"He lived great, and he died great"

[blueglass]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

 

Then why was he arrested and what was he charged with?

“To Carthage with Joseph. to hear his trial on perjury and adultery.”

Willard Richards Journals and Papers 1821-1853, Journal (Vol. 10) 1844 March-August, May 27, 1844.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

There was enough suspicion of a crime to lead to them being arrested and held.  

You cannot possibly think that what took place with the illegal breaking into a business, ransacking and vandalizing and burning was not a crime.

Are you aware that after Joseph and Hyrum were murdered, the other members of the Nauvoo City Council were tried <and acquitted> in the Expositor case? 

And where do you get that property was burned? There was no burning involved. By order of the city council to abate the newspaper as a public nuisance, the city marshal destroyed the press and pied the type in the street, which meant to scatter it. That was a former-day counterpart to deleting computer files. 

When appearing before Illinois Gov. Ford, Joseph offered to reimburse the owners for the destruction of the press. Of course, he never got the chance to fulfill that offer, because Ford failed to make good on his promise to keep Joseph safe while in custody, and Joseph was murdered. 

Edited July 1, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

37 minutes ago, blueglass said:

“To Carthage with Joseph. to hear his trial on perjury and adultery.”

Willard Richards Journals and Papers 1821-1853, Journal (Vol. 10) 1844 March-August, May 27, 1844.

What was the outcome of that case?

[USU78]

57 minutes ago, blueglass said:

“To Carthage with Joseph. to hear his trial on perjury and adultery.”

Willard Richards Journals and Papers 1821-1853, Journal (Vol. 10) 1844 March-August, May 27, 1844.

"Joseph Smith could not have been properly convicted of adultery under the law of Illinois in 1844. Illinois law only criminalized adultery or fornication if it was "open". Had Joseph lived to face trial on this charge, he would have had good reason to expect acquittal because his relationships with his plural wives were not open, but were kept confidential and known by a relative few. Given a fair trial on this indictment, Joseph could have relied on several legal defenses.^[1]:402"

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

Thank you, Calm.  I’ll read more about this.  I’m always searching and learning.  I know that today this would be a crime (destruction of this printing press). 

So do you believe the charge was valid enough to hold them in jail (what you describe above)?

I don't believe it was.  The law was changed or was in the process of change...again going off memory.  I believe the Council consulted a book on laws...Roberts' maybe? to ensure they were within their right as a local government.  Joseph stated he was willing to replace the press itself, which was not legally destroyed, so the issue in my opinion should have been resolved without an arrest.  Given their history with mobs and given what happened with a mob, I believe the City Council was being reasonable when they were concerned the paper might trigger violent reprisals against the Mormons in the area.  And at the time it was legal to destroy papers in that case.

It may have been the wrong thing to do by my personal standards, but there was legal precendent for it and solid reasoning behind the decision, imo.

I also find the charge of treason for declaring martial law to be laughable.

Charging him with bigamy would have likely been inappropriate because there was no claim the marriages were meant to be civilly authorized.  Charging him with adultery ( I assume it was illegal at the time ) probably would have been justified if bigamy wasn't.  If adultery wasn't considered because the religious ceremony was ruled as having civil validity, then he could have been charged with bigamy.

However, not a lawyer and haven't studied the law of the time...or any time in depth.  I figure Oaks knew what he was doing though.

add-on:  looks like USU dealt with the possible charge of adultery and fornication...

Edited July 1, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

Here’s this that is interesting (then I’m off of here until tomorrow):

“A detailed legal analysis of the Nauvoo City Council's actions was undertaken by Dallin H. Oaks, then a professor at the University of Chicago Law School. Oaks opined that while the destruction of the Expositor's printing press was legally questionable, under the law of the time the newspaper 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.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauvoo_Expositor

But they didn't sue iirc, so any arrest wouldn't have had to do with that.

[Calm]

https://rationalfaiths.com/joseph-smiths-indictment-for-adultery-and-fornication/

Quote

While the terms adultery and fornication were not defined by the statute, they did have a common usage at the time. Adultery was “the unfaithfulness of any married person to the marriage bed,” while fornication was “incontinence or lewdness of unmarried persons…[or]… the criminal conversation of a married man with an unmarried woman.”[6] Thus, a married man could be guilty of both adultery and fornication for having sexual relations with the same woman.

 

Quote

The most shocking indictment of the day was The People of the State of Illinois v. Joseph Smith Sen. for adultery and fornication.[10] When Joseph Smith Sr. died in 1840, Joseph the prophet started referring to himself as Joseph Smith Sr. in legal matters and some personal matters. [11] William and Wilson Law were the only witnesses that provided testimony to the jury that day. While the testimony given was not recorded, the jury found “good and sufficient evidence” on three counts.

 

Quote

Any worry Joseph felt about this first indictment was unnecessary because the following morning on May 24, the first indictment was dismissed by the State’s attorney E.A. Thompson. The Docket Book records that “the States Attorney . . . says that he is unwilling further to prosecute this suit on the Indictment found herein heretofore whereupon it is ordered that the said defendant be discharged and that he go hence without delay.”[15]However, that was not the end of the case. William and Wilson Law again testified before the grand jury and secured a second indictment, “The People of the State of Illinois v. Joseph Smith Sen.” for “Adultery & Fornication.”[16] Smith was also indicted for perjury.

 

Quote

the grand jury [members] Hunter [and] Marks returned from Carthage,” and “ [They] informed me [there] were 2 indictments found against me. One for false swearing by R[obert] D. Foster and Joseph Jackson and one for polygamy or something else by the Laws, the particulars of which I shall learn more hereafter.”[19] L

 

Quote

Like many incidents in history we are left with more questions than answers. However, attempting to understand is important. Smith’s indictment is significant in many ways to Latter-day Saints. First, it serves as evidence that Smith was involved in polygamy and Maria Lawrence was one of his wives. Those denying Smith’s involvement in polygamy must accept that a grand jury indicted him for these activities in 1844. Deniers of Smith’s polygamy often claim there are few if any contemporary documents proving Smith engaged in polygamy. This case provides contemporary documents showing this relationship existed.

Second, it shows that Smith respected the legal process in making an appearance at trial and facing his accusers head on, rather than avoiding and evading arrest. It also gives significant context to the last months of Smith’s life showing the people of Hancock County were aware of rumors of strange and illegal Mormon marital practices, providing background to their mistrust and dislike of those in Nauvoo. Similarly, it gives significant context to the Law brother’s actions in the final months of Smith’s life, showing how much they abhorred the practice of polygamy. Not only were they willing to publish their knowledge of polygamy through the Nauvoo Expositor, they were also willing to have their claims subjected to burden of proof established by the legal system.

The indictment for adultery and perjury was on May 24 or 25, before the Nauvoo Expositor was destroyed on June 10.  

He went to Carthage more than once.  He did not flee, but went straight to Carthage for the first indictments in May.  In June, he first took off and then returned and was arrested on June 25.  Was murdered 2 days later, a month after the indictment for adultery and perjury.

Quote

Upon arrival at Carthage, almost immediately the Smith brothers were charged with treasonagainst the state of Illinois for declaring martial law in Nauvoo, by a warrant founded upon the oaths of A. O. Norton and Augustine Spencer. At a preliminary hearing that afternoon, the city council members were released on $500 bonds, pending later trial. The judge ordered the Smith brothers to be held in jail until they could be tried for treason, which was a capital offense.[citation needed]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Joseph_Smith

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Question:_What_is_the_timeline_of_events_that_led_to_Joseph_Smith's_death_in_Carthage%3F

From what I have been reading, the charges of adultery and perjury had nothing to do with why he was in Carthage jail save they might have been part of the motivations of the Laws to print up that first edition.

Edited July 1, 2018 by Calm

[USU78]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

https://rationalfaiths.com/joseph-smiths-indictment-for-adultery-and-fornication/

In case anybody missed it: no civil suit ever pursued against Nauvoo wrt the printing press, and no legit arrest or charge of treason, and no cause determined by prosecution on adultery/fornication/criminal conversation.

Can we please put this dreck to bed?

[sunstoned]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Are you aware that after Joseph and Hyrum were murdered, the other members of the Nauvoo City Council were tried <and acquitted> in the Expositor case? 

And where do you get that property was burned? There was no burning involved. By order of the city council to abate the newspaper as a public nuisance, the city marshal destroyed the press and pied the type in the street, which meant to scatter it. That was a former-day counterpart to deleting computer files. 

When appearing before Illinois Gov. Ford, Joseph offered to reimburse the owners for the destruction of the press. Of course, he never got the chance to fulfill that offer, because Ford failed to make good on his promise to keep Joseph safe while in custody, and Joseph was murdered. 

As you probably all really know, it was much more serious than deleting computer files.  Destroying a expensive printing press would be more like breaking into a private business today and destroying its computers and servers, which would essentially ruin the business.  What JS ordered was very serious. And why did JS order this done?  Copies of the Expositor printing have survived.  Do a quick Google and you can read it.  No inflammatory lies, just stating that JS  teaching and practicing plural marriage.

With that said, JS did not deserve to be murdered.  He deserved due process of law just like any other citizen does.

[Calm]

I have yet to find a timeline that includes the May charges with the martyrdom, but this is pretty detailed for the June events:

http://famous-trials.com/carthrage/1254-chronology

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

As you probably all really know, it was much more serious than deleting computer files.  Destroying a expensive printing press would be more like breaking into a private business today and destroying its computers and servers, which would essentially ruin the business.  What JS ordered was very serious. And why did JS order this done?  Copies of the Expositor printing have survived.  Do a quick Google and you can read it.  No inflammatory lies, just stating that JS  teaching and practicing plural marriage.

With that said, JS did not deserve to be murdered.  He deserved due process of law just like any other citizen does.

As already pointed out, Joseph offered to reimburse the owners for the property loss. 

And the destruction of the press was ordered under authority of existing municipal ordinances. It was not a mob action, as was inflicted on the Mormon people when their own press was destroyed earlier in Missouri. 

And as I also pointed out, the members of the city council were tried and acquitted. 

Incidentally, whether or not the Expositor printed inflammatory lies can be a subjective judgment, one that people looking casually at the case more than than a century and a half later might be too ill-informed to make. Every good communicator knows that facts that are ostensibly true can be arranged and presented in a way to convey falsehood. 

Edited July 1, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I don't believe it was.  The law was changed or was in the process of change...again going off memory.  I believe the Council consulted a book on laws...Roberts' maybe? to ensure they were within their right as a local government.  Joseph stated he was willing to replace the press itself, which was not legally destroyed, so the issue in my opinion should have been resolved without an arrest.  Given their history with mobs and given what happened with a mob, I believe the City Council was being reasonable when they were concerned the paper might trigger violent reprisals against the Mormons in the area.  And at the time it was legal to destroy papers in that case.

It may have been the wrong thing to do by my personal standards, but there was legal precendent for it and solid reasoning behind the decision, imo.

I also find the charge of treason for declaring martial law to be laughable.

Charging him with bigamy would have likely been inappropriate because there was no claim the marriages were meant to be civilly authorized.  Charging him with adultery ( I assume it was illegal at the time ) probably would have been justified if bigamy wasn't.  If adultery wasn't considered because the religious ceremony was ruled as having civil validity, then he could have been charged with bigamy.

However, not a lawyer and haven't studied the law of the time...or any time in depth.  I figure Oaks knew what he was doing though.

add-on:  looks like USU dealt with the possible charge of adultery and fornication...

The source they consulted, as I recall, was Black’s Law Dictionary, a standard work in the legal profession. 

Edited to add: After reading Calm’s subsequent post, I now recall it was Blackstone they consulted. 

Edited July 1, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The source they consulted, as I recall, was Black’s Law Dictionary, a standard work in the legal profession. 

I was thinking of Roberts' Rules of Order, which is more about parliamentary procedure.  Definitely the wrong one:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert's_Rules_of_Order

[JulieM]

I did get a chance to look a bit more.  I know the legalities of what Joseph did can be debated, but it was most definitely not right to order the destruction of another’s property, IMO (morally).

I’ve also read that The Expositor contained no lies but only exposed what was being done in secret by Joseph and others (mainly polygamy).  If anyone has something they can quote from it that wasn’t true, I’d really like them to post it.

Here’s this (from http://www.lds-mormon.com/06.shtml😞

“The Expositor appeared on Friday afternoon, and the following morning and the Monday thereafter the city council met to consider its threat to the peace and security of the city. With the powers granted by the city charter, they declared the newspaper a nuisance, as they felt its declarations threatened the security of the city. They authorized the mayor (Joseph Smith) to see that the nuisance was abated. The Prophet instructed the city marshal to abate the nuisance which he and his men accomplished by breaking into the printing shop, throwing the press into street where it was smashed with a sledge hammer, dumping the type into the street, and burning the undistributed copies of the newspaper. Such an extralegal method of abating a newspaper was not without precedent in Illinois (though not in keeping with long established practices concerning abatement of a public press), but it was viewed as a violation to the federal Constitution which forbids destruction of property without due process of law. The city council had only the authority to abate the nuisance by suspending further publication of the paper pending a court hearing which would determine whether it was a public nuisance. 

The proprietor of the paper went to Carthage and swore out a warrant for the 18 members of the city council, charging that they had violated the federal Constitution by destroying property with the resultant implication of "suppression of the freedom of the press." In response to the charge 15 members of the Nauvoo city council appeared before the justice of the peace in Carthage on Tuesday, June 25, and were bound over to the next term of the circuit court on bail of $500 each. Jointly they posted $7500 in bonds and some of them returned to Nauvoo that afternoon. Joseph and Hyrum, however, remained in Carthage to have an interview with Governor Ford. While awaiting audience with him, they were arrested on charges of treason and rioting for having used some of the Nauvoo Legion to assist the town marshal in the destruction of Expositor equipment. For this charge they were committed to the Carthage jail that afternoon.”

Edited July 1, 2018 by JulieM

[Calm]

https://byustudies.byu.edu/file/11216/download?token=Qf2BWu-p

This looks like an excellent source for the legal cases.

Quote

 Third, on May 27, 1844, exactly one month to the day before his death,

Joseph was in Carthage to face a combination of appeals on several actions derived from suits rst brought by or against him in Nauvoo involving the Higbees, plus two grand jury criminal indictments for perjury and adultery initiated by the Laws.95 While at Artois Hamilton’s hotel in Carthage the night before the hearings on these cases, Charles Foster told Joseph of a plot to kill him the next day, either before or a er going to court.96 us warned, enough well-armed troops were mustered from Nauvoo to guarantee Joseph’s protection, and he safely returned home when the cases were continued for lack of a witness.97 

 

[Calm]

Quote

Included in its “public exposition of the enormities of crimes” committed by Joseph Smith were fraud, base seduction and “fatal schemes” to entrap many “inoffensive and unsuspecting creatures,” leading such women to an “untimely grave.” The paper also campaigned to repeal the city charter, which provided Nauvoo with its greatest legal and military protection. If the charter were repealed, and the Nauvoo Legion’s status as a legal militia abolished, the risk of mob action to its citizens would greatly increase....

Strong as it was, the Expositor promised that future issues would be even less restrained and would “speak in tones of thunder.”102

From the above link.

It is not purely whether or not the Expositor printed lies about polygamy.  It was what it was also promoting people to do that mattered, imo, and potential future calls to action.

Quote

While Joseph was likely concerned that the Expositor might incite outside mobs against the Mormons, he may have been more fearful of retaliatory mob action by his own citizens against the Expositor. Their riotous action would in turn be even more likely to provoke an out- side attack upon the entire community. He later told Governor Ford, when they met in person: “Our whole people were indignant, and loudly called upon our city authorities for redress of their grievances, which, if not attended to, they themselves would have taken into their own hands, and have summarily punished the audacious wretches, as they deserved.”103 Earlier, Joseph had told the Nauvoo City Council that 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.”104

Equally compelling, perhaps, Joseph may have sought divine sanction for his action. Journalist George Laub recorded that before the Prophet took action, “Bro Joseph called a meeting at his own house and told the people or us that God showed him in an open vision in daylight that if he did not destroy that press, Printing press, it would cause the Blood of the Saints to ow in the Streets & by this wise that Evil destroy [us].”105 So in an effort to prevent an actual riot within the city and to spare the citizens of Nauvoo, Joseph Smith, as mayor, convened the city council for two full days and discussed at length what action should be taken. Much has been written about this decision and whether it could be justifed, both legally and sensibly, but reviewing that discussion lies beyond the scope of this article. Suffice it to say that, with one dissent- ing vote (Benjamin Warrington, a non-LDS early settler in Nauvoo), the city council officially voted to “abate” the Expositor press as a public nuisance.106 

 

Edited July 1, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

Quote

Accordingly, just before dark on Monday, June 10, 1844, eleven law officers moved up the stairs of a two-story brick office building in downtown Nauvoo. Situated on the north side of Mulholland Street, only one block east of the partially completed LDS temple, this structure housed the print shop that, only three days earlier, had published the first and only issue of the Nauvoo Expositor.... 

Rather than arrest him or demolish the house, as he was authorized to do, Greene instead “ordered the door to be forced.”108 Inside they found Charles Foster, another publisher. He joined Higbee in another stream of threats to the lawmen. Without further delay, the city police then carried the press, the type, and all papers down into the street.109

With a sledge hammer, the police smashed the press, then burned the newspapers and “pied” (or scattered) the type in the street. They claimed that nothing else was destroyed. Witnesses testifed that there was no other “riot or disturbance, no noise, no exultation . . . or shouting.”110 

 

Quote

In a strongly worded reply letter sent the next day, Joseph defended himself. He said the Nauvoo authorities had acted only on the advice of Blackstone and able counsel, using their own best judgment, and inquired what Ford would have done under similar circumstances. He directed the governor’s attention to “Humphrey versus Press,” an apparently settled or never-litigated case that resulted in no legal causes of action (either civil or criminal) after one Van R. Humphrey damaged an Ohio press “by his own arm for libel.” Joseph also noted, “We do know that it is common for police in Boston, N. York, &c to destroy scurrilous prints.”113 In addition to these precedents, Oaks determined that for nearly a century after the Expositor incident, courts consistently upheld the suppression of libelous presses by official governmental action.114 

 

Quote

In each case of press destruction by official action after 1844 investigated by Oaks, a primary motivation was to prevent a citizens’ riot or other public disturbance of the peace. Notably, that was precisely the grounds for suppressing the Expositor. Oaks also observed that prior to 1931, protections of free speech and the press under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment were explicitly directed only at Congress, not to the states or to private citizens. The Illinois Constitution, which also granted broad free-press protections, specifically made a publisher “responsible for the abuse of that liberty.” 

 

Edited July 1, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

Also from the same article:

Quote

 The Expositor itself urged its readers to “arise . . . and sweep the influence of tyrants and miscreants from the face of the land.” In answering its own question, “Will you bring a mob upon us [the Mormons]?” the newspaper affirmed that “if it is necessary to make show of force, to execute legal process, it will create no sympathy in that case [for the Mormons] to cry out, we are mobbed.”120 Joseph saw the phrase “to execute legal process” as a call to “raise a mob [against] us . . . as they did in Missouri,” when local militia units executed an official extermination order, thereby enabling Missourians to “take the spoil from us” and ultimately expel the Mormons from that state.

 

[JulieM]

Here’s this too (so I see there’s a debate as to whether the law was broken when they destroyed the press):

Apart from its ethical implications, there has been some debate about whether the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor was legal. At the time, the United States Constitution did not prohibit states and local governments from infringing the freedom of the press. This First Amendment protection only applied to the federal government until the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution was enacted in 1868, and U.S. courts did not consistently enforce the First Amendment against states and localities until about 1931.

Thus, whether or not the destruction of the press was legal depends primarily on the laws of the state of Illinois and the Nauvoo Charter. Among the rights enacted in the 1818 Constitution of Illinois were a prohibition against ex post facto laws[6] and a provision for the freedom of the press.[7] It is clear that the city of Nauvoo's actions against the Expositor violated the Illinois constitution's freedom-of-press provision. This provision read as follows:

"22. The printing presses shall be free to every person, who undertakes to examine the proceedings of the general assembly or of any branch of government; and no law shall ever be made to restrain the right thereof. The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man, and every citizen may freely speak, write, and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.

"23. In prosecutions for the publication of papers investigating the official conduct of officers, or of men acting in a public capacity, or where the matter published is proper for public information, the truth thereof may be given in evidence. And in all indictments for libels, the jury shall have the right of determining both the law and the fact, under the direction of the court as in other cases." (Art. VIII, cl. 22–23).

The destruction may also have violated Illinois' prohibition against ex post facto laws. Even without a specific ordinance, the city of Nauvoo could have tried to rely upon the existing common law doctrines of nuisance and libel, but it is doubtful whether they were applicable. The city might also have acted under the common law doctrine of eminent domain, which allows the government to take private property for public use. Such a taking, however, would have required, under the Illinois "Takings Clause", that the taking be approved by the Illinois general assembly, and that just compensation be given.[8]

Edited July 1, 2018 by JulieM

[JulieM]

I’m also not sure how anyone can defend what was done as far as it being morally right to break into someone’s business and destroy their property like what was done here.

[Calm]

The fact that the Expositor was inciting violence may have overruled the freedom of press law.

The last quote that starts "in each case of" two posts above refers to this.  

Would you believe it was morally right for law officers to break into a home or business and destroy bomb making materials?

Edited July 1, 2018 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

 

 

 

Yes, I recall now it was Blackstone, not Black, that they consulted. Thanks for finding all this information. 

And when I said there was no burning involved, I had forgotten that printed copies of the paper were burned. The impression I got was that Julie was saying the press itself or the building was burned. and I was quite certain that was not the case. 

Edited July 1, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

The fact that the Expositor was inciting violence may have overruled the freedom of press law.

The last quote that starts "in each case of" two posts above refers to this.  

Would you believe it was morally right for law officers to break into a home or business and destroy bomb making materials?

In the process of enforcing law, preserving public safety and keeping peace, a government is empowered to deprive citizens of means, property, freedom or, in extreme cases, life itself. Think, for example, of fines or prison sentences or the seizure of personal property involved in the commission of a crime. When such a thing happens, one doesn’t ordinarily consider that to be morally wrong, even if one doesn’t  like the particular law that is being enforced. 

Edited July 1, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

There is a difference between intending to commit violence oneself (making a bomb) and attempting to incite others to do violence (calling for bombings).

I think it is morally appropriate to try and stop both types of behaviours, though more extreme measures should be reserved for immediate violence while using persuasion may be all that is appropriate for certain forms of incitement.

I am not that familiar with the law on incitement (limited to Law and Order episodes pretty much).  The line was apparently from what I have read drawn differently in the past and inciting was considered "abuse" by publishers.

Certainly Joseph had seen much of incited violence in his day and I think was likely able to judge how close to the surface, especially with his own city and people.  That he was fearful of the Expositor of being the match to the next bonfire seems clear from what was discussed in the city council and in his response to Gov. Ford.

I don't see it as morally wrong if he was fearful of death and destruction being triggered. He also appeared to be willing to accept any consequences himself, including death, to stop his people from rioting.  Even if the Legion might have been able to control the mob (assuming they didn't join in if it was the city that went up as Joseph feared), there still would have been injury and property destruction, which would then had led to much more, possibly another expulsion...especially if the charter for Nauvoo was pulled (and therefore the Legion disbanded) as the Warsaw Signal was calling for.

Edited July 1, 2018 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

27 minutes ago, Calm said:

There is a difference between intending to commit violence oneself (making a bomb) and attempting to incite others to do violence (calling for bombings).

I think it is morally appropriate to try and stop both types of behaviours, though more extreme measures should be reserved for immediate violence while using persuasion may be all that is appropriate for certain forms of incitement.

I am not that familiar with the law on incitement (limited to Law and Order episodes pretty much).  The line was apparently from what I have read drawn differently in the past and inciting was considered "abuse" by publishers.

Certainly Joseph had seen much of incited violence in his day and I think was likely able to judge how close to the surface, especially with his own city and people.  That he was fearful of the Expositor of being the match to the next bonfire seems clear from what was discussed in the city council and in his response to Gov. Ford.

I don't see it as morally wrong if he was fearful of death and destruction being triggered. He also appeared to be willing to accept any consequences himself, including death, to stop his people from rioting.  Even if the Legion might have been able to control the mob (assuming they didn't join in if it was the city that went up as Joseph feared), there still would have been injury and property destruction, which would then had led to much more, possibly another expulsion...especially if the charter for Nauvoo was pulled (and therefore the Legion disbanded) as the Warsaw Signal was calling for.

The above is essentially why I’ve arrived at a personal belief that the ordered destruction of the Expositor was justifiable whether or not it was strictly legal. I believe that, thereby, the lives of many people were saved and the Church was preserved to make its eventual trek to the Rocky Mountains, there to establish the base of operations to take the restored gospel to all the world. 

I further believe that in taking the actions he did and in giving himself up to answer for the suppression of the Expositor, Joseph in effect sacrificed his own life for the Church. And, to bring us back to the topic of this thread, this was part of his greatness. 

When the angel Moroni appeared to the fledgling prophet Joseph, Moroni told him his name would be both good and evil spoken of in the world. How interesting that this prophecy has been fulfilled in this very thread!