The Nauvoo Expositor - From the Church News
Bryce
*******************************
Church News - Week ending August 11, 2001
Nauvoo Expositor was a conspirators' tool to destroy Joseph Smith
Events leading to the June 27, 1844, martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum Smith
included the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor, as described in
History of the Church, with Joseph writing: "Monday, June 10, 1844. --
I was in the City Council from 10 a.m., to 1:20 p.m., and from 2:20 p.m.
to 6:30 p.m. investigating the merits of the Nauvoo Expositor, and also
the conduct of the Laws, Higbees, Fosters, and others, who have formed
a conspiracy for the purpose of destroying my life, and scattering the
Saints or driving them from the state.
"An ordinance was passed concerning libels. The Council passed an
ordinance declaring the Nauvoo Expositor a nuisance, and also issued an
order to me to abate the said nuisance. I immediately ordered the
Marshal to destroy it without delay, and at the same time issued an
order to Jonathan Dunham, acting Major-General of the Nauvoo Legion,
to assist the Marshal with the Legion, if called upon so to do."
"About 8 p.m., the Marshal returned and reported that he had removed
the press, type, printed paper, and fixtures into the street, and
destroyed them. This was done because of the libelous and slanderous
character of the paper, its avowed intention being to destroy the
municipality and drive the Saints from the city."
The reason for the destruction of the press was discussed during the
1994 Sons of Utah Pioneers Mormon History Symposium by Larry Porter, a
BYU religion professor with specialties in Church history and doctrine.
Enemies of the Church, including apostate William Law, plotted to
kill the Prophet but were thwarted when their plans were revealed.
Because of this, Brother Porter recounted, "They discussed how they
could get to Joseph Smith and get him to commit some overt act which
would cause the law to come in and get him away from his friends where
the enemies could get to him with powder and ball. They concluded that
they would float a newspaper called the Nauvoo Expositor." (Dec. 3,
1994, Church News.)
The publication was libelous against Church leaders, Brother Porter
said, and quoted John Taylor as saying the people rose up against it.
The Nauvoo City Council declared the Expositor a public nuisance and
directed that it be removed.
"On the face of it," he commented, "if you were to not chip all the
bark away, it appears as though the sanctity of the press had been
violated. But when you realize that these men had formed a blood
conspiracy against the Prophet Joseph Smith, and were not adverse to
taking his life and that of Hyrum Smith and others of tehir primary
leaders, then it takes on a different bent."
Posted from NetWORLD Connections, Inc.
CommUnitarian
wrote:
>"On the face of it," he commented, "if you were to not chip all the
>bark away, it appears as though the sanctity of the press had been
>violated. But when you realize that these men had formed a blood
>conspiracy against the Prophet Joseph Smith, and were not adverse to
>taking his life and that of Hyrum Smith and others of tehir primary
>leaders, then it takes on a different bent."
>
It appears that Church leaders want to make it appear that William Law took
the part of Iago to Joseph Smith's Othello.
However, all tragedy requires that the hero have a tragic flaw.
Given the supposed intent of Joseph's enemies, it makes it appear that Joseph
had all the attributes of a banana republic dictator, and that required only
minimal agitation for these to be set off.
The mayor of New York City would have burned half the town down by now, if he
responded to alleged "libel" in the same manner as Mayor Smith.
One might think that since Smith and his Mormon associates virtually
controlled the court system in Nauvoo that a simple civil suit could have
stopped this "libel" without difficulty. Smith's actions only serve to convince
us that what the EXPOSITOR printed was true enough that Smith considered it a
terrible danger to his ability to continue his activities.
I assume from this explanation by church leaders that they know that Joseph
intended either to build a theocratic dictatorship on the ruins of the U.S.
republic or to go out into the wild and start his own country where he could be
absolute monarch, without any interference from any outside power. Joseph's
"tragic flaw" was that he not only wanted to be king, he intended to be king by
any means necessary.
William Law, as Iago, merely enraged Joseph and caused him to tip his hand
much too soon. After all, Othello really was a murderer. Making up a lot of
excuses about why it wasn't really his fault don't hold up.
Raleigh
-
They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption; for
whatever overcomes a man, to that he is enslaved. 2 Pet 2:19 RSV.
R. L. Measures
grale...@cs.comRLDS (CommUnitarian) wrote:
€ congrats on a rather readable essay, Raleigh.
--
- Rich... 805.386.3734.
www.vcnet.com/measures
R. L. Measures
> Analysis, anyone?
>
€ The subject of the Expositor's editorials was not Joseph Smith, it was
his adulterous son, Joseph Smith, Junior. The pre-ignitor of the
Expositor fire was the prophet's libidinal desire. William Law came home
one day
and came upon the Junior Smith trying to take Jane Law for a roll in the
hay. (Jane was William Law's wife) Ironically, it was the Expositor who
serendipitously caused the $uccuss of the Corporation of the First
Presidency. Without the shootout at the Carthage Jail, the religion would
have likely failed. .
--
- Rich... 805.386.3734.
www.vcnet.com/measures
CharlesSWaters
"Bryce" <bryce_a...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3B766730...@yahoo.com...
> Analysis, anyone?
>
The city of Nauvoo had a strong city charter that was extracted from the
state. No city today has anywhere near such power. The Nauvoo Expositor
basically revealed that Joseph Smith was practicing spiritual wifery. An
attempt to suppressed this truth was the destruction of the Expositor. Why
Joseph Smith wished to hide his womanly practices will be for him to account
for.
One could speculate that women were one of Joseph Smith's weaknesses and
that the Lord took him because he succumbed to it.
--
Cheerio,
Charles
"Question with boldness even the very existence of a God; because if there
be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of a
blindfolded fear." -- Thomas Jefferson
Fool Speck
Excellent post, Raleigh!
It is amazing to me that a seminar can be held about the Expositor
without its attendees seeing the obvious: The Expositor was right.
Smith was indeed a polygamist. He had already denied it vehemiently
in public many times, in speech and in print. Even section 101 of the
D&C condemned polygamy, denying the LDS practiced it.
As it stands, there is no evidence that anything in the Expositor can
be proven false, albeit it was written in Victorian melodramatic
prose.
Steve
cdowis
> wrote:
>
>
> >"On the face of it," he commented, "if you were to not chip all the
> >bark away, it appears as though the sanctity of the press had been
> >violated. But when you realize that these men had formed a blood
> >conspiracy against the Prophet Joseph Smith, and were not adverse to
> >taking his life and that of Hyrum Smith and others of tehir primary
> >leaders, then it takes on a different bent."
> >
>
> It appears that Church leaders want to make it appear that William Law took
> the part of Iago to Joseph Smith's Othello.
>
> However, all tragedy requires that the hero have a tragic flaw.
In an attempt to be poetic, your argument takes on broad artistic
license -- IOW, it is flawed. You ignore the historic events
surrounding this event.
>
> Given the supposed intent of Joseph's enemies, it makes it appear that Joseph
> had all the attributes of a banana republic dictator, and that required only
> minimal agitation for these to be set off.
You set the stage for your "drama" with a cheap shot. Have you
forgotten that the city of Nauvoo, and by extension, the mayor of
Nauvoo had extraordinary powers *chartered* by the state itself.
How interesting that your little drama ignores that fact.
>
> The mayor of New York City would have burned half the town down by now, if he
> responded to alleged "libel" in the same manner as Mayor Smith.
Again ignorance of history. The Mormons, the citizens of Nauvoo, and,
by extension, the city itself was under siege by their enemies. They
had only themselves to protect themselves, as the state refused to do
so.
Your drama, once again, completely ignores historic facts.
>
> One might think
I assume that "one" is ignorant of the facts.
>that since Smith and his Mormon associates virtually
> controlled the court system in Nauvoo
And your proof of statement....
Your drama moves now from ignorance of facts to outrageous speculative
remarks. You have zero proof so you leave it to your audience's
imagination.
that a simple civil suit could have
> stopped this "libel" without difficulty. Smith's actions only serve to convince
> us that what the EXPOSITOR printed was true enough that Smith considered it a
> terrible danger to his ability to continue his activities.
sigh. and so the drama goes on.
>
> I assume from this explanation by church leaders that they know that Joseph
> intended either to build a theocratic dictatorship on the ruins of the U.S.
> republic or to go out into the wild and start his own country where he could be
> absolute monarch, without any interference from any outside power. Joseph's
> "tragic flaw" was that he not only wanted to be king, he intended to be king by
> any means necessary.
sigh. Your hatred and bigtry requires no imagination.
PatentWorm
Another interesting twist is that people wronly apply 20th century first
amendment law to the situation, complete with the notion of "incorporation"
of the Bill of Rights through the 14th Amendment due process clause to apply
to the states or local governments. In fact, the 14th Amendment wouldn't be
enacted for decades, and the notion of "incorporation" never arose until the
20th century. Accordingly, since the 1st amendment only applied to limit
the power of Congress, there could have been no first amendment violation by
destroying a printing press in 1844, unless the federal government did it.
R. L. Measures
cdo...@my-dejanews.com (cdowis) wrote:
€ And then God huffed and puffed and blew the Nauvoo Temple down.
>
> How interesting that your little drama ignores that fact.
>
>
> >
> > The mayor of New York City would have burned half the town down by
now, if he
> > responded to alleged "libel" in the same manner as Mayor Smith.
>
>
> Again ignorance of history. The Mormons, the citizens of Nauvoo, and,
> by extension, the city itself was under siege by their enemies. They
> had only themselves to protect themselves, as the state refused to do
> so.
// Perhaps the state knew of the Danites' nocturnal missions?
>
> Your drama, once again, completely ignores historic facts.
>
€ the pot calling the kettle black.
>
> > One might think
>
> I assume that "one" is ignorant of the facts.
>
> >that since Smith and his Mormon associates virtually
> > controlled the court system in Nauvoo
>
> And your proof of statement....
>
> Your drama moves now from ignorance of facts to outrageous speculative
> remarks. You have zero proof so you leave it to your audience's
> imagination.
>
€ Visions of his celestial seraglio danced in his head.
>
> that a simple civil suit could have
> > stopped this "libel" without difficulty. Smith's actions only serve to
convince
> > us that what the EXPOSITOR printed was true enough that Smith
considered it a
> > terrible danger to his ability to continue his activities.
>
>
> sigh. and so the drama goes on.
>
€ Candidate Smith knew that Bill Law's impending disclosure of what took
place on April 11, 1844 was:
1. sure to torpedo his chance of winning the 1844 U.S. Presidental Election.
2. provide an abundance of fodder for political cartoonists.
> > I assume from this explanation by church leaders that they know that
Joseph
> > intended either to build a theocratic dictatorship on the ruins of the U.S.
> > republic or to go out into the wild and start his own country where he
could be
> > absolute monarch, without any interference from any outside power. Joseph's
> > "tragic flaw" was that he not only wanted to be king, he intended to
be king by
> > any means necessary.
>
>
> sigh. Your hatred and bigtry requires no imagination.
>
€ King Joseph is undoubtedly what happened on 4/11/1844.
> >
> >...
cheers
PatentWorm
and condemn the actions of people who were literally fighting for their
lives and who had just suffered a decade and a half of continuous
persecution by others. Whether it was "right" to pie the type of the
Expositer is a question that can only be answered by looking at the entire
circumstances. Since the purpose of the Expositer was to rile up public
sentiment against the church, based on a conspiracy, one can see the rights
of the victims to stop the persecution in the tracks, sort of like blacks
closing down the KKK printing press, or the Jews shutting down the Nazis.
Perhaps we don't have fronteer justice today, but back then it was de
riguer.
"cdowis" <cdo...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
news:93c36e92.01081...@posting.google.com...
CharlesSWaters
"PatentWorm" <innovato...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9l98vb$31h8$1...@news.aros.net...
> How easy is it for people resting comfortably in their armchairs to judge
> and condemn the actions of people who were literally fighting for their
> lives and who had just suffered a decade and a half of continuous
> persecution by others. Whether it was "right" to pie the type of the
> Expositer is a question that can only be answered by looking at the entire
> circumstances. Since the purpose of the Expositer was to rile up public
> sentiment against the church, based on a conspiracy, one can see the
rights
> of the victims to stop the persecution in the tracks, sort of like blacks
> closing down the KKK printing press, or the Jews shutting down the Nazis.
> Perhaps we don't have fronteer justice today, but back then it was de
> riguer.
You mean like the demos shutting down the repubs publication efforts.
--
Cheerio,
Charles
"Question with boldness even the very existence of a God; because if there
be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of a
blindfolded fear." -- Thomas Jefferson
>
>
Bryce
PatentWorm wrote:
The constitution of Illinois also forbid infringement on "freedom of the
press." Your argument doesn't hold water.
Bryce
PatentWorm wrote:
> How easy is it for people resting comfortably in their armchairs to judge
> and condemn the actions of people who were literally fighting for their
> lives and who had just suffered a decade and a half of continuous
> persecution by others. Whether it was "right" to pie the type of the
> Expositer is a question that can only be answered by looking at the entire
> circumstances. Since the purpose of the Expositer was to rile up public
> sentiment against the church, based on a conspiracy, one can see the rights
> of the victims to stop the persecution in the tracks, sort of like blacks
> closing down the KKK printing press, or the Jews shutting down the Nazis.
> Perhaps we don't have fronteer justice today, but back then it was de
> riguer.
PatentWorm is now arguing in favor of moral relativism. That should
make him popular with his fellow religionists.
But why not take it a step further? Why not start asking about the
so-called "persecutors" of Joseph Smith? How do you think they felt,
watching him escape the law again and again because of the Mormons'
ridiculous and self-serving interpretation of haebeus corpus law? How
do you think they felt, seeing an apocalyptic lunatic in command of the
largest militia in Illinois? Do you think they were thrilled to find
that Smith was going around, asking for their wives and daughters'
hands in marriage?
"Frontier justice" is right simply because it was considered acceptable
at the time? Was slavery "right" just because it was considered
acceptable in the South at the same time? Considering the extent of
Smith's crimes, and your apparent warm regard for "frontier justice,"
the crimes committed at Carthage must appear to be very small in your eyes.
PatentWorm
own air-conditioned living room with the benefit of 160 years of 20/20
hindsite.
"Bryce" <bryce_a...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3B78589F...@yahoo.com...
PatentWorm
"CharlesSWaters" <cswater...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:9l9bm...@enews3.newsguy.com...
>
> "PatentWorm" <innovato...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:9l98vb$31h8$1...@news.aros.net...
> > How easy is it for people resting comfortably in their armchairs to
judge
> > and condemn the actions of people who were literally fighting for their
> > lives and who had just suffered a decade and a half of continuous
> > persecution by others. Whether it was "right" to pie the type of the
> > Expositer is a question that can only be answered by looking at the
entire
> > circumstances. Since the purpose of the Expositer was to rile up public
> > sentiment against the church, based on a conspiracy, one can see the
> rights
> > of the victims to stop the persecution in the tracks, sort of like
blacks
> > closing down the KKK printing press, or the Jews shutting down the
Nazis.
> > Perhaps we don't have fronteer justice today, but back then it was de
> > riguer.
>
> You mean like the demos shutting down the repubs publication efforts.>
Not really. Not an apt comparison. I like mine better.
PatentWorm
I have no idea how the Illinois law was interpreted, and whether it
protected the press as 1st amendment jurisprudence does today. Again, you
are merely transplanting todays mores onto yesterday's problems. Not a
credible thing to do.
TheJordan6
>Another interesting twist is that people wrongly apply 20th century first
>amendment law to the situation, complete with the notion of "incorporation"
>of the Bill of Rights through the 14th Amendment due process clause to apply
>to the states or local governments. In fact, the 14th Amendment wouldn't be
>enacted for decades, and the notion of "incorporation" never arose until the
>20th century. Accordingly, since the 1st amendment only applied to limit
>the power of Congress, there could have been no first amendment violation by
>destroying a printing press in 1844, unless the federal government did it.
According to your 'logic,' any person whose name was mentioned negatively in
any newspaper in America during that period could go out and destroy that
newspaper, press, and building, without bothering to go through any legal
channels whatsoever.
I wrote some comments on the 'Expositor' destruction some time ago. In the
interests of time, I'll just repeat them:
A Mormon wrote:
>>>Hate to point it out to you, but when he ordered the destruction of the
>>>Expositor, he violated no law at that time,
And Randy replied:
>>The actual criminal charge brought against Joseph Smith for the Expositor
>>destruction was "riot." When his arrest became imminent for the riot charge,
>>Smith declared martial law and activated his Nauvoo Legion to prevent his
>>arrest and extradition. Joseph Smith was then arrested for "treason"
>>against the state of Illinois.
To which "Ninja X" replied:
>And your source for this is...where?
"Joseph Smith, acting as mayor, ordered the city marshal to destroy the
newspaper and press without delay and instructed the major general of the
Nauvoo Legion to have the militia assist. Shortly after eight o'clock that
evening, citizens and legionniares marched to the 'Expositor' office and
smashed the press, scattering the type as they did so. This act infuriated the
non-Mormons of Hancock County, who saw it as a final act of contempt for their
laws. The 'Quincy Whig' denounced the 'high-handed outrage' and said that if
this was a specimen of 'Mormon attitude towards law and rights it is not
surprising that the Missourians were raised to madness and drove them from the
state.'.....At Warsaw Thomas Sharp said, 'We hold ourselves at al times in
readyness to co-operate with our fellow citizens...to exterminate, utterly
exterminate, the wicked and abominable Mormon leaders.'....Advocating an attack
upon the Mormon city, he screamed in his headlines, 'Strike them!' for the
time has fully come.' To provide justification for a march on Nauvoo, charges
of promoting a riot were made against Smith and several Mormon leaders, and
Constable David Bettisworth was sent to Nauvoo on June 12 to apprehend them.
When Bettisworth reached Nauvoo, Smith refused to go to Carthage, fearing his
life would be endangered. He said he would stand trial before any judge in
Nauvoo. To prevent Bettisworth from taking him, he secured a writ of habeas
corpus from a city court and later was tried and acquitted before a non-Mormon
judge. When Bettisworth came back to Carthage without his prisoner, the
reaction of the old citizens was nearly hysterical....One citizen remarked,
'Joe has tried the game too often.' The Carthaginians sent messengers...urging
armed men to come to Carthage to take Smith into custody. Emissaries were sent
to Governor Ford, charging that Smith had defied the law and asking Ford to
bring the state militia...In the face of an imminent attack on his city, Smith
declared Nauvoo under martial law and called out the Legion, a defensive action
which later led to treason charges being levied against him at
Carthage.....Ford had learned of the excitement and decided to intervene.....he
wrote the Mormon leader requesting that evidence be shown to justify the
actions taken against the 'Expositor.' After reviewing this and counter
evidence from the anti-Mormons, Ford wrote Smith on the next day, denouncing
the city's proceedings as unlawful and demanding that those involved in the
move against the Expositor submit to the processes of the law at Carthage."
(Carthage Conspiracy, Oaks and Hill, pp. 15-16.)
>>>nor did he violate the First Amendment at that time either.
>> If Joseph Smith had not died soon afterwards, and the "Expositor"
>>publishers had pressed civil charges, one charge against Smith
>>would have been violation of rights of free speech.
>Of course, if that were true, that case would have been for naught. There
>was no guarantee of free speech at that time as we know it. The right of
>free speech at that time only pertained to national laws, as it had not been
>extended to the states via the 14th admendment. In short, the case would
>have sunk...badly. You should have read up on your history.
Although the Bill of Rights was formally extended to the states in 1868,
freedom of speech and of the press had been recognized as an inalienable right
since the Peter Zenger case in New York in 1735. Zenger was tried for libel
for criticizing the British government, and he was acquitted because his
writings were true. Freedom of the press has been upheld in the US since that
time.
"Beginning with Virginia in 1776, state after state wrote the idea of a free
press into its constitution. In 1778, Massachusetts rejected a proposed
constitution because it did not contain such a provision. Today, all state
constitutions have a provision guaranteeing freedom of the press. Several
states ratified the Federal Constitution itself only after being assured that
the document would be amended to protect freedom of expression. Amendment 1 to
the United States Constitution states that 'Congress shall make no
law...abridging the freedom...of the press.' "
(World Book)
I assume that Illinois had such a law guaranteeing a frre press, because both
Governor Ford and the
"Expositor" publishers pointed to Smith's violation of freedom of the press in
their complaints against him:
"General Smith,...I attribute the last outbreak to the destruction of the
'Expositor,' and to your refusal to comply with the writ issued by Esq.
Morrison. The press in the United States is looked upon as the great bulwark
of freedom, and its destruction in Nauvoo was represented and looked upon as a
high-handed measure, and manifests to the people a disposition on your part to
suppress the liberty of speech and of the press; this, with your refusal to
comply with the requisition of a writ, I conceive to be the principal cause of
this difficulty, and you are, moreover, represented to me as turbulent and
defiant of the laws and institutions of your country."
(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 384.)
"We are earnestly seeking to explode the vicious principles of Joseph
Smith, and those who practice the same abominations and whoredoms;
which we verily know and are not accordant and consonant with the
principles of Jesus Christ and the Apostles; and for that purpose, and
with that end in view, with an eye single to the glory of God, we have
dared to gird on the armor, and with God at our head, we most solemnly
and sincerely declare that the sword of truth shall not depart from the
thigh, nor the buckler from the arm, until we can enjoy those glorious
privileges which nature's God and our country's laws have guarantied
(sic) to us -- freedom of speech, the liberty of the press, and the
right to worship God as seemeth us good."
(William Law, Francis Higbee, 'Nauvoo Expositor')
The violation of the 'Expositor's' rights to free speech was only half of
Smith's error; the other half being that he ordered its destruction without due
process; that is why he was arrested for inciting riot. His excuse for its
destruction was that the paper was a 'public nuisance'; however, the
'Expositor' does not contain a hint of inciting to riot, or to disturbing the
public peace.
Its only 'crime' was that it criticized Joseph Smith, exposed his secret
practice of polygamy, financial irregularities, and his plans to create a
theocratic government headed by himself, and called for Nauvoo citizens to vote
against Hyrum Smith in the legislative election.
Even LDS apostle (and lawyer) Dallin Oaks conceded that Smith had "no legal
justification for the destruction of the Expositor press."
(Carthage Conspiracy, p. 26.)
Smith had yet another motive to rid himself of the threat of William Law:
"The marriage to the Lawrence sisters became public knowledge when William Law,
Joseph's second counselor in the First Presidency, became alienated from the
prophet......On May 23 he filed suit against the Mormon leader in Hancock
County Circuit Court, at Carthage, charging that Smith had been living with
Maria Lawrence 'in an open state of adultery' from October 12, 1843, to the day
of the suit. In response, Smith flatly denied polygamy in a speech delivered
on May 26: '[The charges against me are false].....What a thing it is for a
man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can
only find one.....[I can prove them all perjurers.]' As polygamy was illegal
under US law, Smith had little choice but to repudiate the practice."
(In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith, pp. 476-477.)
As it played out, Smith's method of 'proving them all perjurers' was not to
take them to court, as would have been proper, but to attempt to silence them
without due process by destroying their
printing press.
Unfortunately, the later admission of the polygamy practice, along with the
revelation of the instigation of the "Council of Fifty," and of Joseph Smith
having himself crowned as "King of Israel," showed that what the
'Expositor' publishers wrote was the truth. Smith had the press destroyed not
because it lied, but because it revealed his secret acts. Smith realized that
if his secret acts and plans became public, his empire would crumble. He knew
that he couldn't sue the publishers, because he would lose; therefore, his
destruction of the press was a desperate act of lawlessness, done purely to
maintain his power; he miscalculated the retaliation from non-Mormons, and it
led directly to his death two weeks later.
In America, you don't mess with freedom of the press.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>Date: Sun, Aug 12, 2001 07:23 EDT
>Message-id: <3B766730...@yahoo.com>
This is another fine example of the distortion of history by LDS apologists.
William Law and his associates are made to appear as "conspirators" who sought
Smith's destruction. Mormon apologists must make every effort to cast Smith's
opponents in as negative light as possible, for the purpose of obfuscating the
facts of Smith's own deceit and crimes. Such propaganda fills the feeble minds
of Mobots like Woody Brison, who turns and invents allegations like "William
Law was excommunicated for seducing young women."
The truth about William Law and Joseph Smith is very simple: Law had been one
of Smith's most staunch supporters since 1840. Law even swore an affidavit in
1842 stating that he had never heard Smith advocate plural marriage, and that
the practice was instigated by John C. Bennett. Obviously, Smith told Law that
lie, and Law believed him. But in 1843, Smith proposed "plural marriage" to
Law's wife Jane. Law was disgusted and horrified not only at the prospect, but
also at having been blatantly lied to by Smith. Imagine Law, Smith's own
counselor in the presidency of the church, having secret doctrines withheld
from him, and realizing that he had been duped. Imagine the time and money he
had poured into Smith's church, only to be made a fool by Smith.
Law didn't commit any "sins," nor was he interested in killing Smith. The
simple fact is that Smith invented those charges against Law after Law refused
to knuckle under Smith's "authority" and shut up about polygamy. This is made
obvious by William Law's journal entry of April 15, 1844. As Michael Quinn
relates in his "Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power":
<< In the spring of 1844 Smith gave the public only an indistinct foreshadowing
of the new world order he was formulating in his secret meetings with the
Council of Fifty.
The day after this letter, Smith's dissenting counselor William Law recorded
an offer of ecclesiastical reinstatement that originated in the Council of
Fifty. On 15 April, Law wrote:
Since [general] Conference Almon Babbit[t] came to me, and said, that Joseph
Smith wished a reconciliation and that if I would let all drop and say
nothing about it, and be friendly, he would restore me to my office of the
First Presidency and raise me higher than ever, & would send me a writing to
that effect. I told Mr. Babbit[t] that I could not be bought, that if J.
Smith wanted reconciliation with me he must make public acknowledgement and
cease from his abominations &c.108
Soon to have a formal appointment as theocratic ambassador, Babbitt made
this religious offer to the ex-counselor shortly after the Council of Fifty
meeting on 11 April. A week later the Fifty conducted a solemn vote about
the ecclesiastical status of Smith's former counselor, and one member
referred to Babbitt's offer. >>
For those who didn't "get it," I'll translate: On April 11, 1844, Smith
offered to reinstate Law to his position in the first presidency. That was
only ten weeks before Smith's death---and about a year after Law had broken
away from Smith and organized a "caretaker" organization for the purpose of
reforming the church, including the banning of polygamy. Smith's offer to
reinstate Law and reconcile with him, shortly before Law and Co. published the
"Expositor", utterly destroys the Mormon apologists' contentions that Law was a
dastardly reprobate hell-bent on killing Smith. As Law wrote, he rejected
Smith's offer (via Babbitt) because he "could not be bought," and that if Smith
wanted reconcilation with him that Smith must make public acknowledgment of,
and cease his "abominations", obviously referring primarily to Smith's secret
polygamy practice. When Law told Babbit he "couldn't be bought," and published
the "Expositor," Smith retaliated by destroying the press, on the deceitful
excuse that it was a "public nuisance." Funny, Smith hadn't thought Law was so
heinous on April 11, when he offered to reinstate him into the first
presidency. That means that the event which enraged Smith against Law was his
rejection of his offer, and the knowledge that if the paper was distributed
throughout Nauvoo, that those thousands of Mormons who had been told that
polygamy was Bennett's doing would know that Smith was a liar, just as Law had
discovered. Therefore, Smith had the press destroyed to prevent the public
from knowing the facts, and to maintain his position as mayor and church
president---in which he was unsuccessful.
As Todd Compton wrote:
"The marriage to the Lawrence sisters became public knowledge when William Law,
Joseph's second counselor in the First Presidency, became alienated from the
prophet......On May 23 he filed suit against the Mormon leader in Hancock
County Circuit Court, at Carthage, charging that Smith had been living with
Maria Lawrence 'in an open state of adultery' from October 12, 1843, to the day
of the suit. In response, Smith flatly denied polygamy in a speech delivered
on May 26: '[The charges against me are false].....What a thing it is for a
man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can
only find one.....[I can prove them all perjurers.]' As polygamy was illegal
under US law, Smith had little choice but to repudiate the practice."
(In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith, pp. 476-477.)
The timeline:
Smith offers Law reinstatement on April 11, which Law rejects.
Law files charges of adultery against Smith on May 23.
Smith gives speech wherein he condemns Law and denies practicing polygamy on
May 26.
Law and Co. publish the "Expositor", which details Smith's polygamy practice,
which Smith had tried to keep secret, on June 7.
Expositor press is destroyed on June 10.
Smith is murdered on June 27.
Capeche?
Randy J.
TheJordan6
> One might think that since Smith and his Mormon associates virtually
>controlled the court system in Nauvoo that a simple civil suit could have
>stopped this "libel" without difficulty. Smith's actions only serve to
>convince
>us that what the EXPOSITOR printed was true enough that Smith considered it a
>terrible danger to his ability to continue his activities.
Bingo. Smith boasted that he could "prove all [his critics] perjurers,"
implying that he was going to take them to court, like a good citizen would do.
But instead, he had his thugs destroy their press. If Smith could have
"proved them perjurers", in a city where he enjoyed absoulte authority, he
should have done so. The problem was that if he got into court with Law and
Co., they would have all given their affidavits of Smith's polygamy teaching
and practice, of the 'Council of Fifty,' and of political double-dealing.
Smith knew that he couldn't win against all that, so he retaliated like a
cornered wolf.
Randy J.
CharlesSWaters
> Another fine example of armchair quarterbacking in the confirm of Bryce's
> own air-conditioned living room with the benefit of 160 years of 20/20
> hindsite.
Actually there's a lot of truth in what he said. It's just that the truth
may be less than divine.
--
Cheerio,
Charles
"There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to
want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or
ot." -- Elder/Apostle BKPackard
CharlesSWaters
"TheJordan6" <thejo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010814001140...@mb-cj.aol.com...
Nice timeline. It's a keeper.
--
Cheerio,
Charles
"There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to
want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or
ot." -- Elder/Apostle BKPackard
"The truth of a matter will always haunt you, no matter how secret the
hiding place." -- Anon
Guy R. Briggs
<snip>
> It is amazing to me that a seminar can be held about the
> Expositor without its attendees seeing the obvious: The
> Expositor was right.
>
Right about what? Right about Asian chicks being brought to Nauvoo
for sex? Right about them being sent away to die? Right about Joseph
and Hyrum spreading death and destruction like a tornado?
<more snippage>
>
> As it stands, there is no evidence that anything in the
> Expositor can be proven false, albeit it was written in
> Victorian melodramatic prose.
>
Can the aforementioned parts be proven /true/? That's a better
question.
bestRegards, Guy.
CommUnitarian
wrote:
>grale...@cs.comRLDS (CommUnitarian) wrote
>> It appears that Church leaders want to make it appear that William Law
>took
>> the part of Iago to Joseph Smith's Othello.
>>
>> However, all tragedy requires that the hero have a tragic flaw.
>
>
>In an attempt to be poetic, your argument takes on broad artistic
>license -- IOW, it is flawed. You ignore the historic events
>surrounding this event.
Can you name an historic event that was ignored? The Battle of Khartoum
doesn't have anything to do with the fact that Joseph Smith was illegally
practicing polygamy, and held a council of fifty to plot the establishment of a
monarchy, with himself as king. It also doesn't change the fact that Joseph,
like Rep. Condit, wanted to cover up what he had been up to.
>>
>> Given the supposed intent of Joseph's enemies, it makes it appear that
>Joseph
>> had all the attributes of a banana republic dictator, and that required
>only
>> minimal agitation for these to be set off.
>
>You set the stage for your "drama" with a cheap shot. Have you
>forgotten that the city of Nauvoo, and by extension, the mayor of
>Nauvoo had extraordinary powers *chartered* by the state itself.
Have you forgotten, Charles, that the constitution of the U.S. guarantees
every state a republican form of government? The State of Illinois could have
issued a decree making Joseph Smith hereditary dictator of Nauvoo, with
absolute power of life and death, and it would have made no difference in this
case. Joseph was acting as an overbearing, mad tyrant. No sanctimonious
religious rhetoric about "The Kingdom of God" can change that. We are to
imitate Christ, not Herod the Great.
>
>How interesting that your little drama ignores that fact.
>
>
>>
>> The mayor of New York City would have burned half the town down by now,
>if he
>> responded to alleged "libel" in the same manner as Mayor Smith.
>
>
>Again ignorance of history. The Mormons, the citizens of Nauvoo, and,
> by extension, the city itself was under siege by their enemies. They
>had only themselves to protect themselves, as the state refused to do
>so.
Having enemies, Charles, does not automatically justify all of own's
actions. Joseph's actions, which the EXPOSITOR reported, were illegal. They
represented the same kind of threat to the U.S. government as the recent
"Republic of Texas" crew who were put down a few years ago for filing false tax
liens against property, claiming that taxes were owed to the "Republic."
Every drug dealer around the corner has several people who want to kill him,
and has total lack of support from local law enforcement. Does that mean that
anything he chooses to do to "protect" himself and his "business" is
justifiable and heroic?
>
>Your drama, once again, completely ignores historic facts.
It would be nice if you would point some of these out. If the U.S.
Government had deannexed Nauvoo, and made it self-governing, or something, I
may have missed that in my history book.
>
>
>>
>> One might think
>
>
>I assume that "one" is ignorant of the facts.
>
>>that since Smith and his Mormon associates virtually
>> controlled the court system in Nauvoo
>
>And your proof of statement....
Let's just refer to it as an "historic fact" which you ignore, Charles.
>
>Your drama moves now from ignorance of facts to outrageous speculative
>remarks. You have zero proof so you leave it to your audience's
>imagination.
I have zero proof that George Washington crossed the Delaware, too. Just
because people paint pictures of him doing it, and prorepublican factions print
history books that say he did it really doesn't mean much, Charles.
>
>
> that a simple civil suit could have
>> stopped this "libel" without difficulty. Smith's actions only serve to
>convince
>> us that what the EXPOSITOR printed was true enough that Smith considered it
>a
>> terrible danger to his ability to continue his activities.
>
>
>sigh. and so the drama goes on.
>
>
>>
>> I assume from this explanation by church leaders that they know that
>Joseph
>> intended either to build a theocratic dictatorship on the ruins of the U.S.
>> republic or to go out into the wild and start his own country where he
>could be
>> absolute monarch, without any interference from any outside power. Joseph's
>> "tragic flaw" was that he not only wanted to be king, he intended to be
>king by
>> any means necessary.
>
>
>sigh. Your hatred and bigtry requires no imagination.
I have heard of alligator tears, before, but what kind of sighs are
these, Charles. It is not bigotry to point out simple, obvious truths.
In Houston, Asians who stay up all night running convenience stores so
that the locals can buy rolling papers are condemned as racist bigots. This
usually happens if a nonAsian gets shot while trying to rob them.
Since I am a member of the church founded by Joseph Smith in 1830, and use
the Book of Mormon in my daily devotions, charges of bigotry fall kind of flat.
It is as if I am being accused of "not being black enough."
>>
>> William Law, as Iago, merely enraged Joseph and caused him to tip his
>hand
>> much too soon. After all, Othello really was a murderer. Making up a lot of
>> excuses about why it wasn't really his fault don't hold up.
>>
I stand by this last statement, Charles.
CommUnitarian
wrote:
>
>How easy is it for people resting comfortably in their armchairs to judge
>and condemn the actions of people who were literally fighting for their
>lives and who had just suffered a decade and a half of continuous
>persecution by others.
This sounds like the warm up to a speech by Jesse Jackson explaining why
L.A. looters deserve amnesty. The wind up to such a speech usually includes the
suggestion that the looters are performing a public service by moving
merchandise from rich white people's houses to pawn shops where poor people can
afford them. Likewise, no injury is caused to the rich people, since "their
insurance pays for it all."
Raleigh
CommUnitarian
wrote:
>
>Bingo. Smith boasted that he could "prove all [his critics] perjurers,"
>implying that he was going to take them to court, like a good citizen would
>do.
> But instead, he had his thugs destroy their press. If Smith could have
>"proved them perjurers", in a city where he enjoyed absoulte authority, he
>should have done so. The problem was that if he got into court with Law and
>Co., they would have all given their affidavits of Smith's polygamy teaching
>and practice, of the 'Council of Fifty,' and of political double-dealing.
>Smith knew that he couldn't win against all that, so he retaliated like a
>cornered wolf.
Yes. It seems almost psychotic, like a man claiming that a woman consorts
with him out of the deep passion she feels for him, and that she would reject
all other suitors in favor of him--while he has her tied to the bed.
If the first vision had not occurred in 1830, God would have had no problem
recruiting a prophet today. Darrick Evenson comes to mind.
ForWhatItsWorth
news:20010814085156...@mb-fl.news.cs.com...
> >thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6)
> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Bingo. Smith boasted that he could "prove all [his critics] perjurers,"
> >implying that he was going to take them to court, like a good citizen
would
> >do.
> > But instead, he had his thugs destroy their press. If Smith could have
> >"proved them perjurers", in a city where he enjoyed absoulte authority,
he
> >should have done so. The problem was that if he got into court with Law
and
> >Co., they would have all given their affidavits of Smith's polygamy
teaching
> >and practice, of the 'Council of Fifty,' and of political double-dealing.
> >Smith knew that he couldn't win against all that, so he retaliated like a
> >cornered wolf.
>
> Yes. It seems almost psychotic, like a man claiming that a woman
consorts
> with him out of the deep passion she feels for him, and that she would
reject
> all other suitors in favor of him--while he has her tied to the bed.
>
> If the first vision had not occurred in 1830, God would have had no
problem
> recruiting a prophet today. Darrick Evenson comes to mind.
Aaaugh! Raleigh! Get those thoughts out of your mind! I mean, one of them
was a pervert who fantasized about sex with younger women, lots of them, all
of them coming to him in religious passion. The other one.... hey,
waitaminnit.... which one was I talking about?
Maybe you are on to something, after all. Yuck.
fwiw
cdowis
snip
> > Another interesting twist is that people wronly apply 20th century first
> > amendment law to the situation, complete with the notion of "incorporation"
> > of the Bill of Rights through the 14th Amendment due process clause to apply
> > to the states or local governments. In fact, the 14th Amendment wouldn't be
> > enacted for decades, and the notion of "incorporation" never arose until the
> > 20th century. Accordingly, since the 1st amendment only applied to limit
> > the power of Congress, there could have been no first amendment violation by
> > destroying a printing press in 1844, unless the federal government did it.
>
> The constitution of Illinois also forbid infringement on "freedom of the
> press." Your argument doesn't hold water.
You are presenting a legal argument? "Doesn't hold water" assumes you
know what you are talking abt. Please give us your legal credentials
and specific research into whether JS and the city council had the
right to do what they did.
I personally think you are full of baloney, but I am interested in
your learned response.
cdowis
> Patentworm, who says he's a lawyer, wrote:
>
> >Another interesting twist is that people wrongly apply 20th century first
> >amendment law to the situation, complete with the notion of "incorporation"
> >of the Bill of Rights through the 14th Amendment due process clause to apply
> >to the states or local governments. In fact, the 14th Amendment wouldn't be
> >enacted for decades, and the notion of "incorporation" never arose until the
> >20th century. Accordingly, since the 1st amendment only applied to limit
> >the power of Congress, there could have been no first amendment violation by
> >destroying a printing press in 1844, unless the federal government did it.
>
> According to your 'logic,' any person whose name was mentioned negatively in
> any newspaper in America during that period could go out and destroy that
> newspaper, press, and building, without bothering to go through any legal
> channels whatsoever.
JS was the mayor of Nauvoo. He convened the city council which
condemned the Expositor as a public nuisance, and the sheriff carried
out the order of the city council.
Now, tell us how your antimormon comment "without bothering to go
through any legal channels whatsoever" applies here.
snip
Fool Speck
> Another interesting twist is that people wronly apply 20th century first
> amendment law to the situation, complete with the notion of "incorporation"
> of the Bill of Rights through the 14th Amendment due process clause to apply
> to the states or local governments. In fact, the 14th Amendment wouldn't be
> enacted for decades, and the notion of "incorporation" never arose until the
> 20th century. Accordingly, since the 1st amendment only applied to limit
> the power of Congress, there could have been no first amendment violation by
> destroying a printing press in 1844, unless the federal government did it.
Dallin Oaks, and the attorneys of that day disagree with you. Smith
had the right only to destroy the issues of the Expositor, not the
press itself. Dallin Oaks writes:
"The characterization of the printing press as a nuisance, and its
subsequent destruction, is another matter. The common law authorities
on nuisance abatement generally, and especially those on summary
abatement, were emphatic in declaring that abatement must be limited
by the necessities of the case, and that no wanton or unnecessary
destruction of property could be permitted. A party guilty of excess
was liable in damages for trespass to the party injured.... there was
no legal justification in 1844 for the destruction of the Expositor
press as a nuisance. Its libelous, provocative, and perhaps obscene
output may well have been a public and a private nuisance, but the
evil article was not the press itself but the way in which it was
being used. Consequently, those who caused or accomplished its
destruction were liable for money damages in an action of trespass."
(Utah Law Review, Summer 1965, pages 890-891)
Steve
Lisa Myshrall
> Analysis, anyone?
>
>
> *******************************
>
> Church News - Week ending August 11, 2001
>
> Nauvoo Expositor was a conspirators' tool to destroy Joseph Smith
>
> Events leading to the June 27, 1844, martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum Smith
> included the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor, as described in
> History of the Church, with Joseph writing: "Monday, June 10, 1844. --
> I was in the City Council from 10 a.m., to 1:20 p.m., and from 2:20 p.m.
> to 6:30 p.m. investigating the merits of the Nauvoo Expositor, and also
> the conduct of the Laws, Higbees, Fosters, and others, who have formed
> a conspiracy for the purpose of destroying my life, and scattering the
Saints
> or driving them from the state.
Sounds like a paranoid cult leader to me. But that is just 'my' opinion....
>
> "An ordinance was passed concerning libels. The Council passed an
> ordinance declaring the Nauvoo Expositor a nuisance, and also issued an
> order to me to abate the said nuisance. I immediately ordered the
> Marshal to destroy it without delay, and at the same time issued an
> order to Jonathan Dunham, acting Major-General of the Nauvoo Legion,
> to assist the Marshal with the Legion, if called upon so to do."
>
Still sounds like a cult again. Giving orders to stop someone because they
print/speak something against them.
But you know, I am just a normal everyday person. What do I know....
Lisa (who is feeling right frisky again today)
Fool Speck
> How easy is it for people resting comfortably in their armchairs to judge
> and condemn the actions of people who were literally fighting for their
> lives and who had just suffered a decade and a half of continuous
> persecution by others. Whether it was "right" to pie the type of the
> Expositer is a question that can only be answered by looking at the entire
> circumstances. Since the purpose of the Expositer was to rile up public
> sentiment against the church, based on a conspiracy, one can see the rights
> of the victims to stop the persecution in the tracks, sort of like blacks
> closing down the KKK printing press, or the Jews shutting down the Nazis.
> Perhaps we don't have fronteer justice today, but back then it was de
> riguer.
Dallin Oaks disagrees with you:
Fool Speck
> Another fine example of armchair quarterbacking in the confirm of Bryce's
> own air-conditioned living room with the benefit of 160 years of 20/20
> hindsite.
Is this somehow a rebuttal to his argument? What does it mean when one
can't offer any intelligent rebuttal and resorts to disparaging Bryce?
Steve
Fool Speck
> I have no idea how the Illinois law was interpreted, and whether it
> protected the press as 1st amendment jurisprudence does today. Again, you
> are merely transplanting todays mores onto yesterday's problems. Not a
> credible thing to do.
Worm, you really should do more research on what the reaction of the
legal system was in that day. The phrase "freedom of the press" came
up often enough in contemporary publications.
Also, Dallin Oaks disagrees with you:
PatentWorm
"Fool Speck" <SRLo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9dcdb6ed.01081...@posting.google.com...
If you cannot see the rebuttal, you aren't looking very hard.
ForWhatItsWorth
Charles, tell us how an order by a city council to destroy private property,
without due process, without consent of the property owner, without
opportunity for appeal, is in any way legal, let alone moral?
fwiw
Lee Paulson
Charles, by that argument, you need to give us your credentials
for discussing mtDNA before we consider your learned response.
Lee
**Orohippus, Mesohippus, Miohippus, Protohippus, Pliohippus,
Equus. Evolution is just a theory. So is gravity.**
PatentWorm
news:<9l9qo2$cn6$1...@news.aros.net>...
>
> > I have no idea how the Illinois law was interpreted, and whether it
> > protected the press as 1st amendment jurisprudence does today. Again,
you
> > are merely transplanting todays mores onto yesterday's problems. Not a
> > credible thing to do.
>
> Worm, you really should do more research on what the reaction of the
> legal system was in that day. The phrase "freedom of the press" came
> up often enough in contemporary publications.>
But what that "freedom" meant in the context of prevailing authority granted
to the Nauvoo commission is the real issue. If the commission was given
plenary power to impose a prior restraint on slanderous statements, then it
certainly acted within its discretion. A previous poster indicated that
such power was indeed given to it.
>
> Also, Dallin Oaks disagrees with you:>
Actually, he didn't. He said quite clearly that there was more than one way
to stop the slanderous, libelous activities of the Expositer owners.
Destroying the press was but one way, not the least intrusive way, and the
way that would give the owner the right to sue for damages (but not the
right to reprint the slanderous and libelous statements). Oaks never said
any of the activities violated the first amendment, only that destroying the
press was an act of tresspass that could be remedied by money damages. Read
on:
>
> "The characterization of the printing press as a nuisance, and its
> subsequent destruction, is another matter. The common law authorities
> on nuisance abatement generally, and especially those on summary
> abatement, were emphatic in declaring that abatement must be limited
> by the necessities of the case, and that no wanton or unnecessary
> destruction of property could be permitted. A party guilty of excess
> was liable in damages for trespass to the party injured.... there was
> no legal justification in 1844 for the destruction of the Expositor
> press as a nuisance. Its libelous, provocative, and perhaps obscene
> output may well have been a public and a private nuisance, but the
> evil article was not the press itself but the way in which it was
> being used.>
Thus, the proper course of action would have been an injuction to stop the
presses. Destroying the presses went beyond this course of action, even
though it was really just a more final "injunction", coupled with a
destruction of property, which warranted the need to pay restitution for the
loss of property. Read on.
> Consequently, those who caused or accomplished its
> destruction were liable for money damages in an action of trespass."
> (Utah Law Review, Summer 1965, pages 890-891)>
There you have it. No violation of the 1st amendment, but simply a common
law violation of property rights.
PatentWorm
He doesn't really understand the legal terrain of the day, and by his
statements, shows that he is willing to anachronistically impose today's
decisions on yesterday's reality. That's a no no, or in Bryce's case, a
Bozo no no.
PatentWorm
"Lee Paulson" <lrpa...@xxearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3b793792$1...@nntp.networld.com...
What about your learned response to my discussion of caffeine as being a
vasoconstrictor? Did having a Ph.D. help you to conclude that caffeine is
really a vasodilator? What other incorrect conclusions does a Ph.D. help
one to make?
PatentWorm
> Patentworm, who says he's a lawyer, wrote:
>
> >Another interesting twist is that people wrongly apply 20th century first
> >amendment law to the situation, complete with the notion of
"incorporation"
> >of the Bill of Rights through the 14th Amendment due process clause to
apply
> >to the states or local governments. In fact, the 14th Amendment wouldn't
be
> >enacted for decades, and the notion of "incorporation" never arose until
the
> >20th century. Accordingly, since the 1st amendment only applied to limit
> >the power of Congress, there could have been no first amendment violation
by
> >destroying a printing press in 1844, unless the federal government did
it.
>
> According to your 'logic,' any person whose name was mentioned negatively
in
> any newspaper in America during that period could go out and destroy that
> newspaper, press, and building, without bothering to go through any legal
> channels whatsoever.>
Is that what my logic means to you? If so, you have clearly misunderstood
or misrepresented it, because it means no such thing. The sum of it is
clearly stated: It was no violation of the 1st amendment for a municipality
to destroy a printing press because the 1st amendment did not apply to
municipalities in 1844. Nothing more, nothing less. Other laws, such as
common law trespass, did apply and would have led to a cause of action for
that other offense. But I guess you don't care to consider such
distinctions but continue to paint with a broad, reckless brush.
R. L. Measures
<mysh...@qwest.net> wrote:
€ Many plain vanilla persons seemingly know that the division between
salvation and condemnation is quite unlikely to be made of rubber.
However, John Paul II doesn't know it.
cheers, frisky Lisa.
--
- Rich... 805.386.3734.
www.vcnet.com/measures
PatentWorm
Didn't you know, "legal channels" can never involve Mormons. We are fair
game to be shot at, tarred and feathered, and driven from our homes by fine,
outstanding Born Again Christians like Randy Jordan. Only the mobs of the
time were legally authorized to do what they did, as well as those reckless
members of the press like the Expositor, whose only purpose was to rile up
the mobs. Didn't you know?
PatentWorm
"ForWhatItsWorth" <2ce...@todaysrate.com> wrote in message
news:3b7931cb$0$43...@wodc7nh0.news.uu.net...
The convening of the city counsel, by its very definition, was "due
process". I suppose there were any number of ways that William Law could
have appealed their decision, such as through a valid law suit, short of
painting his face, donning a mask, and martyring Joseph and Hyrum Smith,
wouldn't you think? Doesn't this action tell you something about the
mindset of those who ran the Expositor? That they would shortly resort to
murder in the 1st degree?
R. L. Measures
SRLo...@hotmail.com (Fool Speck) wrote:
€ maybe it means he's runnin' low on ammo?
cheers, Steve
PatentWorm
news:<9l98n3$3187$1...@news.aros.net>...
>
> > Another interesting twist is that people wronly apply 20th century first
> > amendment law to the situation, complete with the notion of
"incorporation"
> > of the Bill of Rights through the 14th Amendment due process clause to
apply
> > to the states or local governments. In fact, the 14th Amendment
wouldn't be
> > enacted for decades, and the notion of "incorporation" never arose until
the
> > 20th century. Accordingly, since the 1st amendment only applied to
limit
> > the power of Congress, there could have been no first amendment
violation by
> > destroying a printing press in 1844, unless the federal government did
it.
>
> Dallin Oaks, and the attorneys of that day disagree with you. Smith
> had the right only to destroy the issues of the Expositor, not the
> press itself.>
Then he confirmed that what occured couldn't have been a 1st amendment
violation. In fact, he clearly states that destroying the press made the
perpetrators liable for money damages for the destroyed properties. I
couldn't agree more. But it ain't a 1st amendment violation.
He said quite clearly that there was more than one way
to stop the slanderous, libelous activities of the Expositer owners.
Destroying the press was but one way, not the least intrusive way, and the
way that would give the owner the right to sue for damages (but not the
right to reprint the slanderous and libelous statements). Oaks never said
any of the activities violated the first amendment, only that destroying the
press was an act of tresspass that could be remedied by money damages. Read
on:
>
> "The characterization of the printing press as a nuisance, and its
> subsequent destruction, is another matter. The common law authorities
> on nuisance abatement generally, and especially those on summary
> abatement, were emphatic in declaring that abatement must be limited
> by the necessities of the case, and that no wanton or unnecessary
> destruction of property could be permitted. A party guilty of excess
> was liable in damages for trespass to the party injured.... there was
> no legal justification in 1844 for the destruction of the Expositor
> press as a nuisance. Its libelous, provocative, and perhaps obscene
> output may well have been a public and a private nuisance, but the
> evil article was not the press itself but the way in which it was
> being used.>
Thus, the proper course of action would have been an injuction to stop the
presses. Destroying the presses went beyond this course of action, even
though it was really just a more final "injunction", coupled with a
destruction of property, which warranted the need to pay restitution for the
loss of property. Read on.
> Consequently, those who caused or accomplished its
> destruction were liable for money damages in an action of trespass."
> (Utah Law Review, Summer 1965, pages 890-891)>
There you have it. No violation of the 1st amendment, but simply a common
law violation of property rights.
PatentWorm
> >From: Bryce <bryce_a...@yahoo.com>
> >Date: Sun, Aug 12, 2001 07:23 EDT
> >Message-id: <3B766730...@yahoo.com>
> >
> >
> >
> >*******************************
> >
> >Church News - Week ending August 11, 2001
> >
> >Nauvoo Expositor was a conspirators' tool to destroy Joseph Smith
> >
> >Events leading to the June 27, 1844, martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum Smith
> >included the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor, as described in
> >History of the Church, with Joseph writing: "Monday, June 10, 1844. --
> >I was in the City Council from 10 a.m., to 1:20 p.m., and from 2:20 p.m.
> >to 6:30 p.m. investigating the merits of the Nauvoo Expositor, and also
> >the conduct of the Laws, Higbees, Fosters, and others, who have formed
> >a conspiracy for the purpose of destroying my life, and scattering the
> >Saints or driving them from the state.
> >
> >ordinance declaring the Nauvoo Expositor a nuisance, and also issued an
> >order to me to abate the said nuisance. I immediately ordered the
> >Marshal to destroy it without delay, and at the same time issued an
> >order to Jonathan Dunham, acting Major-General of the Nauvoo Legion,
> >to assist the Marshal with the Legion, if called upon so to do."
> >
> >the press, type, printed paper, and fixtures into the street, and
> >destroyed them. This was done because of the libelous and slanderous
> >character of the paper, its avowed intention being to destroy the
> >municipality and drive the Saints from the city."
> >
> >The reason for the destruction of the press was discussed during the
> >1994 Sons of Utah Pioneers Mormon History Symposium by Larry Porter, a
> >BYU religion professor with specialties in Church history and doctrine.
> > Enemies of the Church, including apostate William Law, plotted to
> >kill the Prophet but were thwarted when their plans were revealed.
> >Because of this, Brother Porter recounted, "They discussed how they
> >could get to Joseph Smith and get him to commit some overt act which
> >would cause the law to come in and get him away from his friends where
> >the enemies could get to him with powder and ball. They concluded that
> >they would float a newspaper called the Nauvoo Expositor." (Dec. 3,
> >1994, Church News.)
>
> This is another fine example of the distortion of history by LDS
apologists.
> William Law and his associates are made to appear as "conspirators" who
sought
> Smith's destruction.
I wonder if the fact that Law was later part of the mob that martyred JS
tells you something of his previous motives.
Fool Speck
Just looked hard. No rebuttal. Perhaps you could point it out?
ForWhatItsWorth
Granted, hate begats hate, violence begats violence. But, don't you suppose
that the Church leaders could perhaps have resorted to inspiration as
opposed to naked aggression? This was not a case of turning the other
cheek, this was a case of destroying the other guy pre-emptively.
The Expositor was a rag. Fine and dandy. So is the Enquirer. But if it is
morally wrong for Brad Pitt to slap the snot out of a paparazzi photographer
because he does not like them, it is even more wrong to break into a private
place of business and destroy property. It was wrong, period.
And it was a wrong committed under the inspired leadership of Joseph Smith.
Isn't there something about a prophet never leading the people astray?
fwiw
>
>
CharlesSWaters
"Guy R. Briggs" <net...@GeoCities.com> wrote in message
news:90FDF702netza...@209.84.17.10...
> SRLo...@hotmail.com (Fool Speck) wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > It is amazing to me that a seminar can be held about the
> > Expositor without its attendees seeing the obvious: The
> > Expositor was right.
> >
> Right about what? Right about Asian chicks being brought to Nauvoo
> for sex? Right about them being sent away to die? Right about Joseph
> and Hyrum spreading death and destruction like a tornado?
>
> <more snippage>
>
> >
> > As it stands, there is no evidence that anything in the
> > Expositor can be proven false, albeit it was written in
> > Victorian melodramatic prose.
> >
> Can the aforementioned parts be proven /true/? That's a better
> question.
>
> bestRegards, Guy.
Joseph Smith (Jr. <grin>) was marrying and having sex with more than his
legal wife consequently breaking both the laws of the land and those taught
publicly to the church. His current run for president would have been
seriously damaged by this *revelation* so they used force to suppress it.
Which part is wrong?
--
Cheerio,
Charles
"It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the
character of God and to know... that he was once a man like us..." --
Joseph Smith, Jr.
[Q. Was God once a man?] "I don't know. ... I wouldn't say that... I don't
know that we teach it... We don't know very much about [that]... I don't
know a lot about it" -- Gordon B. Hinckley
CharlesSWaters
Well, we saw the "butt" part and it wasn't very appealing.
--
Cheerio,
Charles
"Brother Cannon remarked that people wondered how many wives and children I
had. He may inform them, that I SHALL HAVE WIVES AND CHILDREN BY THE
MILLION, and glory, and riches and power and dominion, and kingdom after
kingdom, and reign triumphantly. -- Brigham Young (Journal of Discourses,
Vol. 8, page 178)
CharlesSWaters
Damn those anti-Mormon lawyers!
--
Cheerio,
Charles
"There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church
history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith
promoting or not." -- Elder/Apostle BKPackard
"The truth of a matter will always haunt you, no matter how
secret the hiding place." -- Anon
CharlesSWaters
Apostle Oaks disagrees with your unlearned statement. Go tell him to shut
the hell up.
--
Cheerio,
Charles
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with
sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." -- Galileo
Galilei
PatentWorm
"CharlesSWaters" <cswater...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:9lbpm...@enews4.newsguy.com...
>
> "PatentWorm" <innovato...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:9lbb7e$1et7$1...@news.aros.net...
> >
> > "Fool Speck" <SRLo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:9dcdb6ed.01081...@posting.google.com...
> > > "PatentWorm" <innovato...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:<9l9qki$cmt$1...@news.aros.net>...
> > > > Another fine example of armchair quarterbacking in the confirm of
> > Bryce's
> > > > own air-conditioned living room with the benefit of 160 years of
20/20
> > > > hindsite.
> > >
> > > Is this somehow a rebuttal to his argument? What does it mean when one
> > > can't offer any intelligent rebuttal and resorts to disparaging Bryce?
> > >
> > > Steve
> >
> > If you cannot see the rebuttal, you aren't looking very hard.
>
> Well, we saw the "butt" part and it wasn't very appealing.
>
>
You tried to see my butt, Charles?
PatentWorm
"Fool Speck" <SRLo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9dcdb6ed.01081...@posting.google.com...
> "PatentWorm" <innovato...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<9lbb7e$1et7$1...@news.aros.net>...
> > "Fool Speck" <SRLo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:9dcdb6ed.01081...@posting.google.com...
> > > "PatentWorm" <innovato...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:<9l9qki$cmt$1...@news.aros.net>...
> > > > Another fine example of armchair quarterbacking in the confirm of
> > Bryce's
> > > > own air-conditioned living room with the benefit of 160 years of
20/20
> > > > hindsite.
> > >
> > > Is this somehow a rebuttal to his argument? What does it mean when one
> > > can't offer any intelligent rebuttal and resorts to disparaging Bryce?
> > >
> > > Steve
> >
> > If you cannot see the rebuttal, you aren't looking very hard.
>
> Just looked hard. No rebuttal. Perhaps you could point it out?
You're just armchair quarterbacking. That's just too damn easy!
PatentWorm
Maybe they thought they were cleansing the temple.
>
> The Expositor was a rag. Fine and dandy. So is the Enquirer. But if it
is
> morally wrong for Brad Pitt to slap the snot out of a paparazzi
photographer
> because he does not like them, it is even more wrong to break into a
private
> place of business and destroy property. It was wrong, period.>
Yes, but how "wrong". It's also wrong for me to jaywalk. But under certain
circumstances, especially in the heat of the moment, it may seem right.
It's much easier to monday morning quarterback when the heat is off.
>
> And it was a wrong committed under the inspired leadership of Joseph
Smith.
> Isn't there something about a prophet never leading the people astray?>
I believe that the actions of the Expositor owners in exacting their own
revenge, which consisted of murder, shows you that there was more than a
mere war of words going on here. For what it's worth.
PatentWorm
Actually, Apostle Oaks did not comment at all on Charles's viewpoint, but
made a different point completely. His only point was that those who
committed an act of vandalism could be liable for money damages. He never
said they committed a crime. If I rear end someone, I may have to pay, but
in most cases, I committed no crime.
Fool Speck
> SRLo...@hotmail.com (Fool Speck) wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > It is amazing to me that a seminar can be held about the
> > Expositor without its attendees seeing the obvious: The
> > Expositor was right.
> >
> Right about what? Right about Asian chicks being brought to Nauvoo
> for sex?
You are representing your own extrapolation of "the most distant
regions of the Eastern hemisphere" to mean the orient. The readers
knew that the region of the Eastern hemisphere being expressed here
was Europe, not Asia. The whole "problem" here is so trivial that it
shows you are grasping for *something*. I am afraid your extrapolation
must be viewed as specious and irrelevant, Guy.
> Right about them being sent away to die?
You must be referring to the following:
"The next step to avoid public exposition from the common course of
things, they are sent away for a time, until all is well; after which
they return, as from a long visit. Those whom no power or influence
could seduce, except that which is wielded by some individual feigning
to be a God, must realize the remarks of an able writer, when he says,
'if woman's feelings are turned to ministers of sorrow, where shall
she look for consolation?' Her lot is to be wooed and won; her heart
is like some fortress that has been captured, sacked abandoned, and
left desolate. With her, the desire of the heart has failed -- the
great charm of existence is at an end; she neglects all the cheerful
exercises of life, which gladen the spirits, quicken the pulses, and
send the tide of life in healthful currents through the veins. Her
rest is broken. The sweet refreshment of sleep is poisoned by
melancholy dreams; dry sorrow drinks her blood, until her enfeebled
frame sinks under the slightest external injury. Look for her after a
little while, and you find friendship weeping over her untimely grave;
and wondering that one who but so recently glowed with all the
radiance of health and beauty, should so speedily be brought down to
darkness and despair, you will be told of some wintry chill, of some
casual indisposition that laid her low!"
If you read it again, it actually does not say she is "sent away to
die". It does indicate that she returned.
The Victorian melodramatics of that time is a way of saying that a
woman who has found herself in plural marriage can become so
depressed, reducing her natural immunities that she eventually catches
some contagion and dies. Depression simply does reduce natural
immunities. The author's scenario is by no means implausible.
> Right about Joseph
> and Hyrum spreading death and destruction like a tornado?
There is evidence even now that Joseph and Hyrum were in a siege
mentality, and covertly struck at the enemy. John D Lee details much
of this in his autobiography written before his execution. It not
only happened in Illinois, but Missouri as well. Remember that there
is substantial evidence, albeit much of which is circumstantial, that
Joseph's prophecy of Gov. Boggs dying violently was almost fulfilled
by Porter Rockwell. Boggs of course was shot, and Porter just
happened to be in Missouri at the time.
So at least the perception of Joseph and Hyrum spreading death and
destruction is not at all implausible.
>
> <more snippage>
>
> >
> > As it stands, there is no evidence that anything in the
> > Expositor can be proven false, albeit it was written in
> > Victorian melodramatic prose.
> >
> Can the aforementioned parts be proven /true/? That's a better
> question.
Few specific details probably printed could not be "proven" today.
Too much documentation destroyed (the records of the Council of Fifty,
etc) and all witnesses are dead.
It is interesting to note that Joseph's only recourse was destruction
of the press. He could not sue for libel because the evidence
presented would have been conclusive and devastating.
Even you MUST agree he was undisputedly a practitioner of polygamy,
and that it was illegal. The theme of the Expositer was the Smiths'
polygamy. They practiced polygamy and were mortified at having it
exposed. The Expositer exposed it. That is why Joseph and Hyrum went
nuts.
This truth is why you are nit-picking at the details in the Expositer,
Guy.
It is not an uncommon strategy that if the substance in whole cannot
be disproven, then obfuscate the issue by picking at the details.
Steve
PatentWorm
>
> "Guy R. Briggs" <net...@GeoCities.com> wrote in message
> news:90FDF702netza...@209.84.17.10...
> > SRLo...@hotmail.com (Fool Speck) wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > It is amazing to me that a seminar can be held about the
> > > Expositor without its attendees seeing the obvious: The
> > > Expositor was right.
> > >
> > Right about what? Right about Asian chicks being brought to Nauvoo
> > for sex? Right about them being sent away to die? Right about Joseph
> > and Hyrum spreading death and destruction like a tornado?
> >
> > <more snippage>
> >
> > >
> > > As it stands, there is no evidence that anything in the
> > > Expositor can be proven false, albeit it was written in
> > > Victorian melodramatic prose.
> > >
> > Can the aforementioned parts be proven /true/? That's a better
> > question.
> >
> > bestRegards, Guy.
>
> Joseph Smith (Jr. <grin>) was marrying and having sex with more than his
> legal wife consequently breaking both the laws of the land and those
taught
> publicly to the church. His current run for president would have been
> seriously damaged by this *revelation* so they used force to suppress it.>
But your argument says too much. Just because JS was a polygamist doesn't
make an assertion that he was bringing in asian comfort girls and then
having them killed true. Does it?!
>
> Which part is wrong?>
Guy just said.
PatentWorm
news:<90FDF702netza...@209.84.17.10>...
> > SRLo...@hotmail.com (Fool Speck) wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > It is amazing to me that a seminar can be held about the
> > > Expositor without its attendees seeing the obvious: The
> > > Expositor was right.
> > >
> > Right about what? Right about Asian chicks being brought to Nauvoo
> > for sex?
>
> You are representing your own extrapolation of "the most distant
> regions of the Eastern hemisphere" to mean the orient.>
What exactly are the "most distant regions of the Eastern hemisphere". It's
a matter of well understood fact that Britain and Ireland are the closest
regions of the Eastern hemisphere, except, for say, Eastern Siberia, which
happened to have asian looking siberian chicks like Briggs said.
> The readers knew that the region of the Eastern hemisphere being
expressed here
> was Europe, not Asia.>
Now you rewrite the text according to what you say people must have
understood, even though it clearly states something else.
> The whole "problem" here is so trivial that it
> shows you are grasping for *something*. I am afraid your extrapolation
> must be viewed as specious and irrelevant, Guy.>
The problem is hugely relevant because there was not one chick, asian or
European, that was brought to JS for him to have sex. Moreover, no chicks
of any kind, polygamist or not, were "sent away" after JS had sex with them.
>
> > Right about them being sent away to die?
>
> You must be referring to the following:
>
> Look for her after a little while, and you find friendship weeping over
her untimely grave>
Gee, I wonder what that meant.
>
> There is evidence even now that Joseph and Hyrum were in a siege
> mentality, and covertly struck at the enemy. John D Lee details much
> of this in his autobiography written before his execution.>
Oh yeh, now there's a credible source! Next you'll begin quoting from the
memoirs of Charles Manson. He'll talk of some larger conspiracy of which he
was but a minor cog.
>
> So at least the perception of Joseph and Hyrum spreading death and
> destruction is not at all implausible.>
Oh, right.
PatentWorm
"R. L. Measures" <2...@vc.net> wrote in message
news:2-1408011...@port161.dial.vcnet.com...
> In article <9dcdb6ed.01081...@posting.google.com>,
> SRLo...@hotmail.com (Fool Speck) wrote:
>
> > "PatentWorm" <innovato...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<9l9qki$cmt$1...@news.aros.net>...
> > > Another fine example of armchair quarterbacking in the confirm of
Bryce's
> > > own air-conditioned living room with the benefit of 160 years of 20/20
> > > hindsite.
> >
> > Is this somehow a rebuttal to his argument? What does it mean when one
> > can't offer any intelligent rebuttal and resorts to disparaging Bryce?
> >
>
> cheers, Steve
Speaking of "running low" I seem to recall that your love gun has been out
of commission for some time now and remains unloaded and uncocked.
CharlesSWaters
>
> "ForWhatItsWorth" <2ce...@todaysrate.com> wrote in message
> news:3b7973c5$0$43...@wodc7nh0.news.uu.net...
> >
> > The Expositor was a rag. Fine and dandy. So is the Enquirer. But if
it
> is
> > morally wrong for Brad Pitt to slap the snot out of a paparazzi
> photographer
> > because he does not like them, it is even more wrong to break into a
> private
> > place of business and destroy property. It was wrong, period.>
>
> Yes, but how "wrong". It's also wrong for me to jaywalk. But under
certain
> circumstances, especially in the heat of the moment, it may seem right.
> It's much easier to monday morning quarterback when the heat is off.
I take it PatentWorm that you believe that when a general authority, like
Joseph Smith or GBHinckly, breaks the law, anyone who expect them to obey
said law should be summarily dismissed? Am I not reading you correctly? Or
are you arguing that when they do break the law, it's ok because they are
general authorities and above the law or it's ok because their
rationalization is always acceptable, or at least can be made palatable for
the modern latter-day saint? Are there no laws that Joseph Smith could
break that would bother you in the least degree?
--
Cheerio,
Charles
"Get the facts first. You can distort them later." -- Mark Twain
CharlesSWaters
Ahh, I see, so it's ok to break the law as long as it's not in the
commission of a crime. Hmmmm.
ForWhatItsWorth
something like this: "I, The Lord, cannot look upon sin with the least
degree of allowance", coupled with "be ye therefore perfect"... There is no
allowance given for a "little" sin, like jaywalking, versus stealing, versus
anything. The Church teaches that -- so your rationalization on behalf of
the mob that looted the Expositor is kinda weak. Especially when you
consider that the man who ordered the destruction was doing so while he was
the Prophet, Seer and Revelator of God.
Are you seriously trying to justify this crime?
> >
> > And it was a wrong committed under the inspired leadership of Joseph
> Smith.
> > Isn't there something about a prophet never leading the people astray?>
>
> I believe that the actions of the Expositor owners in exacting their own
> revenge, which consisted of murder, shows you that there was more than a
> mere war of words going on here. For what it's worth.
At this point in time, that's all it was, a war of words. The Church upped
the ante by stepping over the line and using Mafia-type silencing tactics.
Again I ask you, isn't there something about a Prophet never leading the
people astray?
fwiw
>
>
PatentWorm
>
> "PatentWorm" <innovato...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:9lbuhk$1siq$1...@news.aros.net...
> >
> > "ForWhatItsWorth" <2ce...@todaysrate.com> wrote in message
> > news:3b7973c5$0$43...@wodc7nh0.news.uu.net...
>
> > >
> > > The Expositor was a rag. Fine and dandy. So is the Enquirer. But if
> it
> > is
> > > morally wrong for Brad Pitt to slap the snot out of a paparazzi
> > photographer
> > > because he does not like them, it is even more wrong to break into a
> > private
> > > place of business and destroy property. It was wrong, period.>
> >
> > Yes, but how "wrong". It's also wrong for me to jaywalk. But under
> certain
> > circumstances, especially in the heat of the moment, it may seem right.
> > It's much easier to monday morning quarterback when the heat is off.
>
> I take it PatentWorm that you believe that when a general authority, like
> Joseph Smith or GBHinckly, breaks the law, anyone who expect them to obey
> said law should be summarily dismissed? Am I not reading you correctly?>
No. I never said breaking the law is a virtue to be extolled, or a vice to
be excused.
> Or are you arguing that when they do break the law, it's ok because they
are
> general authorities and above the law or it's ok because their
> rationalization is always acceptable, or at least can be made palatable
for
> the modern latter-day saint?>
Didn't say that either. Nor did I imply any such thing.
> Are there no laws that Joseph Smith could
> break that would bother you in the least degree?>
Who said I am not bothered when he broke the law? How bothered, and what
were the surrounding mitigating circumstances is a whole different thing.
PatentWorm
Funny, I never came across the commandment that said "Thou shalt not
jaywalk." Is this a new one? Do you understand the difference between
civil and criminal laws? Did you know that civil wrongs are not crimes,
unless specifically criminalized in the penal code? Are you saying it's a
sin against God for someone to burn wood on a red burn day, particularly if
they are freezing? Ever heard of mitigating circumstances?
>
> Are you seriously trying to justify this crime?>
I never attempted to justify any crime because, according to Dallen Oaks, a
tort may have been committed, but no crime.
>
> > >
> > > And it was a wrong committed under the inspired leadership of Joseph
> > Smith.
> > > Isn't there something about a prophet never leading the people
astray?>
> >
> > I believe that the actions of the Expositor owners in exacting their own
> > revenge, which consisted of murder, shows you that there was more than a
> > mere war of words going on here. For what it's worth.
>
> At this point in time, that's all it was, a war of words. The Church
upped
> the ante by stepping over the line and using Mafia-type silencing
tactics.>
Well, remind me never to break your pencil so that you won't feel inclined
to murder me. Talking about punishment not fitting the crime.
> Again I ask you, isn't there something about a Prophet never leading the
> people astray?>
I don't recall him leading anyone astray.
PatentWorm
The commission of a tort is not the same as breaking a law.
CharlesSWaters
I missed it.
Which of the following was wrong.
1) Joseph Smith Jr. was illegally married to more than one woman.
2) Joseph Smith Jr. was publicly teaching the church that polygamy was
wrong.
3) Joseph Smith Jr. was running for president of the United States.
4) Joseph Smith Jr. authorized the use of force to destroy a press.
5) Force was used to distroy the press.
6) The revelations about Joseph Smith Jr's polygamous practices contrary to
his public statements would have negatively affected his run for the
presidency.
PatentWorm
Too bad. That's been happening more and more lately.
>
> Which of the following was wrong.
> 4) Joseph Smith Jr. authorized the use of force to destroy a press.
> 5) Force was used to distroy the press.
That would have been something for the Expositer to have published events
before they occured.
TheJordan6
>Date: 8/14/2001 2:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <9lbpfh$1p2o$1...@news.aros.net>
>
>
>"ForWhatItsWorth" <2ce...@todaysrate.com> wrote in message
>news:3b7931cb$0$43...@wodc7nh0.news.uu.net...
>property,
>> without due process, <snip>
>The convening of the city counsel, by its very definition, was "due
>process".
No it wasn't, Mr. Alleged Lawyer. In due process, an accused man gets to face
his accusers in court, and he is innocent until proven guilty. No legal entity
has the right to destroy his property without a fair hearing from all sides.
Joseph Smith was a despotic theocratic dictator who demanded absolute,
unquestioning obedience from his disciples. He wanted the 'Expositor' press
destroyed because he didn't want copies circulated around Nauvoo that exposed
his secret polygamy practice and political double-dealings. His convening of
the city council was a kangaroo court that could only render Smith's
predetermined decision. His thugs---by reports, over 100 of them---destroyed
the press in the middle of the night. It was done that way because Smith knew
very well that his actions wouldn't stand up in the light of day, in a
legitimate court of law.
> I suppose there were any number of ways that William Law could
>have appealed their decision, such as through a valid law suit, short of
>painting his face, donning a mask, and martyring Joseph and Hyrum Smith,
>wouldn't you think?
Except that neither William Law, nor any of the co-publishers of the
"Expositor", had anything to do with Smith's murder. None of them were among
those arrested, nor were they even accused or suspected. Law, who later became
a long-time judge, later stated that he would rather that Smith had lived to go
to trial, so that his sins and crimes would be exposed to the nation.
Unfortunately, Smith's murder gave him martyr status, for ignoramuses like
yourself to inappropriately worship.
>Doesn't this action tell you something about the
>mindset of those who ran the Expositor? That they would shortly resort to
>murder in the 1st degree?
Perhaps you should actually read the "Expositor," Mr. Legal Whiz, as well as
any of the numerous histories written by legitimate scholars on the subject.
They might eventually give you a spark of intelligence.
Randy J.
Guy R. Briggs
> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
>>
>> Right about what? Right about Asian chicks being brought to
>> Nauvoo for sex? Right about them being sent away to die?
>> Right about Joseph and Hyrum spreading death and destruction
>> like a tornado?
<snippage>
>>> As it stands, there is no evidence that anything in the
>>> Expositor can be proven false, albeit it was written in
>>> Victorian melodramatic prose.
>>
>> Can the aforementioned parts be proven /true/? That's a
>> better question.
>
> Joseph Smith (Jr. <grin>) was marrying and having sex with
> more than his legal wife consequently breaking both the laws
> of the land and those taught publicly to the church. His
> current run for president would have been seriously damaged
> by this *revelation* so they used force to suppress it.
>
> Which part is wrong?
>
For starters, the idea that Joseph believed he could win an
election. Even St. Brodie agrees:
"Joseph suffered fron no illusions about his chances
of winning the supreme political post of the nation.
He entered the ring not only to win publicity for
himself and his church, but most of all to shock the
other candidates into some measure of respect."
-- NMKMH, p.362
bestRegards, Guy.
Guy R. Briggs
> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
>> SRLo...@hotmail.com (Fool Speck) wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> It is amazing to me that a seminar can be held about the
>>> Expositor without its attendees seeing the obvious: The
>>> Expositor was right.
>>
>> Right about what? Right about Asian chicks being brought to
>> Nauvoo for sex?
>
> You are representing your own extrapolation of "the most
> distant regions of the Eastern hemisphere" to mean the
> orient. The readers knew that the region of the Eastern
> hemisphere being expressed here was Europe, not Asia.
>
definition from the 1806 _Webster's_ that defines England (where most
of the foreign missionaries were being sent) as not only "Eastern
hemisphere" but the "most distant region" of that hemisphere?
>
> The whole "problem" here is so trivial that it shows you are
> grasping for *something*. I am afraid your extrapolation
> must be viewed as specious and irrelevant, Guy.
>
Lessee if I got this straight. Joseph is supposedly upset because
polygamy is being exposed, but is completely oblivious to the fact that
he's being implicated in the deaths of young foreign women? And my
pointing this out is "specious and irrelevant???
>>
>> Right about them being sent away to die?
>
> You must be referring to the following:
>
> "The next step to avoid public exposition from the common
> course of things, they are sent away for a time, until all
> is well; after which they return, as from a long visit.
>
IOW, they were in a "family way."
>
> Those whom no power or influence could seduce, except that
> which is wielded by some individual feigning to be a God,
> must realize the remarks of an able writer, when he says,
> 'if woman's feelings are turned to ministers of sorrow,
> where shall she look for consolation?' Her lot is to be
> wooed and won; her heart is like some fortress that has been
> captured, sacked abandoned, and left desolate. With her, the
> desire of the heart has failed -- the great charm of
> existence is at an end; she neglects all the cheerful
> exercises of life, which gladen the spirits, quicken the
> pulses, and send the tide of life in healthful currents
> through the veins. Her rest is broken. The sweet refreshment
> of sleep is poisoned by melancholy dreams; dry sorrow drinks
> her blood, until her enfeebled frame sinks under the
> slightest external injury. Look for her after a little while,
> and you find friendship weeping over her untimely grave; and
> wondering that one who but so recently glowed with all the
> radiance of health and beauty, should so speedily be brought
> down to darkness and despair, you will be told of some
> wintry chill, of some casual indisposition that laid her low!"
>
> If you read it again, it actually does not say she is "sent
> away to die". It does indicate that she returned.
>
A nit. Point being that the girls died and Joseph was responsible,
according to the _Expositor_.
>
> The Victorian melodramatics of that time is a way of saying
> that a woman who has found herself in plural marriage can
> become so depressed, reducing her natural immunities that
> she eventually catches some contagion and dies. Depression
> simply does reduce natural immunities. The author's
> scenario is by no means implausible.
>
But is it real? Can you produce the name of one single person? Or
was this simply the attempt to get Church membership to reject Smith,
true or not?
>>
>> Right about Joseph and Hyrum spreading death and destruction
>> like a tornado?
>
> There is evidence even now that Joseph and Hyrum were in a
> siege mentality, and covertly struck at the enemy. John D
> Lee details much of this in his autobiography written before
> his execution.
>
I don't believe I'm aware of a single tornato that ever "covertly
struck."
>
> It not only happened in Illinois, but Missouri as well.
> Remember that there is substantial evidence, albeit much of
> which is circumstantial, that Joseph's prophecy of Gov.
> Boggs dying violently was almost fulfilled by Porter
> Rockwell. Boggs of course was shot, and Porter just
> happened to be in Missouri at the time.
>
If Rockwell had been the shooter, Boggs would have died.
>
> So at least the perception of Joseph and Hyrum spreading
> death and destruction is not at all implausible.
>
But that rag of a newspaper wasn't claiming that the Smith Bros.
were covertly striking their enemies. It was claiming that the death
and destruction were like a tornado.
>>
>> <more snippage>
>>
>>>
>>> As it stands, there is no evidence that anything in the
>>> Expositor can be proven false, albeit it was written in
>>> Victorian melodramatic prose.
>>
>> Can the aforementioned parts be proven /true/? That's a
>> better question.
>
> Few specific details probably printed could not be "proven"
> today. Too much documentation destroyed (the records of the
> Council of Fifty, etc) and all witnesses are dead.
>
Then how can it be "amazing" to you that it was "obvious" the
_Expositor_ was "right?"
>
> It is interesting to note that Joseph's only recourse was
> destruction of the press. He could not sue for libel
> because the evidence presented would have been conclusive
> and devastating.
>
What other choice did he have? Even Brodie understood the political
situation.
"Actually the enmity against the Mormons was
widespread and dangerous. ... Joseph's worst peril,
as he understood perfectly, was ripening within his
own kingdom."
-- NMKMH, p.367
Nauvoo was becoming a powder keg and the enemy was not only without
but also within the Church. The lies printed in the _Expositor_ - of
Joseph's alleged complicity in the deaths of young women and of
destruction among the Gentiles - to me, seem like the match that might
have destroyed everything. IMHO, this was more like shouting, "Fire!"
in a crowded theatre than exercising the right of free speech. Joseph
was caught between the proverbial rock and hard place. If he ignores
the _Expositor's_ lies he risks loss of lives in an armed conflict
between Mormons and nonMormons, like happened in Ohio and Missouri. If
he takes action, he risks the inevitable fallout for having trampled on
the rights of the press.
A lawsuit for libel would have taken too long and accomplished too
little.
>
> Even you MUST agree he was undisputedly a practitioner of
> polygamy, and that it was illegal.
>
Agree with polygamy, question the legality. Nauvoo had been given
broad powers in her charter and was almost a city-state.
>
> The theme of the Expositer was the Smiths' polygamy.
>
It was a great deal more than that.
>
> They practiced polygamy and were mortified at having it
> exposed. The Expositer exposed it. That is why Joseph and
> Hyrum went nuts.
>
There is no evidence that Hyrum went nuts. Joseph either, for that
matter. He went to the City Council, had the rag declared a public
nuisance, and had it destroyed.
He and his brother were killed for it.
>
> This truth is why you are nit-picking at the details in the
> Expositer, Guy. It is not an uncommon strategy that if the
> substance in whole cannot be disproven, then obfuscate the
> issue by picking at the details.
>
I hardly think that implicating Joseph in the deaths of young women
was a "nit".
bestRegards, Guy.
CharlesSWaters
??? So you believe that Joseph Smith had not as yet practiced any form of
polygamy when the expositor was published?
CharlesSWaters
TBMs always find "mitigating circumstances" sufficient, regardless of the
facts.
Lee Paulson
"PatentWorm" <innovato...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Lee Paulson" <lrpa...@xxearthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:3b793792$1...@nntp.networld.com...
>>
>> cdo...@my-dejanews.com (cdowis) wrote:
>> >Bryce <bryce_a...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:<3B785484...@yahoo.com>...
>> >snip
>> >
>> >> > Another interesting twist is that people wronly apply 20th century
>first
>> >> > amendment law to the situation, complete with the notion of
>"incorporation"
>> >> > of the Bill of Rights through the 14th Amendment due process clause
>to apply
>> >> > to the states or local governments. In fact, the 14th Amendment
>wouldn't be
>> >> > enacted for decades, and the notion of "incorporation" never arose
>until the
>> >> > 20th century. Accordingly, since the 1st amendment only applied to
>limit
>> >> > the power of Congress, there could have been no first amendment
>violation by
>> >> > destroying a printing press in 1844, unless the federal government
>did it.
>> >>
>the
>> >> press." Your argument doesn't hold water.
>> >
>> >
>> >You are presenting a legal argument? "Doesn't hold water" assumes you
>> >know what you are talking abt. Please give us your legal credentials
>> >and specific research into whether JS and the city council had the
>> >right to do what they did.
>> >
>> >I personally think you are full of baloney, but I am interested in
>> >your learned response.
>> >
>>
>> Charles, by that argument, you need to give us your credentials
>> for discussing mtDNA before we consider your learned response.
>>
>> Lee
>>
>
>What about your learned response to my discussion of caffeine as being a
>vasoconstrictor? Did having a Ph.D. help you to conclude that caffeine is
>really a vasodilator? What other incorrect conclusions does a Ph.D. help
>one to make?
>
>
Gosh, I already said I erred. I have no trouble admitting
mistakes. In fact, you yourself said that was worthy.
What else would you like, John of many names, e.g.,
Traci Lords?
Lee
Posted from NetWORLD Connections, Inc.
Lee Paulson
"PatentWorm" <innovato...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"cdowis" <cdo...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
>news:93c36e92.0108...@posting.google.com...
>> thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote in message
>news:<20010813232605...@mb-cj.aol.com>...
>> > Patentworm, who says he's a lawyer, wrote:
>> >
>first
>> > >amendment law to the situation, complete with the notion of
>"incorporation"
>> > >of the Bill of Rights through the 14th Amendment due process clause to
>apply
>> > >to the states or local governments. In fact, the 14th Amendment
>wouldn't be
>> > >enacted for decades, and the notion of "incorporation" never arose
>until the
>> > >20th century. Accordingly, since the 1st amendment only applied to
>limit
>> > >the power of Congress, there could have been no first amendment
>violation by
>> > >destroying a printing press in 1844, unless the federal government did
>it.
>> >
>negatively in
>> > any newspaper in America during that period could go out and destroy
>that
>> > newspaper, press, and building, without bothering to go through any
>legal
>> > channels whatsoever.
>>
>>
>> JS was the mayor of Nauvoo. He convened the city council which
>> condemned the Expositor as a public nuisance, and the sheriff carried
>> out the order of the city council.
>>
>> Now, tell us how your antimormon comment "without bothering to go
>> through any legal channels whatsoever" applies here.
>> snip
>
>game to be shot at, tarred and feathered, and driven from our homes by fine,
>outstanding Born Again Christians like Randy Jordan. Only the mobs of the
>time were legally authorized to do what they did, as well as those reckless
>members of the press like the Expositor, whose only purpose was to rile up
>the mobs. Didn't you know?
>
>
Ah, the persecution card.
ForWhatItsWorth
No, I am not dispensing moral law at all -- that is the Church's job to do,
and they have done it, and you know it, and you are weasling. You are
trying to say that something is not a sin if it wasn't a crime *at the
time*, or *in that context*. I am saying that it would be wrong for a
purpoted prohet of God to command his followers to *commit a sin*. The
*sin* in question was breaking and entering plus vandalism. You can try to
dress it up as a tort, but regardless of the law, it was a *sin*. By the
Church's own standards, it was a *sin*. The Prohpet led the people into
*sin*.
>
> >
> > Are you seriously trying to justify this crime?>
>
> I never attempted to justify any crime because, according to Dallen Oaks,
a
> tort may have been committed, but no crime.
>
You and Dallin are both attempting to gloss over this *sin*. Do you
honestly expect that money would gloss over the *sin*?
> >
> > > >
> > > > And it was a wrong committed under the inspired leadership of Joseph
> > > Smith.
> > > > Isn't there something about a prophet never leading the people
> astray?>
> > >
> > > I believe that the actions of the Expositor owners in exacting their
own
> > > revenge, which consisted of murder, shows you that there was more than
a
> > > mere war of words going on here. For what it's worth.
> >
> > At this point in time, that's all it was, a war of words. The Church
> upped
> > the ante by stepping over the line and using Mafia-type silencing
> tactics.>
>
> Well, remind me never to break your pencil so that you won't feel inclined
> to murder me. Talking about punishment not fitting the crime.
>
This ain't between you and me. I have no inclination to murder you. Laugh
at you, maybe, but not murder. And again, this is not *my* standards in
discussion, it is those of the Church.
> > Again I ask you, isn't there something about a Prophet never leading the
> > people astray?>
>
> I don't recall him leading anyone astray.
>
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
>
Bill Williams
Am I missing something here? Are you saying that wanton destruction of
property is not a crime?
Bill Williams
Fool Speck
> SRLo...@hotmail.com (Fool Speck) wrote:
> > net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
> >> SRLo...@hotmail.com (Fool Speck) wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >>> It is amazing to me that a seminar can be held about the
> >>> Expositor without its attendees seeing the obvious: The
> >>> Expositor was right.
> >>
> >> Right about what? Right about Asian chicks being brought to
> >> Nauvoo for sex?
> >
> > You are representing your own extrapolation of "the most
> > distant regions of the Eastern hemisphere" to mean the
> > orient. The readers knew that the region of the Eastern
> > hemisphere being expressed here was Europe, not Asia.
> >
> How did the readers of the Expositor know that? Do you have some
> definition from the 1806 _Webster's_ that defines England (where most
> of the foreign missionaries were being sent) as not only "Eastern
> hemisphere" but the "most distant region" of that hemisphere?
I know of no dictionary that has ever had a definition for "most
distant region".
Nonetheless, so you are saying that an important indicator that the
Expositor is completely fraudulent is that it *could* have exaggerated
where the women of the Eastern Hemisphere come from. Since neither
you nor I lived in 1844, we don't know if the "most distant region"
could or could not have been interpreted as England by the idioms of
the day.
Perhaps if you lived back then, you may have been able to get the
publishers to consider printing a clarification of "most distant
region" -- if there were a second issue. In all of history, I would
not be surprised if you were the only one offended by the phrase. I
can just hear Smith saying "What's this? Asians? No way! They were
all European!"
In other words, Guy, you are choking on a gnat.
>
> >
> > The whole "problem" here is so trivial that it shows you are
> > grasping for *something*. I am afraid your extrapolation
> > must be viewed as specious and irrelevant, Guy.
> >
> Lessee if I got this straight. Joseph is supposedly upset because
> polygamy is being exposed, but is completely oblivious to the fact that
> he's being implicated in the deaths of young foreign women? And my
> pointing this out is "specious and irrelevant???
Absolutely, since no one is arguing that they died under the hand of
Joseph Smith. While he may have been responsible for her depression,
he would not be criminally culpable for her death. Today, he could be
sued in civil court for her wrongful death.
>
> >>
> >> Right about them being sent away to die?
> >
> > You must be referring to the following:
> >
> > "The next step to avoid public exposition from the common
> > course of things, they are sent away for a time, until all
> > is well; after which they return, as from a long visit.
> >
> IOW, they were in a "family way."
I think that would be correct.
>
> >
> > Those whom no power or influence could seduce, except that
> > which is wielded by some individual feigning to be a God,
> > must realize the remarks of an able writer, when he says,
> > 'if woman's feelings are turned to ministers of sorrow,
> > where shall she look for consolation?' Her lot is to be
> > wooed and won; her heart is like some fortress that has been
> > captured, sacked abandoned, and left desolate. With her, the
> > desire of the heart has failed -- the great charm of
> > existence is at an end; she neglects all the cheerful
> > exercises of life, which gladen the spirits, quicken the
> > pulses, and send the tide of life in healthful currents
> > through the veins. Her rest is broken. The sweet refreshment
> > of sleep is poisoned by melancholy dreams; dry sorrow drinks
> > her blood, until her enfeebled frame sinks under the
> > slightest external injury. Look for her after a little while,
> > and you find friendship weeping over her untimely grave; and
> > wondering that one who but so recently glowed with all the
> > radiance of health and beauty, should so speedily be brought
> > down to darkness and despair, you will be told of some
> > wintry chill, of some casual indisposition that laid her low!"
> >
> > If you read it again, it actually does not say she is "sent
> > away to die". It does indicate that she returned.
> >
> A nit. Point being that the girls died and Joseph was responsible,
> according to the _Expositor_.
Absolutely it's a nit. I thought nit-picking was what you and I are
doing with the Expositor.
>
> >
> > The Victorian melodramatics of that time is a way of saying
> > that a woman who has found herself in plural marriage can
> > become so depressed, reducing her natural immunities that
> > she eventually catches some contagion and dies. Depression
> > simply does reduce natural immunities. The author's
> > scenario is by no means implausible.
> >
> But is it real? Can you produce the name of one single person? Or
> was this simply the attempt to get Church membership to reject Smith,
> true or not?
As I had addressed earlier, whether I can prove it now is irrelevant
to its veracity. Records were destroyed and witnesses are dead. The
issue is whether the Expositer could have proven it. I think it is
possible, you think it is impossible. For you, it is merely a matter
of faith. For me, I say we have enough evidence that we can't
eliminate the possibility.
>
> >>
> >> Right about Joseph and Hyrum spreading death and destruction
> >> like a tornado?
> >
> > There is evidence even now that Joseph and Hyrum were in a
> > siege mentality, and covertly struck at the enemy. John D
> > Lee details much of this in his autobiography written before
> > his execution.
> >
> I don't believe I'm aware of a single tornato that ever "covertly
> struck."
You are engaging in an overextention of the analogy. It's pointless.
>
> >
> > It not only happened in Illinois, but Missouri as well.
> > Remember that there is substantial evidence, albeit much of
> > which is circumstantial, that Joseph's prophecy of Gov.
> > Boggs dying violently was almost fulfilled by Porter
> > Rockwell. Boggs of course was shot, and Porter just
> > happened to be in Missouri at the time.
> >
> If Rockwell had been the shooter, Boggs would have died.
Yes, that was what Rockwell said.
However, the particular weapon (it was left at the scene) and peculiar
type of load was Rockwell's signature.
Boggs actually was given up for dead. One of his brothers, who was
one of the attending physcians, declared he would be dead by morning.
The ball lodged in his brain entering from the back of his head. He
lost a great deal of blood. His family and friends marvelled how
miraculous was his recovery.
Nevertheless in spite of Rockwell's myth, it would be impossible to
prove that any time Rockwell shot at a man that he killed him. In
fact, because of his involvement in the Missouri wars, we could
probably prove he wasn't a perfect shot.
> > So at least the perception of Joseph and Hyrum spreading
> > death and destruction is not at all implausible.
> >
> But that rag of a newspaper wasn't claiming that the Smith Bros.
> were covertly striking their enemies. It was claiming that the death
> and destruction were like a tornado.
So now you are discounting the Expositer because their tornado analogy
meant that the death and destruction must be overt rather than covert.
Dismissing it because you take issue with their choice of metaphors
is really weak, Guy.
Yes, I think you are right; it may not have been a viable recourse. I
will amend my statement to say it was his only legal recourse. As you
stated, he had to take an illegal recourse that led to his death.
> > Even you MUST agree he was undisputedly a practitioner of
> > polygamy, and that it was illegal.
> >
> Agree with polygamy, question the legality. Nauvoo had been given
> broad powers in her charter and was almost a city-state.
Guy, YOU don't even believe this! There was no ordinance legalizing
polygamy, was there? Even if there were, a city ordinance could never
supercede a state law. The Illinois statute criminalizing polygamy
was passed in 1833 and provided two years’ imprisonment and a
$1000 fine for the married man who married another woman and one
year’s imprisonment and a $500 fine for the unmarried woman who
knowingly entered into a marriage ceremony with an already married
man.
There is absolutely NO question what he was doing was illegal. He
knew it; you know it.
> > The theme of the Expositer was the Smiths' polygamy.
> >
> It was a great deal more than that.
>
> >
> > They practiced polygamy and were mortified at having it
> > exposed. The Expositer exposed it. That is why Joseph and
> > Hyrum went nuts.
> >
> There is no evidence that Hyrum went nuts. Joseph either, for that
> matter. He went to the City Council, had the rag declared a public
> nuisance, and had it destroyed.
OK. They became angry. Guy, you're grasping at straws again.
>
> He and his brother were killed for it.
So why are you declaring the obvious?
> > This truth is why you are nit-picking at the details in the
> > Expositer, Guy. It is not an uncommon strategy that if the
> > substance in whole cannot be disproven, then obfuscate the
> > issue by picking at the details.
> >
> I hardly think that implicating Joseph in the deaths of young women
> was a "nit".
You have no evidence that Joseph and Hyrum were concerned about
criminal charges arising from her death. Not only is it a nit, but it
is a non sequitur and a red herring. He was charged with the
destruction of the press and later with treason.
There is no evidence that the Smiths were concerned about anything
other than the expose' of their illegal and criminal practice of
polygamy, albeit there were no charges brought up here.
You call the Expositer a rag. It certainly was. It meant to excite
and enrage the populous. It accomplished its purpose not by bringing
them to justice, but by its becoming the object of more Smith illegal
activity -- the destruction of the press. However, there was enough
of a foundation of truth in it to clearly illustrate to us that Smith
lied in speech and in print and was a criminal polygamist.
Their deaths were outrageous and completely unjustified. It was cold
blooded murder.
But there was no implication expressed in the Expositer concerning his
criminal culpability in her death. Perhaps civil culpability could
have been proven if pursued in a wrongful death suit by her family.
We just don't know and pointless to speculate.
Guy, the quality of your arguments remind me of an attorney who is
mounting a vigorous defense for a criminal who has no defense. The
only option he has is to nit pick the prosecution.
Guy, I do admire you for your debating skills, and count it a
privilege to be able to go a few rounds with you. Perhaps we can go
at it again with a subject that has enough merit that you can really
sink your teeth into.
TheJordan6
>a
>> tort may have been committed, but no crime.
>Am I missing something here? Are you saying that wanton destruction of
>property is not a crime?
>
>Bill Williams
Only if you use Wacky Worm's Clinton-like defense ("Oral sex isn't sex.")
I wonder if someone broke into Wacky Worm's office and destroyed his equipment,
would he call it a "tort", or a "crime."
Randy J.
Randy J.
ForWhatItsWorth
news:20010815182534...@mb-fu.aol.com...
a sin, let alone a crime.....
fwiw
> Randy J.
>
>
TheJordan6
>Date: Tue, Aug 14, 2001 14:11 EDT
>Message-id: <9lbp7i$1oo3$1...@news.aros.net>>news:20010813232605...@mb-cj.aol.com...
>> Patentworm, who says he's a lawyer, wrote:
>>
>> >Another interesting twist is that people wrongly apply 20th century first
>> >amendment law to the situation, complete with the notion of
>"incorporation"
>> >of the Bill of Rights through the 14th Amendment due process clause to
>apply
>> >to the states or local governments. In fact, the 14th Amendment wouldn't
>be
>> >enacted for decades, and the notion of "incorporation" never arose until
>the
>> >20th century. Accordingly, since the 1st amendment only applied to limit
>> >the power of Congress, there could have been no first amendment violation
>by
>> >destroying a printing press in 1844, unless the federal government did
>it.
>>
>> According to your 'logic,' any person whose name was mentioned negatively
>in
>> any newspaper in America during that period could go out and destroy that
>> newspaper, press, and building, without bothering to go through any legal
>> channels whatsoever.>
>
>or misrepresented it, because it means no such thing. The sum of it is
>clearly stated: It was no violation of the 1st amendment for a municipality
>to destroy a printing press because the 1st amendment did not apply to
>municipalities in 1844.
As I documented in my earlier post---which you sinpped without comment, because
the portions you snipped torpedoed your response--freedom of the press was
viewed as an inalienable right in America since the Peter Zenger decision, and
the various states enacted laws guaranteeing freedom of the press as they
joined the union. The date of federal laws had nothing to do with it.
>Nothing more, nothing less. Other laws, such as
>common law trespass, did apply and would have led to a cause of action for
>that other offense.
"Trespassing" was the least of Smith's errors, compared to the fact that he
ordered the paper destroyed purely because it exposed his secret, illegal
activities. Not a sane person alive would argue that a politician has the
right to destroy media that published an expose of him.
> But I guess you don't care to consider such
>distinctions but continue to paint with a broad, reckless brush.
From http://www.prairienet.org/~pcollins/c1818.html
The following law was enacted and installed into the Illinois state
constitution in 1818:
(Article VIII)
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.
As Governor Ford told Joseph Smith---every word the "Expositor" printed could
have been libelous, but that would not have given Smith the right to destroy
the press without due process.
Randy J.
Fool Speck
> "Fool Speck" <SRLo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9dcdb6ed.01081...@posting.google.com...
> > net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote in message
> news:<90FDF702netza...@209.84.17.10>...
> > > SRLo...@hotmail.com (Fool Speck) wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > It is amazing to me that a seminar can be held about the
> > > > Expositor without its attendees seeing the obvious: The
> > > > Expositor was right.
> > > >
> > > Right about what? Right about Asian chicks being brought to Nauvoo
> > > for sex?
> >
> > You are representing your own extrapolation of "the most distant
> > regions of the Eastern hemisphere" to mean the orient.>
>
> What exactly are the "most distant regions of the Eastern hemisphere". It's
> a matter of well understood fact that Britain and Ireland are the closest
> regions of the Eastern hemisphere, except, for say, Eastern Siberia, which
> happened to have asian looking siberian chicks like Briggs said.
Well, if we have you arguing about references to the Eastern
hemisphere, putting effort into it as if somehow were actually
significant, then you are obviously avoiding the rather embarrassing
facts that the Smiths were criminal polygamists and Joseph lied both
in print and in speech about it. That is what they were; you cannot
deny it with integrity.
>
> > The readers knew that the region of the Eastern hemisphere being
> expressed here
> > was Europe, not Asia.>
>
> Now you rewrite the text according to what you say people must have
> understood, even though it clearly states something else.
Look again. I rewrote nothing.
>
> > The whole "problem" here is so trivial that it
> > shows you are grasping for *something*. I am afraid your extrapolation
> > must be viewed as specious and irrelevant, Guy.>
>
> The problem is hugely relevant because there was not one chick, asian or
> European, that was brought to JS for him to have sex. Moreover, no chicks
> of any kind, polygamist or not, were "sent away" after JS had sex with them.
I note that you are asserting this without offering ANY evidence.
> > > Right about them being sent away to die?
> >
> > You must be referring to the following:
> >
> > Look for her after a little while, and you find friendship weeping over
> her untimely grave>
>
> Gee, I wonder what that meant.
It meant she died. Your point?
> > There is evidence even now that Joseph and Hyrum were in a siege
> > mentality, and covertly struck at the enemy. John D Lee details much
> > of this in his autobiography written before his execution.>
>
> Oh yeh, now there's a credible source! Next you'll begin quoting from the
> memoirs of Charles Manson. He'll talk of some larger conspiracy of which he
> was but a minor cog.
As a man approaching death, his testimony in a court of law would be
admitted. His status as a scapegoat is even recognized by the Church
or they would never have restored his membership. Can you name one
other person, convicted in court that the Church granted this to? It
would be your job to offer evidence to the contrary of his testimony.
His work stands unrefuted, and there are other sources as well.
About all you doing is responding to the less significant details and
try to make them seem important somehow. That's why you and Guy have
latched on to the Asian vs European thing and riding it for all its
worth.
I noticed, PW, that you, like Guy, are avoiding the very heart of the
matter: Smith's polygamy and public denial. You cannot deny he lied;
you cannot deny he practiced polygamy. That's the issue in toto.
That is also the reason for Joseph's reacting the way he did; his lies
denying polygamy were thrown before the public. If there were
absolutely no truth in the rag "Expositer", then his reaction would
not have been so desparate that he illegally tried to crush it out of
existence. In the end, the Expositer accomplished its purpose because
he did try to destroy it.
The debate has been spirited, PW. I hope I have not been offensive to
you. I appreciate a worthy opponent. :)
Steve
Fool Speck
> > > "Fool Speck" <SRLo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:9dcdb6ed.01081...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > Another fine example of armchair quarterbacking in the confirm of
> Bryce's
> > > > > own air-conditioned living room with the benefit of 160 years of
> 20/20
> > > > > hindsite.
> > > >
> > > > Is this somehow a rebuttal to his argument? What does it mean when one
> > > > can't offer any intelligent rebuttal and resorts to disparaging Bryce?
> > > >
> > >
> > > If you cannot see the rebuttal, you aren't looking very hard.
> >
> > Just looked hard. No rebuttal. Perhaps you could point it out?
>
> You're just armchair quarterbacking. That's just too damn easy!
I bet this exchange would go on ad nauseum without your being able to
point out your rebuttal. Go ahead and have the last word, and I'll
leave it alone.
OK, so it is fun. :)
Steve
Fool Speck
> "Fool Speck" <SRLo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9dcdb6ed.01081...@posting.google.com...
> > "PatentWorm" <innovato...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >
> > > Another interesting twist is that people wronly apply 20th century first
> > > amendment law to the situation, complete with the notion of
> "incorporation"
> > > of the Bill of Rights through the 14th Amendment due process clause to
> apply
> > > to the states or local governments. In fact, the 14th Amendment
> wouldn't be
> > > enacted for decades, and the notion of "incorporation" never arose until
> the
> > > 20th century. Accordingly, since the 1st amendment only applied to
> limit
> > > the power of Congress, there could have been no first amendment
> violation by
> > > destroying a printing press in 1844, unless the federal government did
> it.
> >
> > had the right only to destroy the issues of the Expositor, not the
> > press itself.>
>
> Then he confirmed that what occured couldn't have been a 1st amendment
> violation. In fact, he clearly states that destroying the press made the
> perpetrators liable for money damages for the destroyed properties. I
> couldn't agree more. But it ain't a 1st amendment violation.
No, I don't think that follows. He simply didn't address the 1st
amendment issue. His offering no opinion should not be construed as
an opinion.
>
> He said quite clearly that there was more than one way
> to stop the slanderous, libelous activities of the Expositer owners.
> Destroying the press was but one way, not the least intrusive way, and the
> way that would give the owner the right to sue for damages (but not the
> right to reprint the slanderous and libelous statements). Oaks never said
> any of the activities violated the first amendment, only that destroying the
> press was an act of tresspass that could be remedied by money damages. Read
> on:
>
> >
> > "The characterization of the printing press as a nuisance, and its
> > subsequent destruction, is another matter. The common law authorities
> > on nuisance abatement generally, and especially those on summary
> > abatement, were emphatic in declaring that abatement must be limited
> > by the necessities of the case, and that no wanton or unnecessary
> > destruction of property could be permitted. A party guilty of excess
> > was liable in damages for trespass to the party injured.... there was
> > no legal justification in 1844 for the destruction of the Expositor
> > press as a nuisance. Its libelous, provocative, and perhaps obscene
> > output may well have been a public and a private nuisance, but the
> > evil article was not the press itself but the way in which it was
> > being used.>
>
> Thus, the proper course of action would have been an injuction to stop the
> presses. Destroying the presses went beyond this course of action, even
> though it was really just a more final "injunction", coupled with a
> destruction of property, which warranted the need to pay restitution for the
> loss of property. Read on.
I agree with you.
> > Consequently, those who caused or accomplished its
> > destruction were liable for money damages in an action of trespass."
> > (Utah Law Review, Summer 1965, pages 890-891)>
>
> There you have it. No violation of the 1st amendment, but simply a common
> law violation of property rights.
Can't agree with you. (Referencing my above remarks). It is however
interesting that editors of the day did write editorials condemning it
as a violation of the first amendment. That shows at least it was an
issue with them.
Steve
donm
true, salt lake is a dangerous place to be a mormon. every day I see people
running thru the streets, tarred and feathered with a screaming mob pursuing
them.
dangerous1
Think global, act loco
***************************************************************
<http://www.users.qwest.net/~dmarchant1/index.htm>
Fool Speck
> "Fool Speck" <SRLo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9dcdb6ed.01081...@posting.google.com...
> > "PatentWorm" <innovato...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >
> > > I have no idea how the Illinois law was interpreted, and whether it
> > > protected the press as 1st amendment jurisprudence does today. Again,
> you
> > > are merely transplanting todays mores onto yesterday's problems. Not a
> > > credible thing to do.
> >
> > Worm, you really should do more research on what the reaction of the
> > legal system was in that day. The phrase "freedom of the press" came
> > up often enough in contemporary publications.>
>
> But what that "freedom" meant in the context of prevailing authority granted
> to the Nauvoo commission is the real issue. If the commission was given
> plenary power to impose a prior restraint on slanderous statements, then it
> certainly acted within its discretion. A previous poster indicated that
> such power was indeed given to it.
The previous poster's opinion would be that -- an opinion. You would
need to prove your point by citing other cases of press destruction
from that era. Now that would be a hefty amount of homework! It
seems to me that the founding fathers had cases like this in mind when
they wrote the first amendment. They also provided remedies to libel
outside of seizure and destruction.
>
> >
> > Also, Dallin Oaks disagrees with you:>
>
> Actually, he didn't. He said quite clearly that there was more than one way
> to stop the slanderous, libelous activities of the Expositer owners.
> Destroying the press was but one way, not the least intrusive way, and the
> way that would give the owner the right to sue for damages (but not the
> right to reprint the slanderous and libelous statements).
Agreed.
> Oaks never said
> any of the activities violated the first amendment, only that destroying the
> press was an act of tresspass that could be remedied by money damages. Read
> on:
He offered no opinion on the first amendment issue. We can't conclude
what his opinion is when he offered none.
>
> >
> > "The characterization of the printing press as a nuisance, and its
> > subsequent destruction, is another matter. The common law authorities
> > on nuisance abatement generally, and especially those on summary
> > abatement, were emphatic in declaring that abatement must be limited
> > by the necessities of the case, and that no wanton or unnecessary
> > destruction of property could be permitted. A party guilty of excess
> > was liable in damages for trespass to the party injured.... there was
> > no legal justification in 1844 for the destruction of the Expositor
> > press as a nuisance. Its libelous, provocative, and perhaps obscene
> > output may well have been a public and a private nuisance, but the
> > evil article was not the press itself but the way in which it was
> > being used.>
>
> Thus, the proper course of action would have been an injuction to stop the
> presses. Destroying the presses went beyond this course of action, even
> though it was really just a more final "injunction", coupled with a
> destruction of property, which warranted the need to pay restitution for the
> loss of property. Read on.
Agreed.
>
> > Consequently, those who caused or accomplished its
> > destruction were liable for money damages in an action of trespass."
> > (Utah Law Review, Summer 1965, pages 890-891)>
>
> There you have it. No violation of the 1st amendment, but simply a common
> law violation of property rights.
Oaks offered no opinion and you shouldn't assert that he had by his
not addressing it. I don't see that your conclusion follows.
Steve
Fool Speck
> Which of the following was wrong:
> 1) Joseph Smith Jr. was illegally married to more than one woman.
> 2) Joseph Smith Jr. was publicly teaching the church that polygamy was
> wrong.
> 3) Joseph Smith Jr. was running for president of the United States.
> 4) Joseph Smith Jr. authorized the use of force to destroy a press.
> 5) Force was used to distroy the press.
> 6) The revelations about Joseph Smith Jr's polygamous practices contrary to
> his public statements would have negatively affected his run for the
> presidency.
Excellent synopsis of the Expositer issue, Charles. When we claw thru
the Victorian melodramatic rhetoric, that is really about all it is
saying. We can thank JS III and BY for proving Joseph indeed had
dozens of plural wives. I should read it again to see if I can add
anymore to your list.
I notice the apologists are struggling with things like Asian vs
European women, etc. I guess that is the way you defend your side
when the big picture is so devastating.
Steve
Fool Speck
> "R. L. Measures" <2...@vc.net> wrote in message
> news:2-1408011...@port161.dial.vcnet.com...
> > In article <9dcdb6ed.01081...@posting.google.com>,
> > SRLo...@hotmail.com (Fool Speck) wrote:
> >
> > > "PatentWorm" <innovato...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > Another fine example of armchair quarterbacking in the confirm of
> Bryce's
> > > > own air-conditioned living room with the benefit of 160 years of 20/20
> > > > hindsite.
> > >
> > > Is this somehow a rebuttal to his argument? What does it mean when one
> > > can't offer any intelligent rebuttal and resorts to disparaging Bryce?
> > >
> >
> > cheers, Steve
>
> Speaking of "running low" I seem to recall that your love gun has been out
> of commission for some time now and remains unloaded and uncocked.
I know we can't do anything about the hysterical anti-Mormons, but I
really wish the LDS wouldn't pull the posts down into the slime like
this. It is most unflattering and does nothing to encourage efforts
towards edification many of us are working for.
Steve
Fool Speck
> > Joseph Smith (Jr. <grin>) was marrying and having sex with more than his
> > legal wife consequently breaking both the laws of the land and those
> taught
> > publicly to the church. His current run for president would have been
> > seriously damaged by this *revelation* so they used force to suppress it.>
>
> But your argument says too much. Just because JS was a polygamist doesn't
> make an assertion that he was bringing in asian comfort girls and then
> having them killed true. Does it?!
Good point, PW. It doesn't follow. But then I don't think anyone is
saying that JS was killing Asian comfort girls. Isn't that called a
strawman?
Steve
Duwayne Anderson
<snip>
> The following law was enacted and installed into the Illinois state
> constitution in 1818:
>
> (Article VIII)
> 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.
>
> As Governor Ford told Joseph Smith---every word the "Expositor" printed could
> have been libelous, but that would not have given Smith the right to destroy
> the press without due process.
>
> Randy J.
Excellent post, Randy! You've proved your point in spades. Thanks
for making this valuable reference available to the rest of us. I
doubt it will convince Mormons of anything -- but rational people will
certainly recognize that Smith was in jail for violating a key
provision of the Illinois state constitution.
Duwayne Anderson
American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle.
R. L. Measures
srlo...@hotmail.com (Fool Speck) wrote:
> "PatentWorm" <innovato...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<9lc2i4$1vdg$1...@news.aros.net>...
> > "R. L. Measures" <2...@vc.net> wrote in message
> > news:2-1408011...@port161.dial.vcnet.com...
> > > In article <9dcdb6ed.01081...@posting.google.com>,
> > > SRLo...@hotmail.com (Fool Speck) wrote:
> > >
> > > > "PatentWorm" <innovato...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:<9l9qki$cmt$1...@news.aros.net>...
> > > > > Another fine example of armchair quarterbacking in the confirm of
> > Bryce's
> > > > > own air-conditioned living room with the benefit of 160 years of 20/20
> > > > > hindsite.
> > > >
> > > > Is this somehow a rebuttal to his argument? What does it mean when one
> > > > can't offer any intelligent rebuttal and resorts to disparaging Bryce?
> > > >
> > > ? maybe it means he's runnin' low on ammo?
> > >
> > > cheers, Steve
> >
> > Speaking of "running low" I seem to recall that your love gun has been out
> > of commission for some time now and remains unloaded and uncocked.
>
> I know we can't do anything about the hysterical anti-Mormons, but I
> really wish the LDS wouldn't pull the posts down into the slime like
> this. It is most unflattering and does nothing to encourage efforts
> towards edification many of us are working for.
>
€ I am encouraged by such comments from Mormonites, Steve. The reason
that I came to a.r.m. is yhat I received one death threat and several
obscene e.mailings from TBMs. Mormonite males undoubtedly have short
fuses.
cheers
--
- Rich... 805.386.3734.
www.vcnet.com/measures
TheJordan6
>Date: 8/15/2001 10:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <a42139e3.01081...@posting.google.com>
>
>thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote in message
>news:<20010815183650...@mb-fu.aol.com>...
>
><snip>
>> The following law was enacted and installed into the Illinois state
>> constitution in 1818:
>>
>> (Article VIII)
>> 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.
>>
>> As Governor Ford told Joseph Smith---every word the "Expositor" printed
>could
>> have been libelous, but that would not have given Smith the right to
>destroy
>> the press without due process.
>>
>> Randy J.
>Excellent post, Randy! You've proved your point in spades.
Only to sane people who are not blind fanatics.
> Thanks
>for making this valuable reference available to the rest of us.
I thank Bryce for looking it up.
> I
>doubt it will convince Mormons of anything --
It will convince dozens of Mormon readers. They just aren't necessarily the
ones who post.
>but rational people will
>certainly recognize that Smith was in jail for violating a key
>provision of the Illinois state constitution.
>Duwayne Anderson
The specific charge against him was "riot," for heading the mob action. To
prevent his legal arrest, he activated the Nauvoo Legion to prevent lawmen from
Carthage, the county seat, to come into the city. As the Nauvoo Legion was a
state-authorized militia---which Smith used as his own personal personal
protection force---he was then charged with treason for activating the Legion
without proper cause or authority. It was while in jail on the treason charge
that he was killed by vigilantes who had had enough of his evasion of
prosecution since the Boggs shooting in 1842.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>Date: 8/15/2001 9:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <da736b0d.01081...@posting.google.com>
Since Mobots like Guy and Patent Worm are so enthusiastic in discrediting the
"Expositor" because of its use of Victorian melodramatic hyperbole, here's
another document that they can flush down the toilet along with it:
[History of the Church Volume 5: Chapter 25., page 494]
These scenes of violence raged unchecked by the civil authorities, and many
officers of the state of Missouri were open leaders of the mob and shared in
its crimes. The armed militia of the state were arrayed, without authority of
law, for the purpose of driving the deponent and his inoffensive people out of
the state, or of exterminating them if they should remain within it. (For proof
of this fact see the order of Governor Boggs, dated October 27, 1838, sent
herewith). That this deponent and his people received notices, warnings and
orders from the civil and military officers of Missouri, as well as from mobs
who co-operated with them, to leave the state, and were threatened with death
if they refused: that this deponent with others was taken prisoner by an armed
mob, and oppressed, imprisoned, and carried from place to place, without
authority of law. That his whole people, comprising at least 15,000 people,
were driven out like wild beasts, that hundreds were murdered by shooting,
stabbing and beating, and having their brains beaten out with clubs. Great
numbers were starved to death; many died from fatigue and hardship in the
fields; women were ravished, children murdered, and every cruelty inflicted.
This deponent with his comrades was imprisoned about six months and until
nearly aIl his people were driven out of the state; that they were then, by
order of the officers of the state, set at liberty and ordered to flee from the
state. That, after they were released, they were pursued by armed men, who
endeavored to shoot them; and they thus were pursued out of the state, and were
in peril of their lives as long as they remained within its limits.
Now, the question is, will they dump the "History of the Church" for employing
the same type of emotion-stirring rhetoric that the "Expositor" used?
Of course not. They will, for the rest of their brainwashed lives, continue to
condemn the "Expositor" for its motes, and absolve Smith in spite of his beams.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>Date: 8/14/2001 10:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <90FDCB460netza...@209.84.17.10>
Attention, ARMekites!
A couple of weeks ago, I warned readers to be on the lookout for what Guy has
just done here. He spends hours and hours writing posts condeming Fawn
Brodie's NMKMH, then he turns 180 degrees and quotes from it as though it were
a credible source.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>Date: 8/15/2001 6:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3b7af8de$0$1...@wodc7nh6.news.uu.net>
Because he's a mind-controlled fanatic who worships Joseph Smith. In his mind,
Smith could do no wrong, and never committed any "sins."
He claims to be an attorney---an "officer of the court"---but in order to
defend his object of worship, Joseph Smith, he sets aside the very legal rights
that the United States was founded to uphold, as well as all semblance of
logic, common sense, and basic human decency.
But that's what cultism does to people.
Randy J.
donm
it had to happen.
be careful, lest a mormon elder pronounces a curse upon you, killing you and your
family.
donm
> "PatentWorm" <innovato...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<9lc2i4$1vdg$1...@news.aros.net>...
>
> > Speaking of "running low" I seem to recall that your love gun has been out
> > of commission for some time now and remains unloaded and uncocked.
>
> I know we can't do anything about the hysterical anti-Mormons, but I
> really wish the LDS wouldn't pull the posts down into the slime like
> this. It is most unflattering and does nothing to encourage efforts
> towards edification many of us are working for.
>
> Steve
I was just enjoying woody's post on the brodie scholarship thread where he explained that he was
going to treat "alien" as a "retard" to help him understand. don't look for any edification on that
thread.
TheJordan6
>Date: 8/16/2001 12:17 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3B7B4959...@qwest.net>
I figure I'm OK as long as I stay out of the water.
Randy J.
CharlesSWaters
"Guy R. Briggs" <net...@GeoCities.com> wrote in message
news:90FDD2882netza...@209.84.17.10...
> > You are representing your own extrapolation of "the most
> > distant regions of the Eastern hemisphere" to mean the
> > orient. The readers knew that the region of the Eastern
> > hemisphere being expressed here was Europe, not Asia.
> >
> How did the readers of the Expositor know that? Do you have some
> definition from the 1806 _Webster's_ that defines England (where most
> of the foreign missionaries were being sent) as not only "Eastern
> hemisphere" but the "most distant region" of that hemisphere?
I'm trying to figure out where all these "Asian comfort girls" are that
Joseph Smith was allegedly worried were been exposed in the Nauvoo
Expositor? I can't think of 50, or 20, or 10 or even 1 so I don't know what
the hell you are arguing about? If it was truly a "lie", surely the light
of day wouldn't have scared the press destroying hoodlums. It was exactly
the light of day that the press destroying hoodlums didn't want.
The "core" problem was that privately, Joseph smith was hitting an many of
the leaders' daughters and marrying some of those young targets, and
publicly he was saying, I'm faithful to my one and only wife, and you should
be too, just as god teaches. The expositor was exposing this certain and
clear dishonesty, then ungodly unprophetic behavior. From an evolutionary
animalistic point of view, it is of course is totally moral, might makes
right.
King Joseph Smith Jr. reaped what he sowed. It's unfortunate, but sometimes
what God promises he delivers. Polygamy ended up only temporarily leading
the church astray on this point, but it's now back on track.
--
Cheerio,
Charles
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has
endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended
us to forgo their use." -- Galileo Galilei
"There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church
history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith
promoting or not." -- Elder/Apostle BKPackard
"The truth of a matter will always haunt you, no matter how
secret the hiding place." -- Anon
CharlesSWaters
> that I came to a.r.m. is yhat I received one death threat and several
> obscene e.mailings from TBMs. Mormonite males undoubtedly have short
> fuses.
In another day, another time, some of would have been danites and/or
Brigham's destroying angels.
--
Cheerio,
Charles
"Get the facts first. You can distort them later." -- Mark Twain