So The Nauvoo Expositor Was Right Afterall

[Anteojito]

I'm not sure it does still make it wrong.

Some things are wrong because they are morally wrong, and some things are wrong because someone made a lay declaring they are wrong. Stealing, for example, is morally wrong. Jay walking on the other hand isn't morally wrong but is wrong only because someone decided it should be.

We can make a case for why slavery is morally wrong but I don't know that you could make a case for why destroying a printing press is morally wrong.

If you had to argue this idea in a country or place where freedom of speech isn't protected by law or was something the populace had never heard of before, could you convince them that people have a moral duty to allow others to say whatever they want?

What would you base your argument on?

Freedom of speech is one of the fundamental rights of any democracy. I've lived in a country with a dictatorship. You can clearly see the difference. To me it is a moral issue just as slavery is one.  

 

The Nauvoo Expositor stated that Joseph Smith was practicing polygamy. Joseph Smith was indeed practicing polygamy and he was the one telling lies about it. As far as what else was printed in the paper, if Joseph Smith had issues about it, he could have sued. 

[Kenngo1969]

And those statements justify destroying the press and trampling on the the first amendment?

First Amendment jurisprudence wasn't nearly as well developed in 1844 as it is today.  (But don't let that stop you from viewing events from the former period in your handy-dandy 21st-century presentist lens! )

[Kenngo1969]

Marvin Hall and Dallin Oaks wrote an ancient article about it being legal within the laws of the time.

It's Hill, but yes, they did.

[Anteojito]

On frontier America, circa 1800's it was not uncommon to forcefully close down nuisance newspapers.

Still does not make it right. 

[JLHPROF]

Still does not make it right. 

 

That's your moral opinion, not an absolute fact.

Freedom of the press is an important one, as is freedom of speech, for our society today.  But that doesn't make them moral (Godly) principles.  God allowed Satan his freedom of speech, until he had convinced 1/3 part of God's children to follow him.  Then he was shut down, kicked out, and lost his privileges and rights.

 

In our "Free" nation the press may have legal right to print whatever they want.  God, the definer of all that is moral, does not agree with the right to speak evil and allows for punishment of those that do.

[Anteojito]

First Amendment jurisprudence wasn't nearly as well developed in 1844 as it is today.  (But don't let that stop you from viewing events from the former period in your handy-dandy 21st-century presentist lens! )

I am so sick of that excuse. I am not talking about what was legal! I am talking about what is right and what is wrong.

 

I find it so interesting that nobody is willing to say "Joseph Smith was wrong for ordering to have the press destroyed and he should not have done it"

 

 

Look, I don't believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet. I do believe though that IF he was a real prophet, it could have been wrong to destroy the press and still be prophet. The prophets of the OT screwed stuff up from time to time.

Edited November 21, 2014 by Anteojito

[Anteojito]

That's your moral opinion, not an absolute fact.

Freedom of the press is an important one, as is freedom of speech, for our society today.  But that doesn't make them moral (Godly) principles.  God allowed Satan his freedom of speech, until he had convinced 1/3 part of God's children to follow him.  Then he was shut down, kicked out, and lost his privileges and rights.

 

In our "Free" nation the press may have legal right to print whatever they want.  God, the definer of all that is moral, does not agree with the right to speak evil and allows for punishment of those that do.

What "evil" was printed in the Nauvoo Expositor that justified the destruction of the press?

[Duncan]

What "evil" was printed in the Nauvoo Expositor that justified the destruction of the press?

 

if you don't know everything are you really in a position to judge the people and actions they took?

[Anteojito]

if you don't know everything are you really in a position to judge the people and actions they took?

I have read it. I didn't see anything that justified the destruction of the press. I was asking him what he saw that justified it.

[thesometimesaint]

Of course I have a problem with that. But that does not justify destroying William Law's press

 

Presentism.

[Duncan]

I have read it. I didn't see anything that justified the destruction of the press. I was asking him what he saw that justified it.

 

 

not just the paper but the whole entirety of the event surrounding it-I just don't think any of us today are in a position to say it was right or wrong, it happened and let God sort it out

[Nevo]

I agree with Dallin H. Oaks that the suppression of the Nauvoo Expositor as a nuisance "was not entirely illegal" and "can be supported by reference to the law of their day"—however, the destruction of the printing press and type (worth more than $2,000) was definitely illegal. I also agree with his conclusion that "its consequences were disastrous . . . and that alternative means might better have been employed." Personally, I think it was a grave mistake, as it played right into the stereotype of Joseph as a dangerous tyrant and enemy of democracy.

[Jeanne]

do you have a problem with an anti Mormon mob destroying Phelps's printing press in July of 1833? in his home no less?

I do.  In my opinion, the destruction of any press demeans democracy.

[Kenngo1969]

I am so sick of that excuse. I am not talking about what was legal! I am talking about what is right and what is wrong.

 

I find it so interesting that nobody is willing to say "Joseph Smith was wrong for ordering to have the press destroyed and he should not have done it"

OK.  Put yourself in Joseph Smith's shoes for a second.  Try to see things from his perspective, rather than your own.  What's "right" about official government sanction (via Governor Boggs' infamous Extermination Order) of what otherwise would be clearly lawless conduct of dispossessing people of their property without due process, driving them out, and killing many of them, on the one hand, versus destroying a printing press when a duly authorized ordinance at least arguably allows its destruction if duly elected community representatives deem it to be a nuisance, on the other hand?  At worst, isn't the destruction of the press simply "the lesser of two evils"?

 

 

 

Look, I don't believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet. I do believe though that IF he was a real prophet, it could have been wrong to destroy the press and still be prophet. The prophets of the OT screwed stuff up from time to time.

 

OK.  But with respect to Joseph Smith, you're still imposing 21st-century legal standards and notions of right and wrong on an event that occurred 170 years ago.  This wouldn't bother you so much if you were more willing to judge him by the standards of his time rather than by those of your own.  And that's true no matter what anyone's opinion is of the legality or the morality of the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor press.

[Anteojito]

I agree with Dallin H. Oaks that the suppression of the Nauvoo Expositor as a nuisance "was not entirely illegal" and "can be supported by reference to the law of their day"—however, the destruction of the printing press and type (worth more than $2,000) was definitely illegal. I also agree with his conclusion that "its consequences were disastrous . . . and that alternative means might better have been employed." Personally, I think it was a grave mistake, as it played right into the stereotype of Joseph as a dangerous tyrant and enemy of democracy.

Thank you.

 

 If I still believed he was a true prophet, I would be (and I was when I was a TBM) very comfortable with the idea that Joesph Smith could have been wrong to destroy the press, but still be the Prophet. He did not deserve to be killed in that way and I think if he had not done it, He would have been the one to lead the Saints to Utah.

[ERayR]

Still does not make it right. 

 

And I do not think it right that you can sit on your soft backside, with a full stomach and a warm comfortable house and pass your sanctimonious judgement on those that made it possible for you.

[Anteojito]

OK.  Put yourself in Joseph Smith's shoes for a second.  Try to see things from his perspective, rather than your own.  What's "right" about official government sanction (via Governor Boggs' infamous Extermination Order) of what otherwise would be clearly lawless conduct of dispossessing people of their property without due process, driving them out, and killing many of them, on the one hand, versus destroying a printing press when a duly authorized ordinance at least arguably allows its destruction if duly elected community representatives deem it to be a nuisance, on the other hand?  At worst, isn't the destruction of the press simply "the lesser of two evils"?

 

Like my mother used to say when I responded with "He hit me first!" - "Two wrongs don't make a right" 

 

As the Prophet of the Lord, he can and should be held to a higher standard or what is right and what is wrong.

 

OK.  But with respect to Joseph Smith, you're still imposing 21st-century legal standards and notions of right and wrong on an event that occurred 170 years ago.  This wouldn't bother you so much if you were more willing to judge him by the standards of his time rather than by those of your own.  And that's true no matter what anyone's opinion is of the legality or the morality of the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor press.

 

Well by 19th - century legal standards there were a lot of people who thought what he did was wrong

Edited November 21, 2014 by Anteojito

[ERayR]

I am so sick of that excuse. I am not talking about what was legal! I am talking about what is right and what is wrong.

 

 

I am so sick of that excuse. elitist presentism. 

[Anteojito]

And I do not think it right that you can sit on your soft backside, with a full stomach and a warm comfortable house and pass your sanctimonious judgement on those that made it possible for you.

How in the world did Joseph Smith or the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter day do anything that made my apparently cushy life possible?

 

What a sad day it is, when saying that the prevention of free speech is is wrong is considered sanctimonious judgement...

 

 

BTW I spent almost 2 1/2 years in SWA. I can promise you, that my backside is not soft

Edited November 21, 2014 by Anteojito

[ERayR]

I have read it. I didn't see anything that justified the destruction of the press. I was asking him what he saw that justified it.

 

Would you consider inciting mob action against the Church and its leaders as a mitigating circumstance?  Inciting violence was not against the law but definitely immoral

[ERayR]

How in the world did Joseph Smith or the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter day do anything that made my apparently cushy life possible?

 

 

Every person who helped settle the frontiers and build a nation, including Joseph Smith or the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter day(sic) made your cushy life possible.

[bluebell]

I do. In my opinion, the destruction of any press demeans democracy.

A democracy is when people are allowed to vote and the majority rules. The US is not a democracy it's a democratic republic which is different.

The founding fathers specifically stayed away from creating a democracy (for good reason) because they are dangerous. In a democracy, if the majority of people voted to enslave everyone with blue eyes, or kill all Dallas cowboy fans, then those things would become legal.

It was the downfall of Greece and the founding fathers didn't want to repeat their mistakes. The Greeks once voted to kill a general who had won a battle, because he did not win by a large enough margin. They felt bad about it later but the guy was already dead by then. That is the fruit if a democracy. Mob rule.

In a democracy, if the majority of the citizens of Nauvoo voted to destroy the press then destroying the press would be the only democratic thing to do.

Democracy is just a form if government. It's not inherently more or less moral than any other form, and it would not guarantee freedom of the press.

[Kenngo1969]

Anteojito, do you contend that the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor press was a violation of the First Amendment?

[bluebell]

Freedom of speech is one of the fundamental rights of any democracy. I've lived in a country with a dictatorship. You can clearly see the difference. To me it is a moral issue just as slavery is one.

The Nauvoo Expositor stated that Joseph Smith was practicing polygamy. Joseph Smith was indeed practicing polygamy and he was the one telling lies about it. As far as what else was printed in the paper, if Joseph Smith had issues about it, he could have sued.

I just explained all of this to Jeanne so you can reference that post for more clarification.

But I'll say again that a democracy is not what you appear to think it is. Democracy has nothing to do with protecting freedom of speech for everyone. The majority of people in a democracy could vote to make it illegal for people to say anything bad about a leader for example, and it would still be a democracy.

Remember that Socrates was sentenced to death for publicly teaching things the Athenian majority (which only included men of course. Women were not allowed to vote) felt were dangerous to the Athenian government.

Edited November 21, 2014 by bluebell

[Anteojito]

Every person who helped settle the frontiers and build a nation, including Joseph Smith or the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter day(sic) made your cushy life possible.

OK fine. They are some of the millions of people who settled the nation. We should never ever ever ever make any judgement about any of  their actions