Church Head Of Public Affairs Responds To "Dangerous Religion" Claim

[Fly Fisherman]

Michael Otterson responds to Warren Cole Smith's recent article

A few of his words:

I admit, I’m struggling just a tad with your logic that the very fact of being a Mormon disqualifies a person from high public office. That would be news to Senator Orrin Hatch, who has served his country and constituents for 34 years. And to Senator Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader - one of the most powerful positions in government.

To your third point, there’s your assertion that the election of Mormons to high office would be a tacit endorsement of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This argument, while not new, is frightening in its implications. Substitute the word “Jew” for “Mormon” and see how comfortable that feels.

[sjdawg]

Michael Otterson responds to Warren Cole Smith's recent article

A few of his words:

It was a very well written response.

[thesometimesaint]

:good:

[MorningStar]

That's awesome.

[bookofmormontruth]

" bigotry masquerading as political commentary"

It definitely seems that I am seeing that more often and in other avenues of discussion. Who are they trying to fool?

[Sky]

Nice to see the Church directly challenge one of its many critics. Usually we don’t see that.

I wonder if Warren Cole Smith will take Michael Otterson up on his offer to visit Church headquarters in Salt Lake City?

[cdowis]

Nice to see the Church directly challenge one of its many critics. Usually we don’t see that.

I think the culture of "suffering indignity in silence" has been changed. There is no harm in a dignified response to such comments.

[BCSpace]

I admit, I’m struggling just a tad with your logic that the very fact of being a Mormon disqualifies a person from high public office.

There are many intrinsic facts about individuals that automatically disqualify them from public office. But such are determined by the voters. For example, I would not vote for a person if they were a (fill in the blank).

[Programmer]

I think the culture of "suffering indignity in silence" has been changed. There is no harm in a dignified response to such comments.

The church defended itself a lot in the early days, in various newspapers it published in major cities. For a long time, I feel we stepped away from that, but perhaps this is a new policy to stand up for the truth.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

:good:

:good:

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

The church defended itself a lot in the early days, in various newspapers it published in major cities. For a long time, I feel we stepped away from that, but perhaps this is a new policy to stand up for the truth.

Let us hope.

[Jeff K.]

Bring out the danites. "Embrace the dark side of the force Luke, let your anger flow. Know that we have cookies"

[sjdawg]

The church defended itself a lot in the early days, in various newspapers it published in major cities. For a long time, I feel we stepped away from that, but perhaps this is a new policy to stand up for the truth.

Sometimes they even destroyed the newspapers that were publishing the negative opinions

[bookofmormontruth]

Sometimes they even destroyed the newspapers that were publishing the negative opinions

You are on a roll with the ridiculous statements.

Yes, those "negative opinions" had no influence on the mobs raping, murdering and pillaging the saints. Glad to see you condone the mob's actions.

"Brother Joseph called a meeting at his own house and told us that God showed to him in an open vision in daylight [meaning that this was not something he had just conjured up in dreams of the night] that if he did not destroy that printing press that it would cause the blood of the Saints to flow in the streets and by this was that evil destroyed". Diary of George Laub, BYU Special Collections, 18.

Instead of being heavily sedated by the ant-Mormon mills, try reading how it was legal to destroy the Nauvoo Expositor. "The Suppression of the Nauvoo Expositor." Utah Law Review 9 (Winter 1965):862-903 Oaks, Dallin H.

[frankenstein]

Instead of being heavily sedated by the ant-Mormon mills, try reading how it was legal to destroy the Nauvoo Expositor. "The Suppression of the Nauvoo Expositor." Utah Law Review 9 (Winter 1965):862-903 Oaks, Dallin H.

The following quote refers to Ill. legal cases that happened after 1844,

... there was no legal justification in 1844 for the destruction of the Expositor press as a nuisance. ” (Utah Law Review, Summer 1965, pages 890-891)

Here are some other selections from Oaks review:

It is readily apparent that, even though the Expositor's charges of abuse of the writ were not well founded, the whole subject was well within the area of political controversy. There was nothing in the Expositor's political copy that gave the authorities of Nauvoo any legal basis whatever for the suppression of the newspaper.

-----

Consequently, the doctrinal controversy in the Expositor offered no conceivable basis for suppressionary action by city authorities.

-----

Each of these aspects of the Expositor's charges was a legitimate concern of the city government, and a possible basis for its suppressionary action.

-----

There are two reasons why Joseph Smith's argument was not well founded and why the council's action cannot be justified on the basis of the judicial powers of some of its members.

-----

That it's consequences were disastrous to the Mormon leaders and that alternative means might better have been employed cannot be doubted.

-----

Nevertheless, the common assumption of historians that the action taken by the city council to suppress the paper as a nuisance was entirely illegal is not well founded. Aside from damages for unnecessary destruction of the press, …

[bookofmormontruth]

Here are some other selections from Oaks review:

Glad to see another condoning the mob's actions. Copying and pasting from your anti-Mormon mills has failed you. Your source doesn't match up for what you posted. Your quotes are out of context (cherry picked) and like anti-Mormons true to form, manipulated to tell a different story. (Aaron Shafovaloff being guilty of this). How about just paste the anti-Mormon link?

Oaks opined that while the destruction of the Expositor's printing press was legally questionable, under the law of the time the newspaper certainly could have been declared libelous and therefore a public nuisance by the Nauvoo City Council. As a result, Oaks concludes that while under contemporaneous law it would have been legally permissible for city officials to destroy, or "abate," the actual printed newspapers, the destruction of the printing press itself was probably outside of the council's legal authority, and its owners could have sued for damages. "The Suppression of the Nauvoo Expositor". Utah Law Review 9 (Winter 1965):862-903 Oaks, Dallin H

That is Elder Oak's stance. I am sure he would appreciate it if you didn't tell him otherwise.

The destruction of the Expositor (a public nuisance) was legal, but destroying the type was not (a civil offense) and the Church would be liable for damages if found guilty civilly. Joseph Smith saw in vision what would happen if it wasn't destroyed. He saved the Saints' lives. Well worth paying any civil fine don't you think?

[Deborah]

the Church would be liable for damages if found guilty civilly. Joseph Smith saw in vision what would happen if it wasn't destroyed. He saved the Saints' lives. Well worth paying any civil fine don't you think?

Also as I recall from the Joseph Smith papers he paid for the damage.

[bookofmormontruth]

Also as I recall from the Joseph Smith papers he paid for the damage.

And how did they pay him in the end?

It is interesting that even today, (with or without even knowing it) there are individuals who condone the mob's actions. As long as it is against the honorable man they absolutely despise in every way, they will take that side ad nauseam.

As mentioned in the OP's story, there are those who continue blatant bigotry and will justify it with any means possible, even with quote mining.

[frankenstein]

Glad to see another condoning the mob's actions.

what? some one post information that does not support your philosophy so now that poster is supporting mob action. and since you are not clear, which mob action? If you were not so eager to be offended perhaps some dialogue and discussion could occur.

Copying and pasting from your anti-Mormon mills has failed you.

Your source doesn't match up for what you posted.

Your quotes are out of context (cherry picked) and like anti-Mormons true to form, manipulated to tell a different story.

CFR, and if there every is a CFR that needs to be honored it is this one. CFR that I manipulated the quotes to tell a different story. Your accusation is childish and baseless, please read the article and come back and defend your claims, Or change your post.

what a terrible foolish mistake you have made with each of your accusations. I also read the article and i pulled out relevant quotes. My source is Dalin H. Oaks, himself, My source, is Dalin H. Oaks, personal writings. Like others you are all too eager to find offense, you are all too eager to claim victimization. Further I explained the context for the "no legal basis" quote.

What is more ironic about your statement and despicable you quote what amounts to wikipedia .... tell me, who has the better source, you or me (having quoted directly from Oaks.)?

For your reading pleasure, you can find the actual article here

[bookofmormontruth]

what? some one post information that does not support your philosophy so now that poster is supporting mob action. and since you are not clear, which mob action? If you were not so eager to be offended perhaps some dialogue and discussion could occur.

CFR, and if there every is a CFR that needs to be honored it is this one. CFR that I manipulated the quotes to tell a different story. Your accusation is childish and baseless, please read the article and come back and defend your claims, Or change your post.

what a terrible foolish mistake you have made with each of your accusations. I also read the article and i pulled out relevant quotes. My source is Dalin H. Oaks, himself, My source, is Dalin H. Oaks, personal writings. Like others you are all too eager to find offense, you are all too eager to claim victimization. Further I explained the context for the "no legal basis" quote.

What is more ironic about your statement and despicable you quote what amounts to wikipedia .... tell me, who has the better source, you or me (having quoted directly from Oaks.)?

For your reading pleasure, you can find the actual article here

You should have just admitted you copied and pasted from an anti-Mormon mill because you just proved that you personally do the quote mining. Is that your example of "dialogue and discussion"? Or are you just not capable in experiencing shame?

For an example of your quote mining. Let's start with your very first quote of your post. I am not going to spend my time on your other mining quotes for you already exposed yourself with the first one. Oops.

... there was no legal justification in 1844 for the destruction of the Expositor press as a nuisance.

Notice the dots "..." This is a dead giveaway of blatant quote mining.

If you put the quote in its context. The actual quote (not even the conclusion of Elder Oaks) is "These cases make clear that there was no legal justification in 1844 for the destruction of the Expositor press as a nuisance".

You left out "these cases that make clear that". I wonder why? Because the quote you posted (not in its entirety) was talking about an Indiana and Illinois case and if you read the previous paragraphs and final conclusion, you would see the quote in context.

Here is part of the previous paragraphs.

In view of the law discussed above, particularly the state- ment in Blackstone, the combination of these three considerations seems to have been sufficient to give the Nauvoo City Council considerable basis in the law of their day for their action in characterizing the published issues of the Nauvoo Expositor as a nuisance and in summarily abating them by destruction

I can easily show your quote mining on all your quotes, but I will save you some embarrassment. But since you obviously can't experience shame, I will be embarrassed for you. You are welcome.

Let's just jump to the undeniable evidence of Elder Oak's view. Here is Elder Oak's final conclusion: (notice that some of your quote mining can be found in his conclusion).

CONCLUSION: "A historian friendly to the people of Nauvoo has called the suppression of the Nauvoo Expositor "the grand Mormon mistake . . . . That its conse-quences were disastrous to the Mormon leaders and that alternative means might better have been employed cannot be doubted. Nevertheless, the com- mon assumption of historians that the action taken by the city council to sup- press the paper as a nuisance was entirely illegal is not well founded. Aside from damages for unnecessary destruction of the press, for which the Nauvoo authorities were unquestionably liable, the remaining actions of the council, including its interpretation of the constitutional guarantee of a free press, can be supported by reference to the law of their day" Page 903. My link

Now why would you manipulate the quote to fit your argument? Are we living in complete desperation where facts and truth can't be discussed?

I am not letting you off that easy; even though I know you won't learn a lesson here, at all.

Let me return the favor and CFR where you really copied these quotes from. This would be in your favor to show you just copied and pasted from an anti-Mormon mill and not actually took the time to do their kind of dirty work (ie quote mining).

And no I was never "offended". I thoroughly enjoy exposing those who "lie in wait to deceive".

[frankenstein]

while I original saw a quote on another website, I ultimately found the context of a that quote from Oaks himself, I simple did not change the format of the quote. But ultimately you have shown nothing other than you eagerness to find offense and to make false claims or assertions that someone is a "anti-mormon". All the quote I used above, save reformating one, were taken from Oaks article. but since you what context, I will give you context "until it comes out of your nostrils."

Page 862, last two sentences of first paragraph.

Thomas Ford, then Governor of Illinois, called the event a violation of the Constitution and "a very gross outrage upon the laws and the liberties of the people." 3 Even B. H. Roberts, a Mormon historian, conceded that "the procedure of the city council . . . was irregular; and the attempt at legal justification is not convincing . . . ." 4 Roberts placed his defense of the action "on the grounds of expediency or necessity." 5 Oaks intent with the article, page 862 This article will examine the legal basis of some of the charges the Expositor made against the leading citizens of Nauvoo and the legal implications of the suppression of the newspaper by those citizens. A summary of the most prominent charges will be set forth here as a basis for the discussion to follow. Page 868

Religion:page 869: However, it proclaims that Joseph Smith is a fallen prophet who had introduced many doctrines that were "heretical and damnable in their influence." 47 It was resolved that, inasmuch as Joseph and Hyrum Smith and other officials unnamed had "introduced false and damnable doctrines into the Church, such as a plurality of Gods above the God of this universe, and his liability to fall with all his creations; the plurality of wives, for time and eternity; the doctrine of unconditional sealing up to eternal life, against all crimes except that of shedding innocent blood . . . ," they be denounced as apostates from the doctrine of Jesus. 48 B. Politics page 869

At the political level, the principal complaint was the Mormon leaders' attempts to unite church and state. Various editorial notes and news articles described these attempts and the "Resolutions" condemned them.52 The specific complaints were three in number. (the precedding is Oaks own interpretation) C. Morality 870

The third and most pervasive theme was the alleged immorality of Joseph and his associates, of whom Hyrum was the only one specifically named. Some of these charges related to financial affairs or vague implications of murderous conduct. Most concerned sexual behavior. (the precedding is Oaks own interpretation)

1. THE LEGALITY OF THE COUNCIL'S ACTION (page 877)

A. An Evaluation of the Expositor Charges

The legality of the council's action in suppressing the Expositor depends upon the nature of the charges in the Expositor and the reaction which the city councilors could reasonably conclude that they were likely to produce in the community and the surrounding areas.

Politics. The Expositor's general complaints about the union of the authority of church and state in Nauvoo were essentially true. Page 884

It is readily apparent that, even though the Expositor's charges of abuse of the writ were not well founded, the whole subject was well within the area of political controversy. There was nothing in the Expositor's political copy that gave the authorities of Nauvoo any legal basis whatever for the suppression of the newspaper.

Religion. The same can be said of the Expositor's charges that Joseph Smith was teaching false religious doctrines, notably polygamy. Since the Illinois Constitution provided that "no human authority can in any case whatever control or interfere with the rights of conscience ; and that no preference shallever be given by law to any religious establishments or modes of worship," 132 the teachings of religion could not properly be the concern of any civil authority. Consequently, the doctrinal controversy in the Expositor offered no conceivable basis for suppressionary action by city authorities. Morality.(page 884) Probably the most provocative portions of the Expositor were the claims that Hyrum Smith was a "base seducer, liar and perjurer" and the charges that Joseph Smith had spread "death, devastation and ruin," that he had committed fraud in handling Church monies, and that he was guilty of practicing whoredoms and had engaged in numerous seductions of the type vividly described, which were said to have caused the untimely death of the women involved. Page 885

By the standards of that day the account of the young girl's seduction may have been obscene. 135 Each of these aspects of the Expositor's charges was a legitimate concern of the city government, and a possible basis for its suppressionary action. B. The Legality of the Suppression page 886

The council's power to abate nuisances. Joseph Smith undertook to justify this action on the ground that the council represented both legislative and judicial power

I cannot see the distinction that you draw about the acts of the City Council, and what difference it could have made in point of fact, law, or justice, between the City Council's acting together or separate, or how much more legal it would have been for the Municipal Court, who were a part of the City Council, to act separate, instead of with the councilors.142

There are two reasons why Joseph Smith's argument was not well founded and why the council's action cannot be justified on the basis of the judicial powers of some of its members. (page 886)

Abatement of newspaper as nuisance. Page 888

1. On the question whether the type of publications described above constituted the sort of nuisance that could be abated summarily (without judicial hearing) , there was little or no published judicial opinion in the 1840's. (page 890)

The characterization of the printing press as a nuisance, and its subsequent destruction, is another matter. Page 890

In an Indiana case in 1846 the owner of a bowling alley was convicted of keeping a public nuisance, a disorderly bowling alley. The trial judge fined the individual and ordered the sheriff to "remove and abate the nuisance, to wit, the ball alley." 161 The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the judgment imposing the fine, but reversed the order for abatement. Neither the ball alley nor the room in which it was kept was a nuisance, the court observed. "The nuisance was in the manner in which they were kept." 162 (page 890)

Earp v. Lee, 71 Ill. 193 (1873). Even if the house were a public nuisance, the court said, "neither the common law nor the statute has authorized individuals or communities to tear down and destroy the buildings in which such unlawful business is pursued, nor does either permit the courts, on conviction, to have such buildings destroyed or abated." 164 (page 891)

The principle applied in these cases was that set forth in Blackstone's discussion of nuisances, which the council studied and used as authority for its abatement ordinance.165 The very passage relied on by the council made this distinction for, as pointed out by B. H. Roberts, "the destruction of libelous `prints and papers' can scarcely be held to sustain the action of destroying a “printing press.'" 166

These cases make clear that there was no legal justification in 1844 for thedestruction of the Expositor press as a nuisance. Its libelous, provocative, and perhaps obscene output may well have been a public and a private nuisance, but the evil article was not the press itself but the way in which it was being used. Consequently, those who caused or accomplished its destruction were liable for money damages in an action of trespass.167 (page 891)

Constitutional guarantee of free press.(page 891) the source on which they [Nauvoo Council] did rely, Blackstone's Commentaries, is the leading authority to the effect that the liberty of the press consists merely "in laying no previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published." 182 (page 895) There was no direct precedent in 1844 to support the use of nuisance-abatement powers to suppress a newspaper like the Expositor, but there was no direct authority against such use either. (page 892)

Conclusion

That it's consequences were disastrous to the Mormon leaders and that alternative means might better have been employed cannot be doubted. Aside from damages for unnecessary destruction of the press, … (pages 902 -903) (I have left out part of this quote because Oaks does not make clear what "remaining actions" were.)

----

In the Constitutional section Oaks uses cases that occurred many years after 1844, and the final case which Oaks uses negates his argument. I think Oaks makes a mistake in use case that occur 20, 30, 50 or 60 years after 1844 to support what happened in 1844. Because one government did something and no one challenged it, does not provide sound basis for other governments doing the same. The most instructive cases used by Oaks, are the cases, 1846 reversed order for abatement, the nuisance was the manner in which the rooms were kept, not the structure and 1873 which essentially reaffirms the 1846 reasoning.

[frankenstein]

I am not letting you off that easy; even though I know you won't learn a lesson here, at all.

Let me return the favor and CFR where you really copied these quotes from.

no you are not making this easy, because you ignorance and false claims are tiresome. Take the quotes from post 15, and paste those quotes into google search advance feature "find these exact words", the only page that come up with anything are this thread and something from wikipedia, the first quote will would come on other website, but as I stated in post 15 I gave the context for that quote so the origin of that quote is a non issue.

so have at it, try and find the websites, that contain the exact quotes from post 15....I save you trouble, you wont, because as I stated previously I took all the quote, save reformatting one, from Oaks himself, that you need to claim anti-mormon rather than address the quotes themself is your personal problem that I would appreciate that you did not vomit on to me.

imageshack.us /photo/my-images/845/25111098.png/

[bookofmormontruth]

no you are not making this easy, because you ignorance and false claims are tiresome. Take the quotes from post 15, and paste those quotes into google search advance feature "find these exact words", the only page that come up with anything are this thread and something from wikipedia, the first quote will would come on other website, but as I stated in post 15 I gave the context for that quote so the origin of that quote is a non issue.

so have at it, try and find the websites, that contain the exact quotes from post 15....I save you trouble, you wont, because as I stated previously I took all the quote, save reformatting one, from Oaks himself, that you need to claim anti-mormon rather than address the quotes themself is your personal problem that I would appreciate that you did not vomit on to me.

imageshack.us /photo/my-images/845/25111098.png/

I don't even know how to respond, really.

"reformatting one" = manipulating

Anyone can see your quote manipulation no matter how much you copy and paste new and irrelevant information. So basically, you have admitted that you are the anti-Mormon who does his own quote manipulation. I am impressed! Most anti-Mormons use the same regurgitation - never have their own original thoughts.

But wait! That is even a lie. My link and My link (won't let me link this one since it is from the "Mormon Discussions board" titled "What lies did the Nauvoo Expositor print?") are the websites that your copied most of your regurgitated quotes from. You know, the same ones that you "researched" and claimed are no where on the inter-webs? Nice try!

Anyway, I apologize to the OP for the debacle of a derail. I guess in a way - it relates; the desperation of anti-Mormons even if it is on public display - they clearly have no shame in what they say/type/print.

[frankenstein]

I don't even know how to respond, really.

Yes it is very apparent that you can not address the exact in context quotes from Oaks article, which were taken directly from Oaks, article and the page numbers provide, too much of a challenge for you I understand.

Anyone can see your quote manipulation no matter how much you copy and paste new and irrelevant information.

I took all my quotes from Oaks, I presented them in context, and yet you claim manipulation, what a pathetic excuse for counter point.

I challenge you to address each one of my quotes and find manipulation, lie, deciet, out of context for any or all of them. I am confident you can't and you know you can not either.

please prove my lies, deciet, or manipulation, and I will make changes according... If you really care about the Church and you are not lieing yourself you would do it.

[frankenstein]

But wait! That is even a lie. My link and My link (won't let me link this one since it is from the "Mormon Discussions board" titled "What lies did the Nauvoo Expositor print?") are the websites that your copied most of your regurgitated quotes from. You know, the same ones that you "researched" and claimed are no where on the inter-webs? Nice try!

lets review your claim and my claim, as I stated use the quotes from post 15, use "Advance search" in google, and "exact wording or phrase" and see what you find I'll do the work for you since fact checking isn't your strong point.

Here are some other selections from Oaks review:

It is readily apparent that, even though the Expositor's charges of abuse of the writ were not well founded, the whole subject was well within the area of political controversy. There was nothing in the Expositor's political copy that gave the authorities of Nauvoo any legal basis whatever for the suppression of the newspaper.

No results found

-----

Consequently, the doctrinal controversy in the Expositor offered no conceivable basis for suppressionary action by city authorities.

One link back to this thread

-----

Each of these aspects of the Expositor's charges was a legitimate concern of the city government, and a possible basis for its suppressionary action.

Did not match any documents

-----

There are two reasons why Joseph Smith's argument was not well founded and why the council's action cannot be justified on the basis of the judicial powers of some of its members.

No results found

-----

That it's consequences were disastrous to the Mormon leaders and that alternative means might better have been employed cannot be doubted.

One result to wikipedia discussion

-----

Nevertheless, the common assumption of historians that the action taken by the city council to suppress the paper as a nuisance was entirely illegal is not well founded. Aside from damages for unnecessary destruction of the press, …

One result back to wikipedia.

Your problem is that you can not accept any iotoa of truth that does is not entirely in favor the LDS Church. Posting in context statements from Oaks, does not make a person an anti-mormon, and that you can not or will not back up your claim with facts of manipulation, then one and all can only conclude you have nothing to offer.