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