So The Nauvoo Expositor Was Right Afterall

[Anteojito]

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.

In the United States the people can not vote to make it illegal for people to say anything bad about a leader. That would be unconstitional and any such law would and should be struck down by the Judicial Branch

[Calm]

I think whether it was immoral or not depended on the reasoning. People can do something wrong but for moral reasons and there are things that are illegal that may be moral to do and possibly immoral to abide by the law (if one doesn't help someone for example in need of help because of fear they are going to be sued).

I think if Joseph pushed the City Council to destroy the press out of fear he would look bad, that would be immoral. If he didn't because he honestly believed that destroying it would stop a mob from being formed that would then cause harm to the citizens of Nauvoo, I think that would be a moral choice.

His advisers told him it was legal and he had offered to compensate the owners for the loss of property which speaks IMO to his intent being more likely moral than immoral. That his advisers were mistaken and it was not legal to destroy the press but only the publication was not, it seems to me his fault, but the fault of the law not being as clearly written as it should, his advisers not taking the time to inform themselves as they should on that point or something else that Joseph didn't have control over.

Though we can't really know what would have happened if the City Council hadn't had the press destroyed, it does appear in hindsight to have backfired and thus be the wrong choice, but it is possible in my opinion it was a lose-lose situation, do nothing and get the mob, destroy publication and get arrested and get mob targeted on Joseph and those with him. That the mob was able to be focused on Joseph himself and had not just gone after the city in general could actually be seen as a better result, as tragic as it was.

[Calm]

In the United States the people can not vote to make it illegal for people to say anything bad about a leader. That would be unconstitional and any such law would and should be struck down by the Judicial Branch

And thus it is not a democracy.

[canard78]

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

Actually, I think Elder Oaks' article/paper concludes that destroying the papers was legal but destroying the press was not.

ETA:

Joseph Smith, as mayor, ordered the city marshal, John Greene, to destroy the press, scatter the type, and burn any remaining newspapers. The order was carried out within hours. The city council acted legally to abate a public nuisance, although the legal opinion of the time allowed only the destruction of the published issues of the offending paper. The demolition of the press was a violation of property rights.6

6. See Dallin H. Oaks, “The Suppression of the Nauvoo Expositor,” Utah Law Review, Winter 1965, pp. 890–91.

https://www.lds.org/manual/church-history-in-the-fulness-of-times-student-manual/chapter-twenty-two-the-martyrdom?lang=eng Edited November 21, 2014 by canard78

[ERayR]

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

 

Judgements fine.  Condemnation not so much, until you have lived with and experienced what it was to contend with what they had to contend with.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think whether it was immoral or not depended on the reasoning. People can do something wrong but for moral reasons and there are things that are illegal that may be moral to do and possibly immoral to abide by the law (if one doesn't help someone for example in need of help because of fear they are going to be sued).

I think if Joseph pushed the City Council to destroy the press out of fear he would look bad, that would be immoral. If he didn't because he honestly believed that destroying it would stop a mob from being formed that would then cause harm to the citizens of Nauvoo, I think that would be a moral choice.

His advisers told him it was legal and he had offered to compensate the owners for the loss of property which speaks IMO to his intent being more likely moral than immoral. That his advisers were mistaken and it was not legal to destroy the press but only the publication was not, it seems to me his fault, but the fault of the law not being as clearly written as it should, his advisers not taking the time to inform themselves as they should on that point or something else that Joseph didn't have control over.

Though we can't really know what would have happened if the City Council hadn't had the press destroyed, it does appear in hindsight to have backfired and thus be the wrong choice, but it is possible in my opinion it was a lose-lose situation, do nothing and get the mob, destroy publication and get arrested and get mob targeted on Joseph and those with him. That the mob was able to be focused on Joseph himself and had not just gone after the city in general could actually be seen as a better result, as tragic as it was.

A very well-reasoned post.

 

If the long-term effect of the suppression of the Expositor was to postpone inevitable destruction of the city by mobs and through internal treachery, thus buying time for the completion of the temple (seen as necessary to give the saints the spiritual strength to endure the trials to come) and the somewhat orderly evacuation of the city, then the act could be seen to have had some value and not having backfired.

 

In that event, playing off the wording of this thread title, one might say, "So the suppression of the Nauvoo Expositor was right after all."

Edited November 21, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

In the United States the people can not vote to make it illegal for people to say anything bad about a leader. That would be unconstitional and any such law would and should be struck down by the Judicial Branch

Yes, but that wasn't the point of my post.

You claimed in your post to me that freedom of speech was a hallmark of a democracy and you did so, it seems, as evidence to support your assertion that freedom of speech is morally good.

I was just explaining why your belief about what a democracy actually is is wrong, and that calls into question your conclusions because they are based on an erroneous belief.

[Anteojito]

And thus it is not a democracy.

I was responding to bluebell's comment.  And you are right it is not about democracy. 

 

Going back to my original post. I feel the church should re-think how they portray the events in the lesson manuals.

[TOmNossor]

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.

I want to comment not on the value of democracy over dictator ship or even the topic of your thread. But, your arguments and your point her betray IMO a point of view that should be challenged. You may choose to not challenge it within yourself, but perhaps someone sympathetic to your position might find value in challenging it.

I do not think the principles of liberal democracy are above question as you seem to believe.

There are no prophetic voices in a liberal democracy. Nobody is right based upon their call or the connection to God in a liberal democracy.

That the rational arguments for the positions of the CoJCoLDS survive well as I weight them using the tools of liberal democracy is remarkable considering this is not the authority upon which they rest.

I see you are a former LDS, but I think you have uncritically accepted the tenets of liberal democracy and now weigh Mormonism by them. Such is a mistake IMO.

http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2014/06/one-does-not-simply-lose-ones-testimony-a-heartfelt-plea/3601/

Charity, TOm

Edited November 21, 2014 by TOmNossor

[Scott Lloyd]

Actually, I think Elder Oaks' article/paper concludes that destroying the papers was legal but destroying the press was not.

ETA:

https://www.lds.org/manual/church-history-in-the-fulness-of-times-student-manual/chapter-twenty-two-the-martyrdom?lang=eng

And afterward, Joseph was quite willing to monetarily compensate the owners for the destruction of the press.

[Scott Lloyd]

I want to comment not on the value of democracy over dictator ship or even the topic of your thread. But, your arguments and your point her betray IMO a point of view that should be challenged. You may choose to not challenge it within yourself, but perhaps someone sympathetic to your position might find value in challenging it.

I do not think the principles of liberal democracy are above question as you seem to believe.

There are no prophetic voices in a liberal democracy. Nobody is right based upon their call or the connection to God in a liberal democracy.

That the rational arguments for the positions of the CoJCoLDS survive well as I weight them using the tools of liberal democracy is remarkable considering this is not the authority upon which they rest.

I see you are a former LDS, but I think you have uncritically accepted the tenets of liberal democracy and now weigh Mormonism by them. Such is a mistake IMO.

http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2014/06/one-does-not-simply-lose-ones-testimony-a-heartfelt-plea/3601/

Charity, TOm

To put it another way, in settings where government by God does not prevail, democracy is the next best thing.

[Calm]

To put it another way, in settings where government by God does not prevail, democracy is the next best thing.

Depends on the people in that democracy. As Bluebell showed, IMO it is not always the next best thing. If the people are ignorant or selfcentered or irrational or arrogant to excess, a wise dictator might be better.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

...... I think......

There in lies your problem.

 

 

 

Edit to add

 

 

Hehe. I couldnt resit.

Edited November 21, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Scott Lloyd]

Depends on the people in that democracy. As Bluebell showed, IMO it is not always the next best thing. If the people are ignorant or selfcentered or irrational or arrogant to excess, a wise dictator might be better.

I still say democracy is the next best thing. I say this because of my commitment and adherence to the divine doctrine of moral agency.

 

I just read a quotation on Daniel Peterson's blog. I'll quote it here, because I think it may have some bearing on this point.

 

Peterson said:

 

I’ll quote, once again, one of my very favorite passages from one of my very favorite plays, Robert Bolt’s A Man for All Seasons.  In it, Sir Thomas More — soon to be executed by my late relative Henry VIII, and, shortly thereafter, to become a canonized saint of the Roman Catholic Church — teaches his zealously righteous son-in-law William Roper about the importance of law and proper process, even when they get in the way of one’s own goals and create obstacles for what one thinks ought to be done:

 

Roper:  “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”

More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”

Roper:  “Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!”

More:  “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!”

 

I think this is relevant to our discussion here in that it would not be right for a dictator -- benevolent, wise or just though he might be regarded as being -- to do violence to law to achieve his ends, especially law that upholds the principle of moral agency.

Edited November 21, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[cinepro]

I just finished reading "American Crucifixion", and in it's discussion of the destruction of the Expositor press it notes the contemporary backlash against the action.

 

I was surprised, because after years on this board I thought any objection to the action was nothing more then "presentist" projection, but no, there were people back then who recognized it as being illegal, unconstitutional and wrong, in spite of similar acts that may also have been found on the frontier.  Silencing a printing press through violence was not considered acceptable back then, and people who continue to object to it today are not out of step with some people of the 1840s (just as people who think Joseph Smith was justified have plenty of Joseph's contemporaries who would agree with them).

Edited November 21, 2014 by cinepro

[Scott Lloyd]

I just finished reading "American Crucifixion", and in it's discussion of the destruction of the Expositor press it notes the contemporary backlash against the action.

 

I was surprised, because after years on this board I thought any objection to the action was nothing more then "presentist" projection, but no, there were people back then who recognized it as being illegal, unconstitutional and wrong, in spite of similar acts that may also have been found on the frontier.  Silencing a printing press through violence was not considered acceptable back then, and people who continue to object to it today are not out of step with some people of the 1840s (just as people who think Joseph Smith was justified have plenty of Joseph's contemporaries who would agree with them).

People back then also thought the oppression of the Mormons was acceptable because so many people approved of it. The Latin phrase that was evoked was vox po·pu·li vox Dei .

[bluebell]

I still say democracy is the next best thing. I say this because of my commitment and adherence to the divine doctrine of moral agency.

I'm not sure how a democracy supports moral agency any more than a republic, for example.

Socrates choose to live and teach according to the dictates of his conscience and the democracy he lived in sentenced him to death for it.

[cinepro]

People back then also thought the oppression of the Mormons was acceptable because so many people approved of it. The Latin phrase that was evoked was vox po·pu·li vox Dei .

 

Not all people.  I was just pointing out that it's not "presentist" to think something that some people back then thought too.  There were a variety of opinions on the subject, and to imply that "it was okay back then" is spurious. 

 

It's also odd to have LDS retreating to arguments based on moral relativity, especially when the things most often argued for (Joseph Smith's polygamy, the destruction of the Expositor press) were the things so rejected that it helped lead to his murder.

Edited November 21, 2014 by cinepro

[Kenngo1969]

To put it another way, in settings where government by God does not prevail, [representative] democracy [not pure democracy] is the next best thing.

All fixed!  (Yes, I know, I disagree with The Great Scott Lloyd at my own peril! )

 

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm not sure how a democracy supports moral agency any more than a republic, for example.

Socrates choose to live and teach according to the dictates of his conscience and the democracy he lived in sentenced him to death for it.

What I am talking about is the broader philosophical principle of government by the voice of the people, whether that be expressed through a democracy or through a constitutional republic.

 

On this point, I draw my convictions from these scriptural passages:

 

 

76 And again I say unto you, those who have been scattered by their enemies, it is my will that they should continue to importune for redress, and redemption, by the hands of those who are placed as rulers and are in authority over you—

 77 According to the laws and ^aconstitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the ^brights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;

 78 That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral ^aagency which I have given unto him, that every man may be ^baccountable for his own sins in the day of ^cjudgment.

 79 Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in ^abondage one to another.

 80 And for this purpose have I established the ^aConstitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the ^bshedding of blood.

 

(D&C 101:76-80; bold emphasis mine.)

 

 4 And now, verily I say unto you concerning the ^alaws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them.

 5 And that ^alaw of the land which is ^bconstitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.

 6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the ^aconstitutional law of the land;

 7 And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.

 

(D&C 98:4-7; bold emphasis mine)

 

If, under such a governmental system, the people make wrong or unwise choices -- as they very well might do and as they have done at various times in history -- they themselves will be accountable for the choices they make. But the God-given principle of agency will have been preserved.

Edited November 21, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Not all people.  I was just pointing out that it's not "presentist" to think something that some people back then thought too.  There were a variety of opinions on the subject, and to imply that "it was okay back then" is spurious. 

 

It's also odd to have LDS retreating to arguments based on moral relativity, especially when the things most often argued for (Joseph Smith's polygamy, the destruction of the Expositor press) were the things so rejected that it helped lead to his murder.

It's not moral relativity on my part. I believe that what God commands is right. I believe that the suppression of the Expositor may well have been an inspired decision.

[Anteojito]

And afterward, Joseph was quite willing to monetarily compensate the owners for the destruction of the press.

OK so you could say the Joseph recognized that what he did was wrong. If he lived long enough to pay the compensation, the church could have used it as a good example of a Prophet who did something wrong and took the steps to fix it.  

[Anteojito]

It's not moral relativity on my part. I believe that what God commands is right. I believe that the suppression of the Expositor may well have been an inspired decision.

So God knowingly sent Joseph to his death.

[Scott Lloyd]

All fixed!  (Yes, I know, I disagree with The Great Scott Lloyd at my own peril! )

 

I'm actually good with this.

 

As I said, I'm speaking of the broader principle of government by the voice of the people, however that can be properly expressed.

[Kenngo1969]

OK so you could say the Joseph recognized that what he did was wrong. If he lived long enough to pay the compensation, the church could have used it as a good example of a Prophet who did something wrong and took the steps to fix it.  

Various people and entities pay "go-away" or "good-will" money all the time, even if they're not legally obligated to do so, and without admitting guilt or liability.  Why do you think Joseph's willingness to compensate the press's owners for its destruction is any different? What evidence do you have that this is so?