"He lived great, and he died great"

[sjdawg]

9 hours ago, USU78 said:

"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"

Fantastic.  Could I use the same defense in a Church court?  It's not adultery or fornication if I keep it secret.   While I absolutely agree the mob was in the wrong and the Joseph, Hyrum, and all others should have been safe while held in a jail the idea of the kind of defense noted above makes me chuckle.  It may work in a court of law but not in a court of decency.

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, sjdawg said:

Fantastic.  Could I use the same defense in a Church court?  It's not adultery or fornication if I keep it secret.   While I absolutely agree the mob was in the wrong and the Joseph, Hyrum, and all others should have been safe while held in a jail the idea of the kind of defense noted above makes me chuckle.  It may work in a court of law but not in a court of decency.

Since we were strictly discussing the charges/indictments given by a grand jury to be dealt with by legal officers and what would have come of these charges (how it tied up to Carthage jail and the martyrdom...it only did so indirectly perhaps as Joseph was sent home to prepare for the trial, but was killed before it started), I am not sure why you find it humorous.  What we think,of them now is irrelevant to what they were then.

Edited July 1, 2018 by Calm

[JulieM]

10 hours 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.

“As mayor of Nauvoo, Joseph Smith summoned the city council. Following fourteen hours of deliberation in three different sessions, the council resolved on Monday, June 10, about 6:30 p.m., that the newspaper and its printing office were "a public nuisance" and instructed the mayor "to remove it…without delay." Joseph Smith promptly ordered the city marshal to destroy the press and burn all copies of the paper. At 8:00 p.m. the marshal carried out the mayor's orders (HC 6:432-49).”

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Nauvoo_Expositor

“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.”

Scott, I think it’s ironic that you are defending this type of violence and the destruction of someone’s business and property.  If you wrote a story that exposed what someone was doing (that you believed was morally wrong) and they feared that information getting out, so they broke onto the DN and destroyed your computer, burned copies of what you’d written and smashed equipment with sledge hammers, you’d defend this type of legal and morally wrong behavior?

There were other ways to go after and stop the Expositor from being published if it was printing lies.

Can you give a quote from the Expositor (it’s online) that was a lie?

Can you post a quote from the Expositor where the authors were encouraging physical violence against the Prophet?

 

Edited July 1, 2018 by JulieM

[Calm]

Quote

Scott, I think it’s ironic that you are defending this type of violence and the destruction of someone’s business and property.  If you wrote a story that exposed what someone was doing (that you believed was morally wrong) 

I don't know whether you missed it or are ignoring it, but the problem with the Expositor was it was inciting violence more than exposing anything.

Why does the physical violence only need to be against the Prophet/Mayor for the City Council to take action?  

On top of that, calling to repeal the Charter so that the city/Mormons would lose their main form of self defense, the Nauvoo Legion...highly incendiary for the community.

Quoted before

Quote

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

 

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.

 

Edited July 1, 2018 by Calm

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don't know whether you missed it or are ignoring it, but the problem with the Expositor was it was inciting violence more than exposing anything.

Why does the physical violence only need to be against the Prophet/Mayor for the City Council to take action?

I saw her ask for a quote regarding this (so I don't see that it's being ignored).

I don't want to issue an official CFR, but can you supply where the Nauvoo Expositor was advocating "violence"?  Where did it do this (a quote)? 

ETA:

I just now saw your edit.  Can you supply the entire quotes and a link?  Thanks!

Edited July 1, 2018 by ALarson

[Calm]

See above post.  I am speaking about mob violence in terms of the city.  Joseph was apparently more concerned about that than any possible harm directed at him (see the article I linked to last for most details, but I quoted a bit).

Edited July 1, 2018 by Calm

[ALarson]

8 hours ago, JulieM said:

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]

Thanks for posting this.  I've also been doing some reading about this and I am amazed that some on here are defending this type of violence and destruction when there were other avenues they could have taken to stop the publishing (Joseph was pretty much in charge of the city and could have also legally shut the newspaper down charging libel or slander I'd imagine too).  What took place with the violent destruction of this printing press and business is not a proud moment in church history, IMO.  It's understandable how Joseph and others would have felt about it exposing what they were doing (polygamy, etc.), but there is no excuse for what transpired from what I have read.

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

See above post.  I am speaking about mob violence in terms of the city.  Joseph was apparently more concerned about that than any possible harm directed at him (see the article I linked to last for most details, but I quoted a bit).

There were still other ways to stop the presses.  The violence against other members of the church who were well within their rights to speak out against something they believed was morally wrong, was not justified, IMO.  Joseph could have just ordered it shut down (had the police chain the door for example) and that would have taken place and then he could have taken legal action.  It was not right for Joseph to advocate violence himself and I will never believe that was the way a Prophet should behave against someone who'd been his counselor and also against other former good members of the church.

Edited July 1, 2018 by ALarson

[Calm]

A lie from the Expositor, one likely to incite violence: "but on account of a combination which we believe has for its object the utter destruction of the rights of the old citizens of the county".

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

A lie from the Expositor, one likely to incite violence: "but on account of a combination which we believe has for its object the utter destruction of the rights of the old citizens of the county".

That was them expressing "we believe" and that is most likely what the authors did believe.  So, I do not see that as being a lie.

What was in the Expositor was the truth (from what I've read).  I do not agree with some of the language it was expressed with, but they were exposing the truth regarding what Joseph was attempting to hide from many.

Here is Joseph's order:

Quote

 

To the Marshal of said City [Nauvoo], greeting.

You are hereby commanded to destroy the printing press from whence issues the Nauvoo Expositor, and pi the type of said printing establishment in the street, and burn all the Expositors and libelous handbills found in said establishment; and if resistance be offered to your execution of this order by the owner or others, demolish the house: and if anyone threatens you or the Mayor or the officers of the city, arrest those who threaten you, and fail not to execute this order without delay, and make due return thereon.

By order of the City Council,
JOSEPH SMITH, MAYOR

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/carthage/expositororder.html

That was wrong, IMO.  Joseph could have definitely shut down this business without violence since he had the power in Nauvoo to do that.  He was sending a message and using destruction and violence to send it.  I'll never be convinced that this type of behavior was justified when he could have done the same thing (shut it down) using other means within his power.

I don't understand this defend Joseph at all cost belief that many seem to have.  He was human and he made many mistakes (as we all do).  I see here that he allowed hatred and vengeance to take over his heart and he reacted with violence and destroyed other's business and property.  That was not necessary to do and once again, I believe that was wrong, IMO.  And this mistake ended with fatal consequences.

We should probably just agree to disagree.  You're not going to change my mind and I most likely won't change yours!  I understand your view, I just think you're wrong 

Edited July 1, 2018 by ALarson

[USU78]

1 hour ago, sjdawg said:

Fantastic.  Could I use the same defense in a Church court?  It's not adultery or fornication if I keep it secret.   While I absolutely agree the mob was in the wrong and the Joseph, Hyrum, and all others should have been safe while held in a jail the idea of the kind of defense noted above makes me chuckle.  It may work in a court of law but not in a court of decency.

XIXth century Missouri and Illinois courts were "courts of decency." 😦

You know, that explains so very much, and helps us understand the New England roots of antiMormon outrages.

/sarcasm

Edited July 1, 2018 by USU78

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, USU78 said:

XIXth century Missouri and Illinois courts were "courts of decency." 😦

 

Many did not believe the manner in which polygamy was being lived was decent or moral.  I agree with them too (and so do many other members today when they learn about it).  I don't believe that those who disagreed with what Joseph and others were doing lacked "decency".

How about the "decency" of destroying a church member's place of business and personal property?  This was not right and it did not have to take place.  It also led to Joseph's death.

Edited July 1, 2018 by ALarson

[USU78]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

Many did not believe the manner in which polygamy was being lived was decent or moral.  I agree with them too (and so do many other members today when they learn about it).  I don't believe those who disagreed with what Joseph and other were doing lacked "decency".

How about the "decency" of destroying a church member's place of business?  This did not have to take place and it led to Joseph's death.

So let's kill 'em all. They're only Mormons, after all.

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

That was them expressing "we believe" and that is most likely what the authors did believe.  So, I do not see that as being a lie.

What was in the Expositor was the truth (from what I've read).  I do not agree with some of the language it was expressed with, but they were exposing the truth regarding what Joseph was attempting to hide from many.

Here is Joseph's order:

That was wrong, IMO.  Joseph could have definitely shut down this business without violence as he had the power in Nauvoo to do that.  He was sending a message and using destruction and violence to send it.  I'll never be convinced that this type of behavior was justified when he could have done the same using other means within his power.

I don't understand this defend Joseph at all cost belief that many seem to have.  He was human and he made many mistakes (as we all do).  I see here that he allowed hatred and vengeance to take over his heart and reacted with violence and destroyed other's business and property.  Once again, that was wrong, IMO.

Falsehoods that are likely to inflame citizens to violence (and knowing their history, very likely to be understood that way by the Mormons, I suspect) should not be thrown out as careless speculation.  I find that highly immoral given what the Saints were facing and had gone through in the past.

If belief can render in your view a falsehood moral, then why isn't Joseph's belief that the destruction of the papers are necessary to keep the peace also justified in your view?

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Falsehoods that are likely to inflame citizens to violence (and knowing their history, very likely to be understood that way by the Mormons, I suspect) should not be thrown out as careless speculation.  I find that highly immoral given what the Saints were facing and had gone through in the past.

I believe the men who wrote the Expositor had every right to express their opinions (some had had their wives approached to marry other men in secret and they also discovered what they believed was other imoral behavior by the leaders of the church....and they felt the members should be aware of this).  Joseph should have stood and defended himself and maybe owned up to what he was actually doing (that was the truth printed in the paper) and told his reasons, bore his testimony to the members regarding the principle of plural marriage, tell them he believed it was commanded by God, etc.  Told them the truth about what he'd been hiding.  Most members would have believed Joseph and there would not have been more violence.  As it turned out, Joseph chose to react with anger, violence and vengeance against men who'd been his friends and good members of the church.  IMO, that was not right and I will never believe that Joseph couldn't have chosen to handle it differently where there would have been a different outcome (for him, for Hyrum and others).

There was enough violence already going on from both sides (just study the true history of the Mormon war in Missouri, for example).  Joseph should not have incited more, IMO.

Edited July 1, 2018 by ALarson

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, USU78 said:

So let's kill 'em all. They're only Mormons, after all.

No, I am saying that violence should not have been incited by or encouraged by the Prophet.  There were other ways to shut the press down that would not have led to his arrest and death.  Violence should not have been the answer to other members of the church attempting to get the truth out regarding something they believed was morally wrong and not decent for their leaders to be doing in secret.  They believed they were exposing the truth (and they were from what I've read).

Edited July 1, 2018 by ALarson

[Calm]

56 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Many did not believe the manner in which polygamy was being lived was decent or moral.  I agree with them too (and so do many other members today when they learn about it).  I don't believe that those who disagreed with what Joseph and others were doing lacked "decency".

How about the "decency" of destroying a church member's place of business and personal property?  This was not right and it did not have to take place.  It also led to Joseph's death.

They didn't destroy the place of business, though they were authorized to do so.  When one of the men refused to allow them to enter the room, they didn't even arrest, iirc, even though authorized.  They did destroy that press, which was apparently illegal even if common practice if viewed as a danger to the community and I believe they went too far there.  Destroying the papers themselves would have possibly delayed the publication and thus any mob action against the business and owners (which Joseph was trying to prevent) as well as prevent any reason to form a mob to attempt to break in to get the papers.  If the type had not been destroyed, the papers could have been easily replaced when there was enough time for an appropriate judge to review the case.  From what I have read that probably would have been the best approach.  While frustrating to the proprietors of the Expositor, it would not have been any long term damage and they could have chosen to sue to recover the costs as well as easily put out the edition if a judge ruled it acceptable.

It likely triggered the moves that led to Carthage, but given the speed with which it all happened, there is a good chance the leaders were all ready prepared and just looking for the moment to move.  In that case, Joseph was doomed and if the Expositor hadn't happened, something else would have been set up to serve its purpose.

Edited July 1, 2018 by Calm

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

They didn't destroy the place of business, though they were authorized to do so.  When one of the men refused to allow them to enter the room, they didn't even arrest, iirc, even though authorized.  They did destroy that press, which was apparently illegal even if common practice if viewed as a danger to the community and I believe they went too far there.  Destroying the papers themselves would have possibly delayed the publication and thus any mob action against the business and owners (which Joseph was trying to prevent) as well as prevent any reason to form a mob to attempt to break in to get the papers.  If the type had not been destroyed, the papers could have been easily replaced when there was enough time for an appropriate judge to review the case.

It likely triggered the moves that led to Carthage, but given the speed with which it all happened, there is a good chance the leaders were all ready prepared and just looking for the moment to move.  In that case, Joseph was doomed and if the Expositor hadn't happened, something else would have been set up to serve its purpose.

You can't know that would have happened.  All we can know is that Joseph's orders led to him being arrested (from what I've read), which led to his death.  And yes, they did destroy the press, equipment and burned much of the rest. I understand there is a debate regarding whether or not that was legal to do (I believe it was a crime), but it definitely was not morally right to do, IMO.   I've read the accounts written regarding the violence and destruction that took place.  The men who owned the Expositior fled Nauvoo in fear for their lives and were afraid for their families safety.  That was wrong to do to them and that should not have been incited by the Prophet.

Edited July 1, 2018 by ALarson

[JulieM]

48 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Thanks for posting this.  I've also been doing some reading about this and I am amazed that some on here are defending this type of violence and destruction when there were other avenues they could have taken to stop the publishing (Joseph was pretty much in charge of the city and could have also legally shut the newspaper down charging libel or slander I'd imagine too).  What took place with the violent destruction of this printing press and business is not a proud moment in church history, IMO.  It's understandable how Joseph and others would have felt about it exposing what they were doing (polygamy, etc.), but there is no excuse for what transpired from what I have read.

I’m in full agreement.  Can you imagine President Nelson (or any other recent prophet) ordering men to enter a place of business (owned by church member) and violently destroying and burning it (just because of the views of the owners and them making their views public)?   Nothing makes what happened to Joseph and Hyrum right (it was horrible), but they wouldn’t have been in jail if there hadn’t been the violence against this business.  

Well, I’ve got to get to a meeting (almost late from posting on here, ha!).

[Calm]

49 minutes ago, ALarson said:

 As it turned out, Joseph chose to react with anger, violence and vengeance against men who'd been his friends and good members of the church.

But were no longer as far as he knew...

Quote

My thesis is that these legal maneuvers in May and June 1844 were ill-founded and intentionally designed by the organizers of the Nauvoo Expositor mainly for the purpose of placing Joseph Smith’s life in mortal danger in Carthage.  

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

Quote

On April 26, 1844, Charles Foster was arrested for pointing a gun at Joseph Smith, and together with Chauncey Higbee, “said th[e]y would be God damnd. if th[e]y would not shoot. the Mayor—breathed out many hard threatnig and menacing sayings—would consider favord of God—for the privilege of shooting. or ridding the world of such a Tyrnt. Refrrig [referring] to the Mayor.”50  On June 8, Joseph said that William “had offered [Joseph] Jackson $500 dollars to kill him.”51 Obviously, using harsh language and even stronger expressions of outrage were common enough, though unwelcomed, occurrences. 

The destruction of the press was not Joseph's first action to resolve his conflicts with these men.

Quote

Even into 1844, as the situation with the six dissidents grew more and more serious, Joseph continued to try to resolve differences between himself and the objectors. On January 16, 1844, Joseph Smith announced to the city council that he and Francis Higbee had resolved their difficulties and had committed to be friends forever.56 On May 27, 1844, in Carthage, Joseph entertained a conciliatory conversation with Charles Foster, and although he appeared to be mild and “was almost persuaded,”57 Charles clung to false reports and did not return. As late as June 7, 1844, in response to a strong letter from Robert Foster, Joseph offered to arbitrate their differences and to allow him and the Laws to come back.58 But this time, no amount of personal persuasion would stem the incoming tide. 

 

Quote

After the [January] hearing, Joseph’s journal noted, “What can be the matter with these men? Is it that the wicked flee when no man pursueth . . . or that Presidents Law and Marks are absolutely traitors to the Church . . . that the traitor whom Porter Rockwell reports to me as being in correspondence with my Missouri enemies, is one of my quorum? 

 

Quote

How early these dissidents had agreed on a specific course of action against Joseph Smith may be impossible to determine, but on March 26, 1844, affidavits were tendered by Abiathar B. Williams and M. G. Eaton speaking of “a conspiracy.” Williams attested that “Joseph H. Jackson said that Doctor [Robert] Foster, Chauncey L. Higbee, and the Laws were red hot for a conspiracy, and he should not be surprised if in two weeks there should not be one of the Smith family left alive in Nauvoo,” and Eaton testifed of a conspiracy against Joseph Smith.77 

 

Quote

 Then on May 10 a prospectus for the proposed Nauvoo Expositor was circulated on the streets of Nauvoo under the names of William and Wilson Law, Francis and Chauncey Higbee, Robert and Charles Foster, and Charles Ivins, calling for “uncompromising hostility” against any union of church and state, as well as for “unmitigated disobedience” to political revelations and the propagation of “gross moral imperfections.” 

 

Quote

In a conversation in Carthage on May 27, 1844, Charles Foster told Joseph Smith that there was "a conspiracy” against his life.83 On June 8, Wilford Woodruff recorded in his journal that two men had told him that “a conspiracy is got up in this place for the purpose of taking the life of President Joseph Smith, his family, and all the Smith family & the heads of the Church,” and he identified Chauncey Higbee, Robert Foster, William Law, and Wilson Law among the heads of the conspiracy.84 On June 8, Joseph Smith testifed before the Nauvoo City Council that “at the time Gov. Carlin was pursuing me with his writs, William Law come to my house with a band of Missourians for the purpose of betraying me—come to my gate—and was prevented by Daniel Cairns who was set to watch.” William Law had come that night at about 10 p.m. with a dozen men.85 Joseph reproved Law, who wrote a letter the next day to apologize. Ten days later, Truman Gillett Jr. swore an affidavit that on June 1, 1842, while on the steamboat Massachusetts, he heard a Missourian tell a man from Ohio: “If Law could have succeeded in getting an introduction for us to ‘Jo’ Smith . . . we would have gagged him and nabbed him.” The next day, the affiant said he confronted that same Missourian, who insisted that William was in on a plan with twelve or more Missourians to kidnap Joseph at the gate but that they were stopped by the police.86 On June 10, Joseph concluded that “all the sorrow he ever had in his family in this city has arisen through the influence of William Law.”87 

I have got to get some sleep.  I encourage anyone wanting to criticize anyone involved to read the article as I don't believe one can understand what happened in June if they are unaware of what had been going on the previous months at the very least.

Edited July 1, 2018 by Calm

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

But were no longer as far as he knew...

I understand that, but it still isn't behavior that I'd admire coming from a Prophet of God.  Reacting with anger and vengeance, destroying these men's business equipment and personal property and causing them to feel they needed to flee for their lives...that was not the right thing to do here.

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

The destruction of the press was not Joseph's first action to resolve his conflicts with these men.

But it was his first reaction to them printing the truth about what he'd been doing in secret (or attempting to do).  I do not agree with much of the language in the Expositor, but Joseph should have owned up to the truth regarding his polygamy and not continued lying to the members.

Once again, I know you disagree....and I'm fine with that and I respect you're right to have the views you do.  I simply will never be convinced that violence and vengeance were the only response Joseph could have used to stop the Expositor from printing more about him.  His actions definitely led to a tragic end (and no, I'm not blaming Joseph for his own murder....nothing makes that right....it was a sequence of tragic events and the destroying of the press was just one of those.)

I've got to get off of here too!  Hope you can get some rest, Calm  

Edited July 1, 2018 by ALarson

[USU78]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

“As mayor of Nauvoo, Joseph Smith summoned the city council. Following fourteen hours of deliberation in three different sessions, the council resolved on Monday, June 10, about 6:30 p.m., that the newspaper and its printing office were "a public nuisance" and instructed the mayor "to remove it…without delay." Joseph Smith promptly ordered the city marshal to destroy the press and burn all copies of the paper. At 8:00 p.m. the marshal carried out the mayor's orders (HC 6:432-49).”

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Nauvoo_Expositor

“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.”

Scott, I think it’s ironic that you are defending this type of violence and the destruction of someone’s business and property.  If you wrote a story that exposed what someone was doing (that you believed was morally wrong) and they feared that information getting out, so they broke onto the DN and destroyed your computer, burned copies of what you’d written and smashed equipment with sledge hammers, you’d defend this type of legal and morally wrong behavior?

There were other ways to go after and stop the Expositor from being published if it was printing lies.

Can you give a quote from the Expositor (it’s online) that was a lie?

Can you post a quote from the Expositor where the authors were encouraging physical violence against the Prophet?

 

Who precisely in this thread has celebrated or defended the probably extra legal extent of at least part of the abatement? I'd appreciate citations. That's a CFR, BTW.

[USU78]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

You can't know that would have happened.  All we can know is that Joseph's orders led to him being arrested (from what I've read), which led to his death.  And yes, they did destroy the press, equipment and burned much of the rest. I understand there is a debate regarding whether or not that was legal to do (I believe it was a crime), but it definitely was not morally right to do, IMO.   I've read the accounts written regarding the violence and destruction that took place.  The men who owned the Expositior fled Nauvoo in fear for their lives and were afraid for their families safety.  That was wrong to do to them and that should not have been incited by the Prophet.

Cite the friggin' criminal statute allegedly violated. I've asked twice. Issued a CFR twice.

Board rules require a response.

[USU78]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

No, I am saying that violence should not have been incited by or encouraged by the Prophet.  There were other ways to shut the press down that would not have led to his arrest and death.  Violence should not have been the answer to other members of the church attempting to get the truth out regarding something they believed was morally wrong and not decent for their leaders to be doing in secret.  They believed they were exposing the truth (and they were from what I've read).

Pretextual judicial murder is the appropriate response to a lack (alleged) of sufficient due process.

Thanks for sharing your views. It's good to know where one stands.

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Cite the friggin' criminal statute allegedly violated. I've asked twice. Issued a CFR twice.

Board rules require a response.

Julie has posted quite a few quotes where there are listed what laws may have been broken.  (Maybe you missed those?)

I just believe it was criminal activity....nothing will change my mind regarding that.  I haven't actually researched statutes in force in Nauvoo at that time (nor have I claimed those were broken).  I'll try to do that if I get a chance over the next few days, but I'm out of here now for church.