A formal apology...

[_Jersey Girl]

Hey harm,

A mod question if you don't mind. If I were to use the phrase "utter and complete idiot" in a post on this thread, would it have to be moved to the Telestial?

Even if it were true?

;-)

[_Yahoo Bot]

You mean Sock Puppet's observation that the Nauvoo city charter incorporated the rights in the federal constitution by reference, so he was saying that under Nauvoo municipal law residents were entitled to freedom of the press, and you ridiculously kept trying to characterize that as an anachronistic 14th Amendment argument?

That incorporation by reference provision did not have the meaning to which you ascribe. Close research shows that that clause made it into the charter because John C. Bennett had added that clause to the Springfield Charter and it sounded good; he added it to the Nauvoo Charter. The purpose for the clause was to expand the Nauvoo Charter's powers as broadly as possible -- to the outer extremes of federal constitutional limits -- exactly the limits a state would have. That clause was not included to somehow narrow the City's rights.

But, at the time, the First Amendment did not fetter the states in any regard; there was no law that said so. Thus, it could not be said that the clause had any implications for the press.

In them days, free press rights were contained in state constitutions, and it is likely that suppression of the Nauvoo Expositor was unconstitutional under the state constitution. The question turns upon the threat of riot the newspaper posed; I don't think it did but others might.

P.S. I appreciate your frank admissions that you're a troll. Few internet Mormon crusaders have such candor.

I have done no such thing. I am here to be entertained, and to learn, and to poke holes in the pompously hypocritical.

[Guest]

Themis, the term "people of color" is different from "colored people."

So? My point still stands.

by the way I am not alone in not liking the term.

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004055.html

I would think it would easy to see why.

[_Themis]

Hey harm,

A mod question if you don't mind. If I were to use the phrase "utter and complete idiot" in a post on this thread, would it have to be moved to the Telestial?

Even if it were true?

;-)

Now don't call yourself that. :)

[_Darth J]

You mean Sock Puppet's observation that the Nauvoo city charter incorporated the rights in the federal constitution by reference, so he was saying that under Nauvoo municipal law residents were entitled to freedom of the press, and you ridiculously kept trying to characterize that as an anachronistic 14th Amendment argument?

That incorporation by reference provision did not have the meaning to which you ascribe. Close research shows that that clause made it into the charter because John C. Bennett had added that clause to the Springfield Charter and it sounded good; he added it to the Nauvoo Charter. The purpose for the clause was to expand the Nauvoo Charter's powers as broadly as possible -- to the outer extremes of federal constitutional limits -- exactly the limits a state would have. That clause was not included to somehow narrow the City's rights.

The City Council shall have powers and authority to levy and collect taxes upon all property, real and personal, within the city, not exceeding one-half per cent., per annum, upon the assessed valuation thereof, and may enforce the payment of the same in any manner prescribed by ordinance, not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and of this State.

Clearly, that was not a limitation on the city's legislative powers. In fact, I think we can safely say that unambiguous legal documents should not be construed by their plain meaning, but instead by reference to trivia about one of Mormonism's bete noires.

But, at the time, the First Amendment did not fetter the states in any regard; there was no law that said so. Thus, it could not be said that the clause had any implications for the press.

See generally: straw man

In them days, free press rights were contained in state constitutions, and it is likely that suppression of the Nauvoo Expositor was unconstitutional under the state constitution. The question turns upon the threat of riot the newspaper posed; I don't think it did but others might.

Those "others" including everyone who writes official curricula for the LDS Church.

P.S. I appreciate your frank admissions that you're a troll. Few internet Mormon crusaders have such candor.

I have done no such thing. I am here to be entertained, and to learn, and to poke holes in the pompously hypocritical.

I enjoy making fun of the Church, too.

[_Yahoo Bot]

Snip

[_Morley]

Themis, the term "people of color" is different from "colored people."

So? My point still stands.

by the way I am not alone in not liking the term.

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004055.html

I would think it would easy to see why.

If one is speaking of generally accepted usage, your point really doesn't stand.


I'm going to turn this discussion back to Jersey. My apologies to both of you for interrupting Jersey's fun.

[_Darth J]

Is it so difficult to wrap your head around the notion that the First Amendment doesn't matter here, because the action violated the state constitution and/or riot statutes? Why argue about something that is not important?

The reason it's important is theological. Joseph Smith purported to receive revelations from God saying that the Constitution was divinely inspired.

http://www.LDS.org/scriptures/dc-testam ... ang=eng#79

http://www.LDS.org/scriptures/dc-testam ... ang=eng#76

According to the History of the Church, Joseph Smith said, "I am the greatest advocate of the Constitution of the United States there is on the earth."

It's important because it is another demonstration that Joseph Smith was a shameless hypocrite.

Does anybody really argue that the suppression was lawful?

Yes. His name is Dallin H. Oaks.

May 1996 Ensign

Mormon historians—including Elder B. H. Roberts—had conceded that this action was illegal, but as a young law professor pursuing original research, I was pleased to find a legal basis for this action in the Illinois law of 1844.

Darth J's definition of a troll: Somebody who unemotionally refuses to politely genuflect to the resident lawyer.

And here we see the always popular meta-trolling.

[_Themis]

If one is speaking of generally accepted usage, your point really doesn't stand.


I'm going to turn this discussion back to Jersey. My apologies to both of you for interrupting Jersey's fun.

I realize she does not anything negative by it's use, and that many see it as acceptable, but I think I still have a point which I would hope people can understand. I linked a good article about it.

[_cafe crema]

Church spokesman responding to Illinois' apology to the LDS:

The resolution states that the "biases and prejudices of a less-enlightened age in the history of the state of Illinois caused untold hardship and trauma for the community of Latter-day Saints by the distrust, violence and inhospitable actions of a dark time in our past . . . ."

It also describes members of the LDS Church as "a people of faith and hard work" and asks them to forgive "the misguided efforts of our citizens, chief executive and the General Assembly in the expulsion of their Mormon ancestors" from Nauvoo.
A spokesman for the LDS Church, Dale Bills, called the resolution "a thoughtful gesture" and said the church will have more to say about the apology next week. President Hinckley and Walker are scheduled to hold a press conference with the Illinois officials on April 7.

"I think it brings closure," the governor said Wednesday from Vancouver, British Columbia, where she is on a trade mission. "It was certainly a very generous gesture on their part to realize historically they had really driven a whole group of people out of their state.

"Now they're saying they're sorry it happened. I think it does bring a great deal of friendship and, at least for me, warm feelings about Illinois that they would care that much and pass this resolution."

Hinckley referring to both the Illinois and Missouri apology:

We are pleased to note that on April 1 of this year, the Illinois House of Representatives unanimously passed a resolution of regret for the forced expulsion of our people from Nauvoo in 1846. This magnanimous gesture may be coupled with action taken by then Governor Christopher S. Bond of Missouri, who in 1976 revoked the cruel and unconstitutional extermination order issued against our people by Governor Lilburn W. Boggs in 1838.

These and other developments represent a most significant change of attitude toward the Latter-day Saints.

It seems the LDS like receiving apologies for past injuries from people who didn't have anything to do with the actions and they even find them beneficial. They just refuse to issue any of their own.