Nauvoo Expositor
Joseph Smith Chronology, pg. 228; “June 11, 1844 Joseph issues a proclamation stating that he has destroyed the Nauvoo Expositor, which he considered a nuisance (and therefore had the legal right to destroy, just as he would any nuisance).”
Psalm 73:3-8; “For I was envious at the foolish, when I saw the prosperity of the wicked. 4 For there are no bands in their death: but their strength is firm. 5 They are not in trouble as other men; neither are they plagued like other men. 6 Therefore pride compasseth them about as a chain; violence covereth them as a garment. 7 Their eyes stand out with fatness: they have more than heart could wish. 8 They are corrupt, and speak wickedly concerning oppression: they speak loftily.”
This is known as terrorism today. Is this how a real prophet of God behaves?
While on missions to the Nauvoo Pageant in 2005 I took the Carthage Jail tour administered by the Church. Our tour guide was a young LDS female who was serving on her 18 month mission. I asked her what gave Joseph Smith the right to burn down the Nauvoo Expositor and she stood there with her hands on her hips and proclaimed: “Well, they were “anti’s”.”
My heart was and still is so sad for this young girl. When is it ever condoned by God to burn someone’s business down just because YOU don’t agree with them? And why don’t the Mormon people investigate the whole story for themselves instead of just believing everything they’re told? Where is their discernment?
The Expositor was reporting the local news by telling the public what Smith had been doing in and around Nauvoo. Smith was mayor and took it upon himself to be judge, jury and executioner of what he thought was a “nuisance”. The dog that lives up the street from me is a nuisance so would I be justified by killing it?
Joe Smith liked to tell people how much he loved America, but his actions proved otherwise. Again, what prophet of God has ever acted out in violence towards innocent people?
Well, if it is discernment you want I would suggest getting it.
It was not Joseph Smith who declared it a nuisance, but the city counsel. It was this same counsel that ordered it shut down.
Joseph Smith’s involvement extended to giving the marshal the order to close it, but said order lacked any real detail as to the method to be used. His declaration was that he, under the approval and order of the city counsel had ordered the paper shut down, and thus he was taking the responsibility for the actions of the marshal.
Now, the closing of the press was a perfectly legal right of the city counsel, and the Mayor, as the executive, was the legal person to carry out the order. The destruction of the press was extreme, though not without president.
As to it being a nuisance, this is not just a difference in opinion, but a legal term of the time referring to the potential to disturb the peace of the city and cause general trouble among the populace. Considering that the paper was advocating the repeal of the Nauvoo city charter, one can understand the concern of the City Counsel.
When arrest warrants were obtained they were for the entire city counsel as well as Joseph Smith, so to single him out is again misleading. The reason he was charged with treason was because some members of the Nauvoo Legion had assisted in the destruction.
So, now that we have discerned the truth of the matter we can see that the accusations against Joseph Smith are little more than petty squabbles that amount to nothing.
I was just wondering whether or not the 1st Amendment to the Constitution was practiced or held any weight in Nauvoo
Considerng that the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Constitution did not apply to the states or local governments, it really doesn’t matter.
Aside from this, the shutting down of a private paper to preserve the public peace is hardly new in the United States, and is still perfecty legal today. As I said, the one person who went to far in this incident was the Marshal.
Technically the paper should have been temporarily closed until an investigation and hearing could be held to determine if there was sufficient cause for a permanent closure. The Marshal went overboard, without the concent of Joseph Smith or the City Counsel.
As such, even though the first Amendment could not be used as a legal argument, Joseph Smith and the City Counsel were perfectly in line with it. It was the Marshal who wasn’t.
Now, I am wondering why people never complain about all the destruction to LDS property in Missouri, or the blatant murders of Joseph Smith. It is just curious how people can ignore everything that the saints endured and instead try and spead as much blame to them as possible (especially Joseph Smith).
I just want you to know that the God loving Christians that I have known over the years since I left the LDS church do, in no way, condone the destruction of property or the killing of Joseph Smith. The Christians I have known for the past 17 years are all about loving their nieghbor and following the Golden Rule. You do have to understand, though, that a lot of the persecution on the church back then was because of the non-biblical teachings and the claim that all other sects and denominations were completely devoid of any truth. That the Christians at the time were all apostate and they had no authority to preach/teach the word. People got defensive and angry when leaders told them things like that. That doesn’t mean that tarring and feathering should be heaped on someone, but sometimes tempers flair in a heated situation, especially when you are telling someone that everything they have ever believed is false doctrine. Just like today, “Christians” who protest outside of military funerals or bomb abortion clinics are not true Christians. We are supposed to love our enemies and pray for them, not “take matters into our own hands”.
Well, I never once claimed that anyone did condone the acts. However, even your own explanation is an attempt to lay as much blame as possible on the LDS membership. Consider that.
Especially consider that when you make accusations against any of the LDS members. In your attempt to lessen the acts of the violent mobs, by couching them under the pretense of anger at LDS doctrine, let us consider the situation in Nauvoo when this incident occured.
Driven from New York, Kirtland Ohio, Jackson County Missouri, and then Caldwell County; having endured the unjustified murder of their people, the rape of their women, and destruction of their property, all without any redress from the government. Also considering that a great deal of the persecution they had endured had been from former members who had turned against them.
Now we come to Nauvoo, where another group of apostates were setting up a paper advocating the removal of the only governmental protection they had been able to secure in over a decade-the City Charter.
So, if we are going to lessen the acts of the mobs based on the anger concerning the LDS doctrine, should we not lessen the acts of the saints in Nauvoo based on a real fear of physical danger?
I apologize if my wording made it seem like I was “lessening” or “justifying” the acts by the people back then towards the church. Christians do not condone any acts of violence towards any peoples. Like I said in my closing sentence; We are supposed to love our enemies and pray for them, not “take matters into our own hands”.
So, you get my point?
I think the point got lost in the comment stream. You say it was the city council, not J.S. that ordered the destruction of the newspaper. Neither one of us was there, so we have to go by what the history books tell us. Whether it was city council or the prophet or whoever it still goes against:
We are supposed to love our enemies and pray for them, not “take matters into our own hands”.
My point is that this is no more a dilemma than all the Christian ministers who lead the mobs are a dilemma for their perspective denominations. To claim such is to claim a double standard.