Apologetics: Not In Vain

[USU78]

On what basis?  That some citizens thought it was high handed?

 

 

 

They might have.  But on what grounds?

 

People have the right to sue the gov't when the gov't takes their property (real or personal) improperly, and where there is no governmental immunity.

 

Nothing wrong with a suit against the gov't for an improper taking via administrative/extrajudicial civil abatement proceeding.

 

And that is what JSJr was talking about.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

On what basis?  That some citizens thought it was high handed?

 

 

 

They might have.  But on what grounds?

 

I think that the question should be "On what basis is the destruction of private property by a government entity be legal?" I certainly think that the onus is on the party destroying the property to show why their actions are legal.  The articles in question (from Church friendly sources) looked at the legal precedents and determined that destroying the actual printed edition as a public nuisance was probably legal.  They further looked into the legality of actually destroying the press itself and said it was illegal.  

 

Can you provide a source that destroying the press was "legal and kosher"?

[BCSpace]

And that is what JSJr was talking about.

 

Indeed.  But was a suit brought?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Indeed.  But was a suit brought?

Does this change the legality of the destruction of private property? 

[BCSpace]

I think that the question should be "On what basis is the destruction of private property by a government entity be legal?"

I certainly think that the onus is on the party destroying the property to show why their actions are legal.

 

 

Well no.  Those in a state of criticism should first establish their reasons.

 

The articles in question (from Church friendly sources) looked at the legal precedents and determined that destroying the actual printed edition as a public nuisance was probably legal.  They further looked into the legality of actually destroying the press itself and said it was illegal.  

 

Then the critics have the answer they want and we are back to the notion as to whether or not such actions invalidate JS as a prophet.  If one claims to be a christian, then no, they cannot.

 

Can you provide a source that destroying the press was "legal and kosher"?

 

The Nauvoo City charter itself which allows for any law passed as long as they are not repugnant to the laws of Illinois OR the Federal government.  An appeal to the First Amendment, for example, would likely not have been upheld in those days.  I don't think a difference can be made between the paper and the press in this case since the press was used to print the paper.

Edited August 26, 2013 by BCSpace

[BCSpace]

Indeed.  But was a suit brought?

 

Does this change the legality of the destruction of private property?

 

I think it nullifies the the overall question.  Not the legality per se, but whether or not it is a real issue.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Well no.  Those in a state of criticism should first establish their reasons.

 

We will have to agree to disagree here. It's my opinion that private property should not be destroyed by the goverment unless the government can produce sound and legal reasons why the destruction of such property is necessary.

 

Then the critics have the answer they want and we are back to the notion as to whether or not such actions invalidate JS as a prophet.  If one claims to be a christian, then no, they cannot.

 

It's not about critics vs non-critics.  Its about factual representation of what happened.  I don't hold prophets to be infallible, so I don't really care if Joseph led the Nauvoo city council into the illegal destruction of property. He made a mistake (one he paid dearly for).  Big deal. But to call such actions legal when they are clearly not just sets people up for disappointment when the truth is found.

 

I'm not sure if this is your way of saying that you were mistaken and the destruction of the press was not legal??

 

 

 

 

The Nauvoo City charter itself which allows for any law passed as long as they are not repugnant to the laws of Illinois OR the Federal government.  An appeal to the First Amendment, for example, would likely not have been upheld in those days.

 

 

 

Obviously the first ammendment only applied to the federal goverment until the passage of the 14th ammendment.  Perhaps you'll believe Dallin H Oaks on the issue?

 

 

 

These cases make clear that there was no legal justification in 1844 for the destruction 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.

 

 

Also

 

A historian friendly to the people of Nauvoo has called the suppression of the Nauvoo Expositor "the grand Mormon mistake . . . ." That its 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, 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.

 

 

I'll ask once more. Can you provide a single source for your claim that the destruction of the press was legal and kosher?

Edited August 26, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

 

I think it nullifies the the overall question.  Not the legality per se, but whether or not it is a real issue.

 

Joseph Smith was incarcerated and was going to stand trial because of the destruction of the printing press. He was killed by a mob while awaiting trial.  But the overall question of whether or not it is a "real" issue hinges on whether the owner of the press brought a civil suit against a dead man? I'm not sure I follow the logic presented here. 

[BCSpace]

We will have to agree to disagree here. It's my opinion that private property should not be destroyed by the goverment unless the government can produce sound and legal reasons why the destruction of such property is necessary.

 

I don't think there would be any general disagreement between us on that point.  However, for the times, and considering the high emotions and the Saint's recent experience in Missouri, I think it was justified.  Here is an interesting statement from JS:

 

According to the council's minutes, Smith said he "...would rather die tomorrow and have the thing smashed, than live and have it go on, for it was exciting the spirit of mobocracy among the people, and bringing death and destruction upon us. "The Destruction of the "Nauvoo Expositor"—Proceedings of the Nauvoo City Council and Mayor".

 

 

I'm not sure if this is your way of saying that you were mistaken and the destruction of the press was not legal??

 

Nope.

 

 

 Perhaps you'll believe Dallin H Oaks on the issue?

 

Just because he's DHO doesn't mean I would necessarily agree with him.  It's not surprising though that critics of the Church will only accept opinions or statements from Church leaders insofar as it agrees with their agenda and make fallacious appeals to authority when someone disagrees.

 

Not saying you're one of those, it's just something I've noticed.

 

 

I'll ask once more. Can you provide a single source for your claim that the destruction of the press was legal and kosher?

 

I just did in a previous post.  Thank goodness you wont have to ask again. I think it not unreasonable to assert that the city of Nauvoo was within their rights as the state of Illinois granted them some pretty broad powers.  Again, that some merely think it was high handed doesn't speak to the issue.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I just did in a previous post.  Thank goodness you wont have to ask again. I think it not unreasonable to assert that the city of Nauvoo was within their rights as the state of Illinois granted them some pretty broad powers.  Again, that some merely think it was high handed doesn't speak to the issue.

 

 

I assume you are referring to this!?

 

The Nauvoo City charter itself which allows for any law passed as long as they are not repugnant to the laws of Illinois OR the Federal government.  An appeal to the First Amendment, for example, would likely not have been upheld in those days.  I don't think a difference can be made between the paper and the press in this case since the press was used to print the paper.

 

Dallin H Oaks, a lawyer, and a former Utah Supreme Court judge says it was illegal.  FAIRmormon says it was illegal.  Dialogue's review of the issue says that it was illegal.  But you (are you a lawyer or a historian?) say that you have looked at the Nauvoo charter and determined in your expert opinion it was legal.  Is there anything else that informed your opinion or was it solely the original research that you did? Do you have any background in this particular area? Can you critique Dallin H Oak's reasoning? If there is information out there that says the destruction of the press was completely legal and kosher, I'd love to see it. Perhaps you should submit a paper on the issue?

Edited August 26, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Rivers]

It is my understanding that Joseph Smith was summoned to Carthage for the riot that followed the destruction of the printing press, not the destruction itself. 

[USU78]

Indeed.  But was a suit brought?

 

Nope.  Nobody ever sought a civil remedy, as a civilized person would and should do.

 

They used their political influence to induce county officials in Carthage to bring criminal charges against JSJr and others.

 

And, for those who are unaware, in rem civil proceedings against items of real or personal property are not at all uncommon, even today.  When my Camaro is used to transport drugs across the Mexican/US border, the US Gov't can bring an action against the Camaro, and I am relegated to a co-claimant to title to the Camaro along with the DOJ.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

It is my understanding that Joseph Smith was summoned to Carthage for the riot that followed the destruction of the printing press, not the destruction itself. 

Perhaps that is true. I can't find anything definitive.  From the churches Nauvoo site:

 

Trouble for Latter-day Saints in Nauvoo increased when the Nauvoo city council issued orders to destroy a newspaper press that had printed criticisms against the Church. This act angered the newspaper’s supporters and neighboring citizens. To bring calm, Governor Thomas Ford promised the council members full protection if they would submit to arrest and go to Carthage for a trial. Notwithstanding the promise of protection, Joseph Smith felt that he was “going like a lamb to the slaughter.”

[foster]

Looks like I'm good then.  If you have no evidence to present that it wasn't legal and kosher, then we can freely dismiss such assertions.

Not sure if this was directed at my comment, but did you participate in a thread about libel law in illinois on a board that shall not be named?

[BCSpace]

but did you participate in a thread about libel law in illinois on a board that shall not be named?

 

Not on Dr. Shades' m o r m o n d i s c u s s i o n s . c o m board, no.  Btw, I urge more TBM's to post there with me so the Church has a better voice there as Church suggests we do.  Sure it's a cesspool, but even cesspools need cleaning and sprucing up and you can post in the forums you are comfortable with; Celestial, Terrestial, and even Telestial (I don't post there on purpose).  Besides, you can actually express and debate your opinion and all of LDS doctrine there.

 

 

 

The bottom line is this.  That antiMopologetics has stooped to quibbling over which method of translation Church artwork should portray, a printing press, claiming sex and impropriety where there was none, and assuming they know what is on some missing papyri and the workings of the ancient Egyptians shows the highly dilapidated condition they are in.

Edited August 27, 2013 by BCSpace

[foster]

Bcspace, did you post in a thread on that board, the topic of said thread being libel law and the Nauvoo Expositor? If you posted in that thread, you participated in that thread.

[BCSpace]

Bcspace, did you post in a thread on that board, the topic of said thread being libel law and the Nauvoo Expositor?

 

Pretty sure I haven't.  But if I have and you are concerned about it, feel free to point it out.  I post on many boards and am not necessarily going to recall everything.

[foster]

You did post on that board and specifically in a thread which discussed Libel Law and the Nauvoo Expositor.

[BCSpace]

You did post on that board and specifically in a thread which discussed Libel Law and the Nauvoo Expositor.

Then is there something I can help you with?

[foster]

Where you are lacking in your response as to the destruction of the press has been addressed. Read through our exchanges - in this thread - in light information (evidences) in the thread that discusses "libel law and the nauvoo expositor" (hint: that is the title of the thread) and in light of your apparent definitive position that there is no evidence destruction of the press was not legal.

Edited August 27, 2013 by foster

[BCSpace]

Where you are lacking in your response as to the destruction of the press has been addressed. Read through our exchanges - in this thread - in light information (evidences) in the thread that discusses "libel law and the nauvoo expositor" (hint: that is the title of the thread) and in light of your apparent definitive position that there is no evidence destruction of the press was not legal.

 

I find it interesting that you don't seem to want to present your evidence here or peruse the source I gave.

[foster]

I find it interesting that you don't seem to want to present your evidence here or peruse the source I gave.

And I find it assuring that what I posted earlier stands true " you otherwise choose to ignore the evidence to the contrary; which leaves us once again in the inconclusive realm."

[BCSpace]

I find it interesting that you don't seem to want to present your evidence here or peruse the source I gave.

And I find it assuring that what I posted earlier stands true " you otherwise choose to ignore the evidence to the contrary; which leaves us once again in the inconclusive realm."

 

When ever you're ready with some evidence to the contrary, let me know.

[Duncan]

I'd be curious what the best explanation of the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor printing press is.  Do you try and convince them it was legal and kosher, or that Joseph acted wrongly but we should accept it for cultural/contextual reasons?  Or that he royally screwed up but he was imperfect and so it shouldn't damage our faith.

 

I'd go with the Nauvoo city council was duplicating what was done to Bro. Phelps printing press in July of 1833 when the mob destroyed it and temporarily stopping the printing of the Book of Commandments, this making the already made copies extremely valuable and I want one! signed would be nice but i'll take it without

Edited August 28, 2013 by Duncan

[foster]

When ever you're ready with some evidence to the contrary, let me know.

You know the contrary evidence, you posted in the thread (on another board) in which contrary evidence is dicussed; you tacitly accepted the premise of the contrary evidence. Please stop with your games.