abatement provision. The fact that you won't accept his finding, based on 1844 law, combined with the fact that you have offered no rebuttal to his finding from a source of comparable legal stature (only your OPINION), is, well, your problem.

: Well....you're finally admitting that he was under pressure from the outside mobs and the craven surrender of the State. Progress at last.

Obviously he was under pressure. What makes you think I have believed otherwise?

: Including Dallin Oaks, B.H. Roberts, and BYU Today.

But not including selek, who, apparently, knows more about law as it existed in Nauvoo in 1844 than Dallin H. Oaks, who--with Marvin S. Hill--wrote Carthage Conspiracy: The Trial of the Accused Assassins of Joseph Smith.

: It's equally instructive and necessary to point out that Oaks' and Roberts' opinion, as well as the BYU Today editorial were their considered opinions- not legal findings, and certainly not the findings of a court of law.

Well, gee, I doubt that Brothers Oaks and Roberts were available to serve as trial lawyers in 1844 and to contribute to a legal finding. Seems to me that's a revelation of the obvious, eh?

: And as soon as you demonstrate conclusively and precisely WHERE that "mistake" occured, I shall be more than happy to admit it.

I have already done that. Are you familiar with the little couplet that goes: A mind convinced against its will, is of the same opinion still? BTW, you ask me to demonstrate WHERE the mistake occurred? Answer: Nauvoo.

: In the meantime, since you seem intent to argue my positions for me (whether they're actually my positions or not- such as my supposed "opposition" to Dallin Oaks), I'll leave you to it.

You indicate in this very post that, in effect, Dallin Oaks erred in his Utah Law Review article.

: Since you seem intent upon handling both sides of this disagreement, and have no interest in either other views or contradictory fact, there's little further need for my participation.

You really know how to hurt a guy.

[selek]

So it's your position, given the mordant hatred that prevailed on both sides, that "the decision to resume publishing was entirely in their hands." No it wasn't. The publishers would have been harassed/pushed into their graves.

Oh, bull pockey. They were the darlings of the anti-Mormon mob. Neither Joseph nor the Mormons ever offered the publishers of the Expositor physical violence against their persons. The considered destruction of the press by public officials was the limit of the violence offered to Law and his blood-stained compatriots.

The will and desire to shed blood existed entirely- if not universally- on the other side.

Hence, you place no credence on the opinion of a former Utah State Supreme Court justice who interpreted the law as it existed in 1844.

Stop putting words in my mouth, Paul. That's twice now that you've lied on my behalf. Knock it off.

What do these words mean to you: "They seized upon this [press destruction] to inflame the public even more, and this lead directly to the assassination" [emphasis added], (BYU Today, March 1976, p. 10)? Did you notice the word "directly"?

I did notice it. And just as the gas station lies directly between my house and my job does not mean that the gas station was where I started. The destruction of the press was immediately followed by the murders- but that doesn't mean the press was the cause of the murders, any more than my buying flowers for my ex is directly causal of the indigestion I suffered later that night.

I ignored it because it's v-e-r-y old news and contributes nothing to your argument fatal to my polemics.

There. Fixed it for you.

That's probably true.

Thank you for the concession. You have just admitted that Joseph's murder was already being orchestrated- and likely would have been attempted whether the press had been destroyed or not. You have admitted that the the destruction of the press was only incidental to the plot to murder Joseph.

Because it was incidental to the murder plot, it cannot have been the cause of Joseph's murder.

Still, it doesn't excuse the city council's brash, irrational action--one that directly hastened the deaths of Joseph and Hyrum.

Now you're changing the goal posts- and trying to prettify cold-blooded murder.

Had Joseph and Hyrum died of natural causes or in a car wreck, you could justly describe their "deaths".

They were gunned down in cold blood by a lawless mob acting with the tacit and implicit consent of the State of Illinois- and Joseph and Hyrum were assassinated and martyred- nothing less.

Back to the topic at hand, however, you have further conceded my point. By claiming that the destruction of the press "hastened" their murders, you are admitting that the murders were already planned and awaiting execution (pun intended). The destruction of the press simply moved up the timetable a bit.

This is further proof that the destruction of the press was incidental to the plot to commit pre-meditated murder.

Because it was incidental to the murder plot, it cannot have been the cause of Joseph's murder.

It was, in fact, the tipping point. Obviously, it would have been a blessing if Joseph and Hyrum could have remained with the Saints for a season longer.

Again, "tipping point" implies that it was but one rationalization among many.

You've admitted twice now that the murder plot was well in hand, and now you've confessed that the destruction of the Expositor was but one more leaf on the wind.

As but one of many excuses the mobbers used, it cannot have been the cause of a murder plot already well underway.

Dallin H. Oaks proved it; it was a blatant violation of the nuisance abatement provision.

Oaks opined it, based upon his private interpretation of the law. It was never determined in a court of law.

The fact that you won't accept his finding, based on 1844 law, combined with the fact that you have offered no rebuttal to his finding from a source of comparable legal stature (only your OPINION), is, well, your problem.

This is the second falsehood you've presented in this post alone, Paul. Getting desperate?

Oaks' opinion was just that- a private opinion offered in a law review. This was not a "finding", and in fact, Smith's actions in the destruction of the press have never been adjudicated in a court of law.

You're throwing around a lot of legal terminology which you clearly don't understand.

Others have adequately pointed out that your interpretation of Oak's position is problematic. Your retreat from your earlier claim that Oaks condemned the destruction of both the copy and the press is equally telling.

Obviously he was under pressure. What makes you think I have believed otherwise?

Hmmmm.....perhaps the incessant, continuous, uninterrupted, on-going, endless, bounteous, over-flowing, vast, consuming, and all-pervading indifference you've demonstrated to that very pressue? Perhaps your ongoing efforts to shift responsibility for the murders from the perpetrators to Joseph?

But not including selek, who, apparently, knows more about law as it existed in Nauvoo in 1844 than Dallin H. Oaks, who--with Marvin S. Hill--wrote Carthage Conspiracy: The Trial of the Accused Assassins of Joseph Smith.

First and foremost, this is the third falsehood you've presented in a single post. Are you going for a record?

I have never presented myself as infallible or error free. Kindly do not impute to me an arrogance I do not posess (the amount I already suffer is sufficient), thank you.

I don't pretend to know more about law that Dallin Oaks- just more about the logical flaws in your argument and your distortion of Oaks' position.

Well, gee, I doubt that Brothers Oaks and Roberts were available to serve as trial lawyers in 1844 and to contribute to a legal finding. Seems to me that's a revelation of the obvious, eh?

More obvious, of course, is the fact that neither Joseph nor Hyrum were available to even STAND trial, having been murdered in cold blood by the very mob you're trying to excuse.

Because that's precisely what you've been trying to do. By using the destruction of the Expositor as cause (and therefore justification) for pre-meditated murder, you have been arguing that Joseph and company "had it coming".

By arguing that sparing the Expositor might have spared Joseph's life, you're arguing that culpability for those murders lies on his head instead of those of Thomas Ford and the mobbers.

I have already done that. BTW, you ask me to demonstrate WHERE the mistake occurred? Answer: Nauvoo.

You have not. In fact, you have yet to demonstrate that the mistake did occur, let alone where.

You indicate in this very post that, in effect, Dallin Oaks erred in his Utah Law Review article.

I have done nothing of the sort. I have indicated that I disagree with his opinion. Only a court of law can determine that he actually "erred".

Until it is adjudicated in a court of law, his position it is just that- an opinion- with which I (or any other reasonable person) am legally and morally entitled to disagree.

You really know how to hurt a guy.

Given the new tone of the board, I've been trying to be nice. It might have been much worse.

In summation, however:

You have admitted that the plot to murder Joseph was already well-in-hand before the destruction of the press.

You have admitted that the murder plot existed independently of the destruction of the press- and therefore have admitted that the destruction of the Expositor was only incidental to the conspirators.

Because it was incidental to the murder plot, it cannot have been the cause of Joseph's murder.

Having conceded (however unwillingly) that the destruction of the Expositor was the cause of the murders, you have undermined the primary argument for labelling the considered action to destroy the press a mistake.

A mistake is "an action or decision that is wrong. An error".

You have not proven that the action was wrong. You have not proven it was an error.

Given that the destruction of the press (however unwise) was:

• well-considered and deliberate,
  
• carried out by law enforcement personnel in the performance of their duty, and
  
• that it has never been adjudicated as "wrong" in a court of law,
  

you can offer only opinion that it was wrong. Such opinion is inherently subjective, and is NOT binding.

Until you offer something more than opinion, you have not made your case, and have not proven the destruction of the Expositor to be a mistake.

Was it unwise? Perhaps.

Was it inflammatory? Definitely.

Did it raise already heightened passions and further inflame the countryside against the Mormons? Certainly.

Did it give the mob an excuse to do what they'd been planning to do all along? Beyond the vale of reasonable disagreement.

Was it a mistake? Not proven.

Your honors?

The Defense rests.

[paulpatter]

Based on what? Police auctions are repleat with impounded materials. Refrigerators, MWO's, cars, computers, printers, the list goes on, granted, the vast majority are cars, but the word "rarely" (impound versus eventual impound sale) is questionable at best.

The auctions are conducted because the owners fail to claim their property; i.e., if they want to get it back, they must pay a fee.

: Oak's point was nuanced, he felt that position was that the press company be removed, but the press equipment itself was not the perpetrator and thus should not be destroyed. Based on this, the press could be permanently "removed" from use by law. From the Expositor's position this would be the same as destruction.

In Oaks' article, he states [paraphrasing] that the city council understandably viewed the published issue of the Expositor as a nuisance. They erred, however, when they concluded that the printing press proper was a nuisance and ordered its destruction. Oaks wrote, in part, ". . .common law authorities were emphatic in declaring that abatement must be limited by the necessities of the case, and that no wanton or unnecessary destruction of property could be permitted." Hence, Joseph Smith's order to have the press destroyed was illegal under 1844 law. I agree that had the Expositor continued publication and if its output had continued to be libelous, it could be legally shut down under the nuisance abatement provision.

One aspect of this matter that has not been discussed and that lurks in the background, is why the Nauvoo City Council was in such a rush to destroy the press. That, however, is another subject for another day.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 05 June 2010 - 05:54 PM, said:

Based on what? Police auctions are repleat with impounded materials. Refrigerators, MWO's, cars, computers, printers, the list goes on, granted, the vast majority are cars, but the word "rarely" (impound versus eventual impound sale) is questionable at best.

The auctions are conducted because the owners fail to claim their property; i.e., if they want to get it back, they must pay a fee.

No, if you are convicted of a crime you may not necessarily be allowed to reclaim your property. What you surmise is just one aspect or option of the authorities for seized or impounded goods.

Quote

: Oak's point was nuanced, he felt that position was that the press company be removed, but the press equipment itself was not the perpetrator and thus should not be destroyed. Based on this, the press could be permanently "removed" from use by law. From the Expositor's position this would be the same as destruction.

In Oaks' article, he states [paraphrasing] that the city council understandably viewed the published issue of the Expositor as a nuisance. They erred, however, when they concluded that the printing press proper was a nuisance and ordered its destruction. Oaks wrote, in part, ". . .common law authorities were emphatic in declaring that abatement must be limited by the necessities of the case, and that no wanton or unnecessary destruction of property could be permitted." Hence, Joseph Smith's order to have the press destroyed was illegal under 1844 law. I agree that had the Expositor continued publication and if its output had continued to be libelous, it could be legally shut down under the nuisance abatement provision.

One aspect of this matter that has not been discussed and that lurks in the background, is why the Nauvoo City Council was in such a rush to destroy the press. That, however, is another subject for another day.

You haven't disagreed with me in your post. Look to the quesion "necessities of the law" and what it implies. Which speaks directly to what I posted.

[wenglund]

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."

I can see value in admitting to mistakes as long as:

1. They are our own personal mistakes.

2. We genuinely believe they were mistakes.

3. The mistakes are of some consequence and pertinance to our potential in becoming like Christ.

4. Admitting the mistake will make a positive difference to ourselves and others in the present and the future.

However, from what I can tell, your question is in regards to something that occurred over 165 years ago, that isn't the least bit relevant to us today or even relevant to the Church (it was a civic matter), the outcome of which can't be changed, and judgements about which reasonable people can reasonably disagree (though they may not reasonably or respectfully disagree), and where the admitting of the mistake will likely change nothing nor will it positively impact our efforts to fulfill the fourfold mission of the Church, though the discussion of which has not only proved quite counter-productive (merely giving cause for vacuous posturing and impotent moral indignation), but I think it also has distracted us from focusing on our own personal mistakes or the more recent mistakes of others, the discussion of which may engender some future good.

So, with that in mind, I think raising this issue was a big mistake. I think we should say, "we really messed up on this one."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Lamanite]

I can see value in admitting to mistakes as long as:

1. They are our own personal mistakes.

2. We genuinely believe they were mistakes.

3. The mistakes are of some consequence and pertinance to our potential in becoming like Christ.

4. Admitting the mistake will make a positive difference to ourselves and others in the present and the future.

However, from what I can tell, your question is in regards to something that occurred over 165 years ago, that isn't the least bit relevant to us today or even relevant to the Church (it was a civic matter), the outcome of which can't be changed, and judgements about which reasonable people can reasonably disagree (though they may not reasonably or respectfully disagree), and where the admitting of the mistake will likely change nothing nor will it positively impact our efforts to fulfill the fourfold mission of the Church, though the discussion of which has not only proved quite counter-productive (merely giving cause for vacuous posturing and impotent moral indignation), but I think it also has distracted us from focusing on our own personal mistakes or the more recent mistakes of others, the discussion of which may engender some future good.

So, with that in mind, I think raising this issue was a big mistake. I think we should say, "we really messed up on this one."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'm glad you chimed in Wade.

I feel like bringing up Clarence Thomas' jurisprudence on the SC just to make the discussion a little bit more interesting. Lol.

I like that you bring up the contrast between my focusing on the mistake(s) made by those in the past and those mistakes made by me personally in the present. For me, this issue has been on a mental shelf for quite some time. I take it down and evaluate it every now and again. Normally, it remains the same and I grin to myself and put it back up on the shelf for another day. Well, lately I've just felt OK about saying, "Maybe they made a mistake. Perhaps there was a better course of action. I'm quite certain if I were there I would have reacted with much more aggression; so who am I to judge these men? Ah well, it does seem that although it was within their legal rights, they probably should not have acted that way. Yes, I feel as if they made a mistake. I think that whatever the circumstances were, Joseph was going to die a martyrs death. His cannot be laid at their feet. " After this the issue is, for all intents and purposes resolved for me, unless there is a future infusion of light.

So the relevance to my life today was not earth shattering. And I don't think it has far reaching effects within my circle of influence. But it has affected my growth as a Saint/Christian, to the end that I might understand Christian virtues a little better through the lives of the Saints of the past; and that I might know brother Joseph from a slightly (very slight) different perspective. Kinda hard to explain, but I'm sure you know how frustrating the limitations of the written word can be when explaining personal truths.

Reply to this and then there are a couple of points I didn't put into this post so that everything didn't get all crazy messed up.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Darth J]

And the folks in Warsaw and Carthage wouldn't have had any reason to rape Eliza or shoot Heber or expropriate Simeon's farm . . . before or after JSJr's assassination . . . or cannonade Nauvoo after JSJr's assassination.

Got it.

It makes so much more sense now.

All those rapes. All those murders. All those expropriations. All those cannonades. They wouldn't ever have happened if JSJr hadn't tried to cover up polygyny.

Because covering up polygyny justifies all those rapes and all those murders and all those expropriations and all those cannonades . . . and especially the assassination of JSJr.

How dare he try to cover up polygyny!

I specifically said that Joseph Smith did not deserve to die and that he was murdered in a horrible act of mob violence.

What you are doing here is the Mormon version of playing the race card. "If you disagree with me, then you are persecuting Mormons and ratifying the conduct of the mobs and criminals who did violence to members of the Church." The fact that many early members of the Church suffered unjust and inexcusable violence does not address the fact of Joseph Smith secretly practicing polygamy and claiming publicly that he did not.

Playing the persecution card also does not address the fact that the destruction of the Expositor set the chain of events in motion that led to Joseph and Hyrum Smith being killed, nor the fact that the "public nuisance" was that Joseph Smith's polygamy and coronation as king of Israel on Earth was exposed.

Nobody else has specified what factual allegations in the Expositor were false. Maybe you would like to, USU.

[Darth J]

Sigh, I need to stop feeding trolls.

To do that, you would need to (1) admit that your definition of a troll is simply "someone who says something I don't like", and (2) actually say something other than making a set of accusations based on a misrepresentation of what I or someone else said, being asked to demonstrate any support at all for your accusations, and then moving on to even more accusations while still failing to show any basis for any of the accusations.

I have already shown you how your slant on a Fair source was so out of bounds as to be ridiculous, presuming cause and effect regarding the Expositor and now you seek another venue for your disdain.

No, you didn't. You said you re-read the FAIR wiki without "my usual anti-Mormon slant," without explaining what "my usual anti-Mormon slant" is supposed to be, nor what specifically is wrong about what I said.

First off, the Expositor sough mob incitement, we know that,

No, we don't know that. CFR for where the Expositor says this. Here's something to help you start:

That in all our controversies in defence of truth and righteousness the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty through God to the pulling down of the strong holds of Satan; that our strifes are not against flesh, blood, nor bones; but against principalities and power, against spiritual wickedness in high places and therefore we will not use carnal weapons save in our own defence.

but it was part of a series of anti Mormon events

Do you even know who William Law was or what his religious beliefs were? Here's another hint:

As for our acquaintance with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, we know, no man or set of men can be more thoroughly acquainted with its rise, its organization, and its history, than we have every reason to believe we are. We all verily believe, and many of us know of a surety, that the religion of the Latter Day Saints, as originally taught by Joseph Smith, which is contained in the Old and New Testaments, Book of Covenants, and Book of Mormon, is verily true; and that the pure principles set forth in those books, are the immutable and eternal principles of Heaven, and speaks a language which, when spoken in truth and virtue, sinks deep into the heart of every honest man.--Its precepts are invigorating, and in every sense of the word, tend to dignify and ennoble man's conceptions of God and his atributes [sic]. It speaks a language which is heard amidst the roar of Artillery, as well as in the silence of midnight: it speaks a language understood by the incarcerated spirit, as well as he who is unfettered and free; yet to those who will not see, it is dark, mysterious, and secret as the grave.

with the rule of law being ignored and persecution being brought against the saints. So your statement of mob incitement regarding the Expositor is false in that you present it as the only incitement.

I said that the pre-existing animosity between Mormons and non-Mormons was not in dispute. CFR for where I said that the Expositor was the only incitement of hostility against Mormons.

"I spanked a child"

"He beat a child"

What specifically in the latter statement would incite people to be angry with me?

There are some people---who are not me---who don't believe that there is any distinction between these two statements. But before you could claim that either of these statements were libel, you would have to demonstrate that they were false.

1. Did Joseph Smith claim that the statements in the Expositor were libelous?

2. Were the factual allegations in the Expositor false? If so, which ones, and what about those allegations was false?

Try and not be so trollish in your posts.

Which seems to be code for "stop saying things I don't like."

We all know you are on a fishing expedition, it remains fairly clear, even in your shallow waters.

The only thing I am fishing for is one person on this board to explain what factual allegations in the Expositor were false, and why. And the fish aren't biting.

[wenglund]

I'm glad you chimed in Wade.

I feel like bringing up Clarence Thomas' jurisprudence on the SC just to make the discussion a little bit more interesting. Lol.

I like that you bring up the contrast between my focusing on the mistake(s) made by those in the past and those mistakes made by me personally in the present. For me, this issue has been on a mental shelf for quite some time. I take it down and evaluate it every now and again. Normally, it remains the same and I grin to myself and put it back up on the shelf for another day. Well, lately I've just felt OK about saying, "Maybe they made a mistake. Perhaps there was a better course of action. I'm quite certain if I were there I would have reacted with much more aggression; so who am I to judge these men? Ah well, it does seem that although it was within their legal rights, they probably should not have acted that way. Yes, I feel as if they made a mistake. I think that whatever the circumstances were, Joseph was going to die a martyrs death. His cannot be laid at their feet. " After this the issue is, for all intents and purposes resolved for me, unless there is a future infusion of light.

So the relevance to my life today was not earth shattering. And I don't think it has far reaching effects within my circle of influence. But it has affected my growth as a Saint/Christian, to the end that I might understand Christian virtues a little better through the lives of the Saints of the past; and that I might know brother Joseph from a slightly (very slight) different perspective. Kinda hard to explain, but I'm sure you know how frustrating the limitations of the written word can be when explaining personal truths.

Reply to this and then there are a couple of points I didn't put into this post so that everything didn't get all crazy messed up.

Big UP! Lamanite

If your coming to the reasonable opinion about this ancient civic matter being a mistake, will somehow help remove any stumbling blocks to your continued increase in spiritual faith (or help save you from having to revisit the distractions on the "shelf"), then I have no problem with that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Lamanite]

If your coming to the reasonable opinion about this ancient civic matter being a mistake, will somehow help remove any stumbling blocks to your continued increase in spiritual faith (or help save you from having to revisit the distractions on the "shelf"), then I have no problem with that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I like people who attempt to steady the ark; especially if the "people" are good friends, and the "ark" is my spiritual course. So if I'm way off base then unload with both barrels.

You know, the stuff on my mental shelf generally doesn't have any salvational value, so it can often be a distraction. But it's the type of distraction that is akin to hearing "The Simpson's" on TV in the background; not a distraction like having Pantera pumped through a pair of Skullcandies at full blast. (google any of that if you need to, lol) But there is some satisfaction when God is liberal with his "tender mercies."

Can I share one thing I've learned while thinking about the Expositor stuff?

I can't remember how, but my research on the Expositor led me to ponder 3Nephi 1. I silently wondered wondered one night about Nephi's prayer regarding his people and the Lord's arrival. (These scriptures were very powerful when I took time to memorize and ponder them.)

10 Now it came to pass that when Nephi, the son of Nephi, saw this wickedness of his people, his heart was exceedingly sorrowful. 11 And it came to pass that he went out and bowed himself down upon the earth, and cried mightily to his God in behalf of his people, yea, those who were about to be destroyed because of their faith in the tradition of their fathers. 12 And it came to pass that he cried mightily unto the Lord ^aall that day; and behold, the ^bvoice of the Lord came unto him, saying:

And I remember thinking, "what if the Lord does not choose to answer this prayer. He will still come the next day. The believing Nephite's will be spared. If the Lord doesn't answer this prayer, all will be well." However, we both know that the Lord does indeed answer prayers:

13 Lift up your head and be of good cheer; for behold, the time is at hand, and on this night shall the ^asign be given, and on the ^bmorrow come I into the world, to show unto theworld that I will fulfil all that which I have caused to be ^cspoken by the mouth of my holy prophets. 14 Behold, I come unto my own, to ^bfulfil all things which I have made known unto the children of men from the ^cfoundation of the world, and to do the ^dwill, ^eboth ^fof the Father and of the Son

[Jeff K.]

Quote

We all know you are on a fishing expedition, it remains fairly clear, even in your shallow waters.

The only thing I am fishing for is one person on this board to explain what factual allegations in the Expositor were false, and why. And the fish aren't biting.

Lets see what you haven't responded to....

First off, the Expositor sough mob incitement, we know that, but it was part of a series of anti Mormon events with the rule of law being ignored and persecution being brought against the saints. So your statement of mob incitement regarding the Expositor is false in that you present it as the only incitement.

"I spanked a child"

"He beat a child"

What specifically in the latter statement would incite people to be angry with me?

Try and not be so trollish in your posts. We all know you are on a fishing expedition, it remains fairly clear, even in your shallow waters.

The manner by which you selectively take quotes out of context reflects how you are a troll.

I was told not to feed them.

[USU78]

I specifically said that Joseph Smith did not deserve to die and that he was murdered in a horrible act of mob violence.

Glad we agree.

If we agree there, then we ought to agree that whether or not the City Council's acts, urged by the Mayor, rate a big "Who cares?" in the larger picture. It certainly has no connection to today's Mormondom and Mormons.

Unless, of course, we are using the Expositor incident, as does a certain poster who wants it kept evergreen by employing it as a handle, for some other purpose.

What purpose, you ask? I answer: in order to tar today's Mormondom and Mormons. The Nauvoo City Council ordered a press destroyed and what was printed on it burnt as a public nuisance . . . therefore, today's Mormondom and today's Mormons and unAmerican nonChristian cultists.

As profound is the illogic of the last paragraph, its illogic pales next to the alleged motiveless malignity of keeping the Expositor incident evergreen for allegedly purely academic reasons on a discussion board.

Among Mormons of faith, the incident looks like a desperate act, not particularly wise, by desperate people trying their dangedest to avoid continuation or excalation of the horrors in and around Nauvoo. Mormons of faith examine and understand the context of the not particularly wise act.

It ain't their need for victimhood that drives the conversation, or their demand here that context be added to Darth Sidious' allegedly purely academic point, whatever that point might be. It ain't a need for victimhood to demand that folks at a particular point in history be judged with compassion and in context. It's both unwise and unhelpful to look at discrete events from history without considering their context . . . or to judge historical figures without considering their motivations. Only context can provide any clue as to those motivations.

[paulpatter]

Oh, bull pockey. They were the darlings of the anti-Mormon mob. Neither Joseph nor the Mormons ever offered the publishers of the Expositor physical violence against their persons.

I doubt that you can verify you last sentence, especially inasmuch as you fail to cite sources of any kind. It would have been reasonable--and wise--for Joseph and his followers to at least try to negotiate with the publishers rather than resorting to an act of violence against personal property. Why didn't they do that? One answer: They were desperate to stop the Expositor, which was not without some elements of truth in its reporting.

: The considered destruction of the press by public officials was the limit of the violence offered to Law and his blood-stained compatriots.

How very generous and Christ-like of them.

: The will and desire to shed blood existed entirely- if not universally- on the other side.

Perhaps, but some of the terrible things that happened to the Saints in Missouri and Illinois happened because of what the Saints did and said. I'm NOT justifying atrocious acts by the mobs, but a balanced reading of history reveals that the Saints were not entirely blameless.

. . .

: I did notice it. And just as the gas station lies directly between my house and my job does not mean that the gas station was where I started. The destruction of the press was immediately followed by the murders- but that doesn't mean the press was the cause of the murders, any more than my buying flowers for my ex is directly causal of the indigestion I suffered later that night.

A tad silly, don't you think?

. . .

: Thank you for the concession. You have just admitted that Joseph's murder was already being orchestrated- and likely would have been attempted whether the press had been destroyed or not.

Of course his murder was being orchestrated pre-Expositor. I have never taken a contrary position.

: You have admitted that the the destruction of the press was only incidental to the plot to murder Joseph.

No it wasn't. It caused Gov. Ford to act and set into motion the murders at Carthage

: Because it was incidental to the murder plot, it cannot have been the cause of Joseph's murder.

But, as I have pointed out, it wasn't incidental to the murder plot. It gave the mob precisely the opening they had been seeking, including the support of Gov. Ford.

: Now you're changing the goal posts- and trying to prettify cold-blooded murder.

Didn't you say something above about my being guilty of falsehoods? I have not "prettified" cold-blooded murder.

: Had Joseph and Hyrum died of natural causes or in a car wreck, you could justly describe their "deaths". They were gunned down in cold blood by a lawless mob acting with the tacit and implicit consent of the State of Illinois- and Joseph and Hyrum were assassinated and martyred- nothing less.

All of which is true. Do you imagine that you have scored a point of some sort?

: Back to the topic at hand, however, you have further conceded my point. By claiming that the destruction of the press "hastened" their murders, you are admitting that the murders were already planned and awaiting execution (pun intended). The destruction of the press simply moved up the timetable a bit.

And by moving up the timetable the press destruction deprived the Saints of the leadership of Joseph and Hyrum earlier rather than later. Are you OK with that?

: This is further proof that the destruction of the press was incidental to the plot to commit pre-meditated murder.

Wrong. It was instrumental in setting into motion the events at Carthage.

: Because it was incidental to the murder plot, it cannot have been the cause of Joseph's murder.

(See above.)

: Again, "tipping point" implies that it was but one rationalization among many.

Hardly.

: You've admitted twice now that the murder plot was well in hand, and now you've confessed that the destruction of the Expositor was but one more leaf on the wind.

Much more than a leaf, my friend.

: As but one of many excuses the mobbers used, it cannot have been the cause of a murder plot already well underway.

(See above.)

Sorry, I'm out of time. I'll deal with the balance of your post later today.

[Jeff K.]

Fearful of attacks, a destruction of culture, and armed groups that easily slide past any semblence of the Constitution in order to carry out acts that are illegal and a desire to destroy you and what you and your people stand for. Should a printing press be destroyed?

I don't know.... President Lincoln sure thought so. Considered as a microcosm of the civil war in which one group sought to destroy another, and within the latter group we have a virulent press adding to the flame, it would seem in extreme measure that the such actions can indeed be considered as viable choices. So did the charter allow for it? Another question that may or may not be accurate.

Sedition Acts were used by various federal governments, and even state governments, from destroying a press to considering an open hunting season on Mormons. How would sedition acts fold into such a thing?

Something to consider.

[Darth J]

Lets see what you haven't responded to....

Post #160:

There are some people---who are not me---who don't believe that there is any distinction between these two statements. But before you could claim that either of these statements were libel, you would have to demonstrate that they were false.

1. Did Joseph Smith claim that the statements in the Expositor were libelous?

2. Were the factual allegations in the Expositor false? If so, which ones, and what about those allegations was false?

[Darth J]

Glad we agree.

If we agree there, then we ought to agree that whether or not the City Council's acts, urged by the Mayor, rate a big "Who cares?" in the larger picture.

And, consequently, we ought to agree that "Joseph Smith died for his testimony of the Book of Mormon" vastly oversimplifies the circumstances of his death in order to make it more faith-promoting.

It certainly has no connection to today's Mormondom and Mormons.

The circumstances of Joseph Smith's death have no connection to today's Mormondom and Mormons? That's an interesting take.

Several years ago I stood in the upper bedroom of Carthage Jail surrounded by my wife and our six children. Over the prior week, our family had visited the various locations of Joseph Smith

[Jeff K.]

Tell us Darth J.

Would it be libel or perhaps slander when you spank your child and someone else says you beat them?

Do you think a statement similar to the one given would be an imputation of greater evil? If not why not?

You seem to be avoiding clear and plain questions and then simultaneously accusing others of doing exactly what you are doing. Especially when you take quotes out of context and edit them to create false context. Would you consider such actions moral for dialogue? Or do you think doing as much is justified by what ever desire you have to attack?

[Darth J]

Tell us Darth J.

Would it be libel or perhaps slander when you spank your child and someone else says you beat them?

No, it would not. Defamation applies to false statements of fact. Statements of opinion cannot, by definition, be libelous.

These are two different ways to describe the same act. Whether you believe that spanking your child is acceptable discipline--and as far as I am aware, it is legally justifiable discipline in every jurisdiction of the United States---for the statement to be libelous, it would have to be a false statement: neither a "beating" nor a spanking took place.

Do you think a statement similar to the one given would be an imputation of greater evil? If not why not?

Do I personally? Yes. But there are a great many people who see no distinction between these two statements. For example: http://www.stophitting.com/index.php?page=poststatements

Also, labeling something a "spanking" does not mean it is not in reality a "beating" to any reasonable person. E.g., http://www.thonline.com/article.cfm?id=173310

But you still have not explained how this is analogous to what the Expositor said. Since you have refused to do so, what about Joseph Smith's letter to Governor Ford about the Expositor incident? Any "he spanked a child/he beat a child" type statements there?

Nauvoo June 14, 1844. His Excellency Thomas Ford.

Sir

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 06 June 2010 - 03:29 PM, said:

Tell us Darth J.

Would it be libel or perhaps slander when you spank your child and someone else says you beat them?

No, it would not. Defamation applies to false statements of fact. Statements of opinion cannot, by definition, be libelous.

These are two different ways to describe the same act. Whether you believe that spanking your child is acceptable discipline--and as far as I am aware, it is legally justifiable discipline in every jurisdiction of the United States---for the statement to be libelous, it would have to be a false statement: neither a "beating" nor a spanking took place.

Yes and one is contextually false while the other is not.

Quote

Do you think a statement similar to the one given would be an imputation of greater evil? If not why not?

Do I personally? Yes. But there are a great many people who see no distinction between these two statements. For example: http://www.stophitti...=poststatements

Also, labeling something a "spanking" does not mean it is not in reality a "beating" to any reasonable person. E.g., http://www.thonline....e.cfm?id=173310

But you still have not explained how this is analogous to what the Expositor said. Since you have refused to do so, what about Joseph Smith's letter to Governor Ford about the Expositor incident? Any "he spanked a child/he beat a child" type statements there?

You play with a fallacy or implausibility that when you see something is wrong, you claim that others would not see it as wrong and therefore it is not wrong. The expositor chose to put any and all acts in the worst possible light, and did so specifically to enflame and incite to riot those who were already seeking an excuse to menace the community.

Academically you may seek to be amoral and state that people can incite all they want (the ACLU fells this way about groups like NAMBLA) and nothing is wrong with inciting groups toward higher levels of hatred, or other acts that may damage a community. This is the main tenor of your argument. I cannot accept such a tenor since I have lived in societies where such groups were indeed dangerous.

In the investigation it appeared evident to the council that the proprietors were a set of unprincipled men, lawless, debouchees, counterfeiters, Bogus Makers, gamblers, peace disturbers, and that the grand object of said proprietors was to destroy our constitutional rights and chartered privileges; to overthrow all good and wholesome regulations in society; to strengthen themselves against the municipality; to fortify themselves against against the church of which I am a member, and destroy all our religious rights and privileges, by libels, slanders, falsehoods, perjury & sticking at no corruption to accomplish their hellish purposes. and that said paper of itself was libelous of the deepest dye, and very injurious as a vehicle of defamation,

[Jeff K.]

Quote

Especially when you take quotes out of context and edit them to create false context. Would you consider such actions moral for dialogue? Or do you think doing as much is justified by what ever desire you have to attack?

I see. What quote did I take out of context, and what quote did I edit to create a false context?

It was made clear and I placed it in bold to show how you changed context.

[Darth J]

Yes and one is contextually false while the other is not.

It is impossible for either of your hypothetical statements to be "contextually false while the other is not," because you have not given a hypothetical set of facts to evaluate these statements. Because there is no factual scenario about the isolated statements, "He spanked a child/He beat a child," there is no context into which these statements can be put.

You play with a fallacy or implausibility that when you see something is wrong, you claim that others would not see it as wrong and therefore it is not wrong

Huh?

I said that I would not see "spanking" as per se wrong, but there are many other people who do feel this way. For another example: http://nospank.net

What you said here doesn't make any sense.

The expositor chose to put any and all acts in the worst possible light, and did so specifically to enflame and incite to riot those who were already seeking an excuse to menace the community.

[Darth J]

It was made clear and I placed it in bold to show how you changed context.

You mean this?

"I spanked a child"

"He beat a child"

What specifically in the latter statement would incite people to be angry with me?

There was never any context to take it out of. You have two isolated, hypothetical statements with no factual scenario. What context?

[wenglund]

I like people who attempt to steady the ark; especially if the "people" are good friends, and the "ark" is my spiritual course. So if I'm way off base then unload with both barrels.

You know, the stuff on my mental shelf generally doesn't have any salvational value, so it can often be a distraction. But it's the type of distraction that is akin to hearing "The Simpson's" on TV in the background; not a distraction like having Pantera pumped through a pair of Skullcandies at full blast. (google any of that if you need to, lol) But there is some satisfaction when God is liberal with his "tender mercies."

I don't think I need to give you both barrels or even one barrel. You are a good and competent man who knows what is best for yourself and your family. It is just that for me, since I have such limited cranial capacity, then unless dealing with an issue will somehow advance my life and help others do likewise, I don't put it on a shelf. Instead I drop kick it into oblivion. That is the ultimate filter that helps me avoid distractions.

Can I share one thing I've learned while thinking about the Expositor stuff?

I can't remember how, but my research on the Expositor led me to ponder 3Nephi 1. I silently wondered wondered one night about Nephi's prayer regarding his people and the Lord's arrival. (These scriptures were very powerful when I took time to memorize and ponder them.)

10 Now it came to pass that when Nephi, the son of Nephi, saw this wickedness of his people, his heart was exceedingly sorrowful. 11 And it came to pass that he went out and bowed himself down upon the earth, and cried mightily to his God in behalf of his people, yea, those who were about to be destroyed because of their faith in the tradition of their fathers. 12 And it came to pass that he cried mightily unto the Lord ^aall that day; and behold, the ^bvoice of the Lord came unto him, saying:

And I remember thinking, "what if the Lord does not choose to answer this prayer. He will still come the next day. The believing Nephite's will be spared. If the Lord doesn't answer this prayer, all will be well." However, we both know that the Lord does indeed answer prayers:

13 Lift up your head and be of good cheer; for behold, the time is at hand, and on this night shall the ^asign be given, and on the ^bmorrow come I into the world, to show unto theworld that I will fulfil all that which I have caused to be ^cspoken by the mouth of my holy prophets. 14 Behold, I come unto my own, to ^bfulfil all things which I have made known unto the children of men from the ^cfoundation of the world, and to do the ^dwill, ^eboth ^fof the Father and of the Son