So The Nauvoo Expositor Was Right Afterall

[Anteojito]

Anteojito,

 

I ask again, do you believe the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor press was a violation of the First Amendment?  If not, and if Joseph Smith followed legal advice and the ordinance then in effect that allowed the City Council to declare it a nuisance and for him to take action against it, on what basis (other than a legal basis) would you expect him to know that his action was wrongful/immoral?

Yes I believe that the destruction of the press was a violation of the first amendment. I would not advocate the destruction of any press. As I have said several times, what lies were told about Joseph Smith in the Expositor? The main topic was the practice of polygamy. William Law was accusing Joseph Smith of it. Joseph Smith lied about doing it. I feel that the main reason the press was destroyed was because Joseph Smith did not want it to get out. If Joseph really had nothing to hid, he could have suppressed the paper through more constitutional means and have taken the high road. 

[Calm]

Once again, making light of a good man's reputation.

It should be noted, IMO, there is some evidence that Law was not exactly moral himself:

"Wm. Law, confessed to him that he had been "guilty of adultery," and "was not fit to live," and had "sinned against his own soul," etc.

11

Undoubtedly Joseph knew of this conversation. William Clayton wrote on June 12, 1844: “Law wanted to be sealed and Joseph told him he was forbid which begun the hard feelings.”

12

Church member Alexander Neibaur provided additional information in a diary entry for May 24, 1844:

Told about Wm. [William] Law—wished to be married to his wife [Jane Law] for eternity. Mr. [Joseph] Smith would inquire of the Lord, answered no because Law was a adulterous person. Mrs. Law wanted to know why she could not be married to Mr. Law. Mr. [Joseph Smith] S. said [he] would not wound her feelings be telling her. Some days after, Mr. [Joseph] Smith going toward his office. Mrs. Law stood in the door, beckoned to him[.] he once did not know whether she beckoned to him, went across to inquire. Yes, please to walk in, no one but herself in the house, she drawing her arms around him, if you won’t seal me to my husband seal myself unto you, he said, stand away and pushing her gently aside giving her a denial and going out. When Mr. [William] Law came home he inquired who had been in his absence, she said no one but Br. Joseph, he then demanded what had passed. Mrs. L. [Law] then told Joseph wanted her to married to him."

I have no clue if the accusations of Law and his wife are accurate.

http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/history-2/nauvoo-polygamy-1844/

Another version here:

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

Edited November 22, 2014 by calmoriah

[Anteojito]

OK.  On what basis, other than a legal basis (since the record shows that Joseph Smith sought and obtained legal advice about what to do about the Expositor) would you expect Joseph Smith to conclude that destruction of the press was wrong?  A lot of people have brought up the First Amendment; those people are ignorant of the fact that the First Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, had not yet been applied to protect people from overreaching by state and local governments.  The U.S. Supreme Court did not apply the Incorporation Doctrine to overreaching by state and local government until about the 1920s (and the Court didn't apply other protections of the Bill of Rights to state and local action until much later).  The City Council duly passed an ordinance under which Joseph Smith acted, having sought and obtained legal advice, abating the press as a nuisance. And he offered to compensate the press's owners, even though he was neither legally nor morally obligated to do so. What rationale do you have (or, for that matter, what rationale does anyone else have), other than applying a 20th-century legal concept to an action that took place in the mid-19th century, for concluding that Joseph Smith acted wrongfully?

Well clearly some people thought it was wrong, because he was arrested for it. Oh I forgot they were all just rabid anti-mormons.  No one has yet shown that the paper said anything that was grounds for its destruction. It is not against the law to tell the truth. 

Edited November 22, 2014 by Anteojito

[Anteojito]

It should be noted, IMO, there is some evidence that Law was not exactly moral himself:

"Wm. Law, confessed to him that he had been "guilty of adultery," and "was not fit to live," and had "sinned against his own soul," etc.

11

Undoubtedly Joseph knew of this conversation. William Clayton wrote on June 12, 1844: “Law wanted to be sealed and Joseph told him he was forbid which begun the hard feelings.”

12

Church member Alexander Neibaur provided additional information in a diary entry for May 24, 1844:

Told about Wm. [William] Law—wished to be married to his wife [Jane Law] for eternity. Mr. [Joseph] Smith would inquire of the Lord, answered no because Law was a adulterous person. Mrs. Law wanted to know why she could not be married to Mr. Law. Mr. [Joseph Smith] S. said [he] would not wound her feelings be telling her. Some days after, Mr. [Joseph] Smith going toward his office. Mrs. Law stood in the door, beckoned to him[.] he once did not know whether she beckoned to him, went across to inquire. Yes, please to walk in, no one but herself in the house, she drawing her arms around him, if you won’t seal me to my husband seal myself unto you, he said, stand away and pushing her gently aside giving her a denial and going out. When Mr. [William] Law came home he inquired who had been in his absence, she said no one but Br. Joseph, he then demanded what had passed. Mrs. L. [Law] then told Joseph wanted her to married to him."

I have no clue if the accusations of Law and his wife are accurate.

http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/history-2/nauvoo-polygamy-1844/

So Joseph Smith said that William Law was immoral. Of course we all know that Joseph Smith never lied.

[Anteojito]

When I was in HS 14 was the legal age of consent to marry.

 

Inciting murder isn't exactly what I'd call reputable.

OK, for the zillionth time, where did William Law incite murder? I am beginning to think that most people on this board have not even read the paper.

[Calm]

So Joseph Smith said that William Law was immoral. Of course we all know that Joseph Smith never lied.

Hyrum Smith said he confessed.

From the link above:

"This could be Joseph just spin-doctoring, but his account told to Neibaur was done privately, and wasn't used in public to discredit Law or his wife. This, to me, adds to its plausibility. It didn't really benefit Joseph if he were to lie in private to a very few about Law, while Law was making such public trouble for Joseph. Here's Hyrum Smith's evidence (and many regarded Hyrum as impeccably honest):

Councilor Hyrum Smith continued—Jackson told him he (Jackson) meant to have his daughter, and threatened him if he made any resistance. Jackson related to him a dream, that Joseph and Hyrum were opposed to him, but that he would execute his purposes; that Jackson had laid a plan with four or five persons to kidnap his daughter, and threatened to shoot any one that should come near after he had got her in the skiff; that Jackson was engaged in trying to make bogus, which was his principal business. Referred to the revelation read to the High Council of the Church, which has caused so much talk, about multiplicity of wives; that said revelation was in answer to a question concerning things which transpired in former days. That when sick, William Law confessed to him that he had been guilty of adultery, and was not fit to live, and had sinned against his own soul, &c., and inquired who was Judge Emmons? When he came here he had scarce two shirts to his back; but he had been dandled by the authorities of the city, &c., and was now editor of the Nauvoo Expositor, and his right hand man, was Francis M. Higbee, who had confessed to him that he had had the——! [the blank at the end likely refers to a venereal disease contracted by Higbee from a prostitution ring run by John C. Bennett][7]"

[Jeanne]

You know, Democracy was probably the wrong word to use but I was assuming everybody knew what I meant.  In any case after reading through all of this and learning too, it just seems that all the rules/laws don't apply to Mr. Joseph Smith. 

[Calm]

Another report about Law...again whether or not the evidence is accurate, I am not concluding as I have no knowledge of the individual telling it, also note the date of the diary entry:

http://scottwoodward.org/josephsmith_williamlawtriestokillinNauvoo.html

"Charles had another faith promoting experience last night. Early in the morning, even while the darkness still hemmed out the light of day, Mr. Law, after he had been drinking and planning with his associates throughout the night, got Charles out of bed to clean and oil his gun. He said he was going to shoot the Prophet—only William Law called him “Old Joe Smith.” Poor Charles was frightened beyond description, but Mr. Law stood over him and prodded him with his foot when Charles hesitated through fright and anxiety. Finally, when Mr. Law was satisfied with the way the gun was working he put one bullet in. He boasted he could kill the prophet with one shot. He sent Charles to bring the Prophet. He ran as fast as he could and delivered the message, but he begged the Prophet not to go to Mr. Law’s as Mr. Law was drunk, and Charles was afraid he would carry through on his threat to shoot the Prophet in cold blood. As they walked the few blocks from the Mansion house to the Law residence, the Prophet assured Charles that no harm would come to him that day. Charles was frightened, and he said that it kept racing through his mind, “I am the one that cleaned the gun that is going to be used to kill the Prophet,” until he was sick with fear. The Prophet, in the final attempt to calm my dear son, uttered the fateful words, “Mr. Law may someday kill me, Charles, but it won’t be today.”

As they approached their destination, Mr. Law came staggering out of the house shouting out what he intended to do. The Prophet said kindly and unafraid, “You sent for me, Mr. Law?” To which Mr. Law replied with oath that now he was going to do the whole world a favor by disposing of the Prophet with one shot. Calmly, the Prophet unbuttoned his shirt and bared his chest, and then said, “I’m ready now, Mr. Law.” Charles said at this point he nearly fainted. Sick fear strangled him until he was speechless and paralyzed, unable to move a muscle. Mr. Law paced a few steps, turned, aimed, and pressed the trigger. There was complete silence. Then the air rang with profanity and Mr. Law turned on Charles, accusing him of fixing the gun so it would not go off and threatened to kill even Charles—my innocent, frightened, but faithful son. The Prophet, to divert Mr. Law’s blame of Charles, suggested that a can be placed on a fence post for Mr. Law to take a practice shot. Relieved, Charles ran for a can and laid it on its side on a post. Mr. Law paced back, took aim, and fired. His one shot streaked through the exact center of the can. Even Mr. Law was quiet as if stunned. The Prophet buttoned up his shirt, gave Charles a meaningful look, and then said, “If you are finished with me now, Mr. Law, I have other things needing to be done.” (As quoted by Robert H. Daines at BYU-Idaho Devotional, 28 May 2002)"

Edited November 22, 2014 by calmoriah

[canard78]

When I was in HS 14 was the legal age of consent to marry.

 

Inciting murder isn't exactly what I'd call reputable.

 

Come on... inciting? Do you really think Law was intentionally encouraging people to kill Joseph?

[canard78]

Another report about Law...again whether or not the evidence is accurate, I am not concluding as I have no knowledge of the individual telling it, also note the date of the diary entry:

http://scottwoodward.org/josephsmith_williamlawtriestokillinNauvoo.html

"Charles had another faith promoting experience last night. Early in the morning, even while the darkness still hemmed out the light of day, Mr. Law, after he had been drinking and planning with his associates throughout the night, got Charles out of bed to clean and oil his gun. He said he was going to shoot the Prophet—only William Law called him “Old Joe Smith.” Poor Charles was frightened beyond description, but Mr. Law stood over him and prodded him with his foot when Charles hesitated through fright and anxiety. Finally, when Mr. Law was satisfied with the way the gun was working he put one bullet in. He boasted he could kill the prophet with one shot. He sent Charles to bring the Prophet. He ran as fast as he could and delivered the message, but he begged the Prophet not to go to Mr. Law’s as Mr. Law was drunk, and Charles was afraid he would carry through on his threat to shoot the Prophet in cold blood. As they walked the few blocks from the Mansion house to the Law residence, the Prophet assured Charles that no harm would come to him that day. Charles was frightened, and he said that it kept racing through his mind, “I am the one that cleaned the gun that is going to be used to kill the Prophet,” until he was sick with fear. The Prophet, in the final attempt to calm my dear son, uttered the fateful words, “Mr. Law may someday kill me, Charles, but it won’t be today.”

As they approached their destination, Mr. Law came staggering out of the house shouting out what he intended to do. The Prophet said kindly and unafraid, “You sent for me, Mr. Law?” To which Mr. Law replied with oath that now he was going to do the whole world a favor by disposing of the Prophet with one shot. Calmly, the Prophet unbuttoned his shirt and bared his chest, and then said, “I’m ready now, Mr. Law.” Charles said at this point he nearly fainted. Sick fear strangled him until he was speechless and paralyzed, unable to move a muscle. Mr. Law paced a few steps, turned, aimed, and pressed the trigger. There was complete silence. Then the air rang with profanity and Mr. Law turned on Charles, accusing him of fixing the gun so it would not go off and threatened to kill even Charles—my innocent, frightened, but faithful son. The Prophet, to divert Mr. Law’s blame of Charles, suggested that a can be placed on a fence post for Mr. Law to take a practice shot. Relieved, Charles ran for a can and laid it on its side on a post. Mr. Law paced back, took aim, and fired. His one shot streaked through the exact center of the can. Even Mr. Law was quiet as if stunned. The Prophet buttoned up his shirt, gave Charles a meaningful look, and then said, “If you are finished with me now, Mr. Law, I have other things needing to be done.” (As quoted by Robert H. Daines at BYU-Idaho Devotional, 28 May 2002)"

 

If we're going to start pulling out third party diary entries I've got a few about Joseph Smith that could be added to the mix... I'm just not sure how that (or your posts) really add to the conversation.

 

Some of the personal attacks on Law, both then and today, is pretty unpleasant. From what I read of him, he seems to have been sincerely seeking a solution.

[ERayR]

Come on... inciting? Do you really think Law was intentionally encouraging people to kill Joseph?

 

Yrs.  Can you prove otherwise?

[canard78]

Yrs.  Can you prove otherwise?

 

If you're accusing William Law of knowingly and intentionally writing something that would lead to the death of Joseph then the burden of proof lies with you.

 

If you're saying it was Law's intention then I think you, not I, should provide some evidence. Can you? Or it just baseless slander?

[Nevo]

The City Council duly passed an ordinance under which Joseph Smith acted, having sought and obtained legal advice, abating the press as a nuisance. And he offered to compensate the press's owners, even though he was neither legally nor morally obligated to do so. What rationale do you have (or, for that matter, what rationale does anyone else have), other than applying a 20th-century legal concept to an action that took place in the mid-19th century, for concluding that Joseph Smith acted wrongfully?

 

Thomas Ford's nineteenth-century legal opinion was that the Joseph Smith and the city council had violated the law.

 

The material facts to be noticed are that a newspaper called the Nauvoo Expositor was established in Nauvoo; that this newspaper was deemed offensive to the people of that city; that the Common Council, without notice or process to the owners, entered into a trial and heard statements not under oath, and evidence which was under oath, in rela­tion to the character, conduct and designs of the owners and editors of the press; that, upon hearing such statements and evidence, the Com­mon Council passed an ordinance or resolution declaring said press and paper to be a public nuisance, and ordered the same to be abated as such; that a writ was issued by the Mayor to the Marshal of the city for that purpose; that a military order was issued at the same time by the Mayor, who is also Lieutenant-General of the Nauvoo Legion, to the Major-General in command of that Legion, for a force sufficient to ensure the execution of the writ aforesaid. . . .

I now express to you my opinion that your conduct in the destruction of the press was a very gross outrage upon the laws and the liberties of the people. It may have been full of libels, but this did not author­ize you to destroy it. There are many newspapers in this state which have been wrongfully abusing me for more than a year, and yet such is my regard for the liberty of the press and the rights of a free people in a republican gov­ernment that I would shed the last drop of my blood to protect those presses from any illegal violence. You have violated the Constitution in at least four particulars.

 

You have violated that part of it which declares that the printing presses shall be free, being responsible for the abuse thereof, and that the truth may be given in evidence. This article of the Constitution contemplates that the proprietors of a libelous press may be sued for private damages, or may be indicted criminally, and that upon trial they should have the right to give the truth in evidence. In this case the proprietors had no notice of the proceeding.

 

The Constitution also provides that the people shall be protected against unreasonable searches and seizures of their property and "That no man shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, except by the judgment of his peers (which means a jury trial) and the law of the land,” which means due process of law and notice to the accused.

You have also violated the Constitution and your own charter in this: Your Council, which has no judicial powers, and can only pass ordi­nances of a general nature, have undertaken to pass judgment as a court and convict without a jury a press of being libelous and a nuisance to the city. The Council at most could only define a nuisance by general ordi­nance, and leave it to the courts to determine whether individuals or particulars accused came within such definition.

 

The Constitution abhors and will not tolerate the union of legislative and judicial power in the same body of magistracy, because, as in this case, they will first make a tyrannical law, and then execute it in a tyrannical manner. You have also assumed to yourselves more power than you are entitled to in relation to writs of habeas under your charter. I know that you have been told by lawyers; for the purpose of gaining your favor that you have this power to any extent. In this they have deceived you for their own base purposes. Your charter supposes that you may pass ordinances, a breach of which will result in the imprisonment of the offender. . . .

It has also been reserved to you to make the discovery that a newspaper charged to be scurrilous and libelous may be legally abated or removed as a nuisance. In no other state, county, city, town or ter­ritory in the United States has ever such a thing been thought of before. Such an act at this day would not be tolerated even in England. Just such another act in 1830 hurled the king of France from his throne, and caused the imprisonment of four of his principal ministers for life. No civilized country can tolerate such conduct; much less can it be tol­erated in this free country of the United States.

 

The result of my deliberations on this subject is, that I will have to require you and all persons in Nauvoo accused or sued to submit in all cases implicitly to the process of the court, and to interpose no obstacles to an arrest, either by writ of habeas corpus or otherwise; and that all of the people of the city of Nauvoo shall make and continue the most complete submission to the laws of the state, and the process of the courts and justices of the peace. In the particular case now under consideration, I require any and all of you who are or shall be accused to submit yourselves to be arrested by the same constable, by virtue of the same warrant and be tried before the same magistrate whose authority has heretofore been resisted. Nothing short of this can vindicate the dignity of violated law and allay the just excitement of the people.

 

— Thomas Ford to Joseph Smith, 22 June 1844, Joseph Smith Collection, CHL.

 

Whatever you think of his analysis here, recall that prior to his election as governor Ford was a state supreme court justice. Even if Ford is wrong by modern lights, these views were widely held at the time.

[Nevo]

Another report about Law...again whether or not the evidence is accurate, I am not concluding as I have no knowledge of the individual telling it, also note the date of the diary entry:

http://scottwoodward.org/josephsmith_williamlawtriestokillinNauvoo.html

 

I am quite certain that this entry—and indeed the whole diary—is a forgery.

[Calm]

Really, good to know….and worth posting it and getting scolded by canard for doing so.    

 

What leads you to that conclusion?

Edited November 22, 2014 by calmoriah

[Kenngo1969]

Yes I believe that the destruction of the press was a violation of the first amendment. ...

OK.  How do you reconcile that position with the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court had yet to extend First Amendment protection to overreaching by state and local officials via the Incorporation Doctrine, and, in fact, would not do so for nearly another eighty years?  And in light of this, on what basis do you propose that Joseph Smith should have known that his actions were wrongful in light of legal advice he had received to the contrary?

Edited November 22, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

 

Thomas Ford's nineteenth-century legal opinion was that the Joseph Smith and the city council had violated the law.

 

 

Whatever you think of his analysis here, recall that prior to his election as governor Ford was a state supreme court justice. Even if Ford is wrong by modern lights, these views were widely held at the time.

OK.  Do you dispute that Joseph Smith both sought and obtained legal advice to the contrary?

[canard78]

Really, good to know….and worth posting it and getting scolded by canard for doing so.

[Anteojito]

OK.  How do you reconcile that position with the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court had yet to extend First Amendment protection to overreaching by state and local officials via the Incorporation Doctrine, and, in fact, would not do so for nearly another eighty years?  And in light of this, on what basis do you propose that Joseph Smith should have known that his actions were wrongful in light of legal advice he had received to the contrary?

I reconcile it with the fact that there was nothing in Expositor the justified the destruction of the press. 

What was written was personally embarrassing to Joseph Smith, but it is not against the law to embarrass someone, especially when what is said is true.  

[ERayR]

If you're accusing William Law of knowingly and intentionally writing something that would lead to the death of Joseph then the burden of proof lies with you.

 

If you're saying it was Law's intention then I think you, not I, should provide some evidence. Can you? Or it just baseless slander?

 

I don't see where I said it was in writing.  Calmoriah's post #158 is one instance.  Whether you accept it as factual or not is up to you.

[ERayR]

 

Thomas Ford's nineteenth-century legal opinion was that the Joseph Smith and the city council had violated the law.

 

 

Whatever you think of his analysis here, recall that prior to his election as governor Ford was a state supreme court justice. Even if Ford is wrong by modern lights, these views were widely held at the time.

 

 

OK.  Do you dispute that Joseph Smith both sought and obtained legal advice to the contrary?

 

And opposing legal opinions are what lawsuits are made of.  Each opinion as valid as the other until the courts rule otherwise.

[Nevo]

What leads you to that conclusion?

If you check out the whole diary (which is suspiciously short) I think you'll notice that it reads like bad fiction. Nothing in it is credible. All of the characters are broadly drawn caricatures (especially William Law, who, unlike his real-life counterpart, is here a foul-mouthed drunkard). I think it was probably written in the early 20th century, based on expressions like "umpteenth" (which first came into use around the turn of the 20th century and gained prominence after WW1), "keep your eyes and ears open", and "faith promoting experience" (which, as far as I can tell, did not enter the Mormon lexicon until the 1880s). "Keep him posted" also seems out of place for 1844.

Robert H. Daines described the provenance of the diary in a 2000 BYU devotional: "I should like to share with you an entry from the diary of my great-great grandmother. This is a record of a little-known experience of the Prophet Joseph—little known because this diary was lost for 30 to 40 years in my mother’s home in New Jersey. It was only rediscovered as they were preparing to move back to Utah in the late 1970s. This is a diary entry of Sister Sarah Stoddard." My guess is that it was created ca. 1920-1930.

Edited November 23, 2014 by Nevo

[The Nehor]

If you're accusing William Law of knowingly and intentionally writing something that would lead to the death of Joseph then the burden of proof lies with you.

 

If you're saying it was Law's intention then I think you, not I, should provide some evidence. Can you? Or it just baseless slander?

If this was a court of law then yes, you would have to prove he intended to kill him. However,history is made up of logical inferences. If you are providing support for murderers and consorting with murderers and trying to debase those they are about to murder I am not under any obligation to presume innocence when everything about the situation screams that you are guilty as hell.

[Anteojito]

If this was a court of law then yes, you would have to prove he intended to kill him. However,history is made up of logical inferences. If you are providing support for murderers and consorting with murderers and trying to debase those they are about to murder I am not under any obligation to presume innocence when everything about the situation screams that you are guilty as hell.

You are so right You don't need to prove anything. You don't like what William Law said in the Expositor so clearly he must have provided support for murderers and consorted with murderers. Yeah, who needs proof? 

Edited November 23, 2014 by Anteojito

[cinepro]

The expositor was right about JS practicing polygamy but was it right in explaining the practice?  Did it seek to give a honest, objective information or create scandel and hostility?  On one end is true journalism.   On the other is something like you would see in the National Enquirer.  About 5% truth and a whole lot of crap.

 

You're being presentist.

 

As described by BYU Studies about newspapers of this era:

 

 

 

The average newspaper in the less populous regions was not only edited but written almost entirely by the editor, who was often poorly educated. This was an era of democratic agitation in which the primacy of the newspaper was virtually unchallenged. Frequently the editor or his financial backer established a newspaper with the specific purpose of expressing or suppressing a definite political, religious, or social view. Vicious libel was common.

 

We only object to the style and tone now because of our modern cultural standards. 

Edited November 23, 2014 by cinepro