What lies did the Nauvoo Expositor print?

[_why me]

You complain in one paragraph that no one was arrested for destroying Mormon presses in Missouri, but then declare it bigotry that Illinois people and officials would be outraged at JSJr ordering the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor. Talk about bigotry. You speak as if the same people in Missouri that destroyed Mormon press there also those in Illinois outraged at the abuse of city government power. You paint them all with the broad brushstroke of being the same--that, sir, is bigotry.

Now sock, you know what I meant but in case you missed it, I will speak more slowly: The saints in nauvoo had the experience of having their presses distroyed. It was in their mindset. Thus, to destroy a press may have been titfortat. No one expected Joseph Smith to be arrested and held in custody as he was. And he did offer to make amends which is more than what was offered the Mormons.

The frontier was a bigoted place...and the Mormons suffered from such bigotry. The warsaw paper is only one proof of the bigotry. But we can not discount the effect the warsaw paper had on the saints after experiencing what they experienced in missouri.

[Guest]

You complain in one paragraph that no one was arrested for destroying Mormon presses in Missouri, but then declare it bigotry that Illinois people and officials would be outraged at JSJr ordering the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor. Talk about bigotry. You speak as if the same people in Missouri that destroyed Mormon press there also those in Illinois outraged at the abuse of city government power. You paint them all with the broad brushstroke of being the same--that, sir, is bigotry.

Now sock, you know what I meant but in case you missed it, I will speak more slowly: The saints in nauvoo had the experience of having their presses distroyed. It was in their mindset. Thus, to destroy a press may have been titfortat. No one expected Joseph Smith to be arrested and held in custody as he was. And he did offer to make amends which is more than what was offered the Mormons.

The frontier was a bigoted place...and the Mormons suffered from such bigotry. The warsaw paper is only one proof of the bigotry. But we can not discount the effect the warsaw paper had on the saints after experiencing what they experienced in missouri.

Tit for tat? What an ironic thing for the true followers of Christ to do. Why were they following the Old Testament law, eye for an eye, and not the new, replacement law that Jesus taught. Maybe, why me, this is an example of the Mormonism that the Christian world eschews.

It kind of reminds me of the man who when he was a child was sexually abused and uses that as the excuse for sexually molesting his own daughter. That uses the same reasoning as you do for attempting to justify JSJr and Hyrum Smith's malignant conduct in seeking and ordering the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor. "Well, because the Mormon press had been destroyed in Missouri by others, the Mormons were justified in taking similar actions against the non-mormon press in Nauvoo, Illinois."

Do you think because JSJr, the Mormon leader, was murdered that it would be okay if the Mormons murdered the Catholic pope?

[_Darth J]

Darth, The warsaw paper was known among the saints. They knew what it was printing and the language it was using. I am sure that when it was discovered that Law was going to publish a like minded paper in their midst, there was fear in the community that the paper would be just another paper to stir hatred against them. And for Joseph Smith and the town council, knowing what the warsaw paper was printing and knowing what the missouri papers were printing could not tolerate another such paper in the heart of their community. Thus, the destruction. Now, Joseph Smith tried to make amends but it was rejected. Under the circumstances of what was happening in the other communities there was fear and this fear was acted upon. I don't think many Nauvoo people shed a tear about the nauvoo expositor and its destruction in Nauvoo.

THAT IS NOT A VALID LEGAL BASIS TO DESTROY PRIVATE PROPERTY AND DENY FREEDOM OF THE PRESS.

The Illinois state constitution guaranteed freedom of the press. The Nauvoo city charter also adopted the rights in the federal constitution for the residents of Nauvoo. When people have the right of freedom of the press, they get to publish things that you don't like. And what third parties were doing in a different state is irrelevant to the Expositor publishers having the right of freedom of the press.

"Fear" was not the purported legal basis for destroying the Expositor, either. It was libel. The city council minutes exist; there is no reason to speculate or guess. We know the reason the city council gave. The question in the OP is about that claim of libel being facetious. There was no libel because there was no false statement. Your continuous failure in this thread and other threads to articulate what lies were published, and your incessant tangents, dodges, and incoherent and inconsistent arguments are not a particularly impressive defense of Joseph Smith. Your posts are simply an indictment of the mindset it takes to make excuses for Joseph Smith's using the city government to silence the news getting out about his secret extracurricular activities.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I hope Mr. Why Me never comes near a FOX news station or a National Enquirer press.

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_Darth J]

Let me give you another clue....since you think computers can talk.....it is very obvious that you are just flailing around trying to "save Joseph", as Sock Puppet puts it. Not only do you not have any coherent point, you are flagrantly contradicting yourself. Here is what you said on page 15 of this thread:

The early saints were not living in a bubble. I am sure that the Warsaw Gazette was printing articles about polygamy and Joseph Smith, and the saints were free to read that paper.

Now here is what you just barely said:

The newspaper was biased. Look at the language used to described Joseph Smith and how they reported the news. They have no clue what was going on in Nauvoo and why. Nor do they care.

So you can't quite decide if the Warsaw papers knew what was going on or not, and you also can't quite decide if Joseph Smith was justified in lying about polygamy to keep it secret so people's lives would be saved, or if this was something that everyone knew about, anyway. And if the Warsaw papers were printing stories about Joseph Smith and polygamy (for argument's sake, since you have produced no factual basis for that assertion), then the Expositor would be redundant and there would be no reason to shut down a paper as a "danger" for saying things that were already being said anyway.

I see no contradiction at all. Both stand on their own merits. The warsaw paper pubished what they reported as outsiders. The nauvoo paper would publish their articles as insiders. Put both bias newspapers together and we have a very flamable situation for the Mormons in nauvoo.

Maybe your inability to maintain a coherent argument is because of your inability to maintain a coherent thought. You said two things within two pages of this thread that directly contradict each other:

1. You are "sure" that the newspapers in Warsaw were publishing stories about Joseph Smith practicing polygamy.

2. You don't think that the newspapers in Warsaw knew or cared about the specifics of what was going on in Nauvoo.

Your way of trying to reconcile these statements is to bring in a third, irrelevant assertion. You have provided no evidence at all to support this ad hoc "insider/outsider" idea. Your ad hoc excuse is superfluous, anyway, because the historical record is clear that the public outrage was about destroying the Expositor, not the contents of the Expositor.

In a society with a free press, newspapers are allowed to be biased. And I already provided a link to a previous post where I quoted a source about the history of the press in the 19th century showing that explicit bias was normal for newspapers of that era. But not only is your harping about "bias" anachronistic, it is irrelevant to the OP in this thread and to the destruction of the Expositor. The government doesn't get to come shut down your newspaper and destroy your printing equipment because "you're too biased." Also, contrary to the talking points of Mopologists and internet Mormons, "bias" is not synonymous with "untrue." You still have not shown a single thing in the Expositor that was false, so you're doing the typical apologist obfuscation, instead. Not even Peter Cottontail hops down the bunny trail this much.

However, thank you for providing another case study of what it takes to try to rationalize a religious leader using a municipal government that he controls to silence public criticism of his secret, adulterous liaisons.

[_Fence Sitter]

Please explain how you feel that other religions have been proven false and how those same standards do not apply to Mormonism otherwise your statement of proof is meaningless.

Most religions do not claim truth. The protestant faiths certainly do not claim to be the one true church. But the catholic church does. My point was simple: the LDS church has not been proven false. So why get all excited about it. You many not believe anymore but that is your own personal opinion. Nothing more.

"Most religions do not claim truth". Do you realize what you just said? Please point out a belief any religion holds that they do not claim as truth.

Regardless of what other religions claim or do not claim, none of them have been proven false. You dodged the question. Show other religions that have been proven false or your statement remains meaningless.

You really do need to pay attention to what Dallin Oaks said about a bad argument being worse than none at all.

I also love the "That your opinion" sign off. Ahh the last bastion of someone who has no substantive response to offer, as if all opinions hold the same weight.

Two suggestions.

Get a color TV

and

Get rid of the Ruby slippers.

[_Runtu]

However, thank you for providing another case study of what it takes to try to rationalize a religious leader using a municipal government that he controls to silence public criticism of his secret, adulterous liaisons.

The odd thing to me is that whether Joseph did wrong in the Expositor episode is pretty much irrelevant to Joseph's prophetic calling. I don't understand why some people can't simply acknowledge that he did a wrong, stupid, and probably illegal thing in destroying the press. It's as if some people cannot imagine either an imperfect Joseph Smith or a narrative that strays from the party line.

Weird.

[_sethpayne]

Do you think because JSJr, the Mormon leader, was murdered that it would be okay if the Mormons murdered the Catholic pope?

I don't think this is what why me is trying to argue. My impression is that why me is providing important context that helps us understand why people may have reacted in the way that they did. Bad behavior is bad behavior and should be called as such. However, understanding the context surrounding bad behavior may help us understand motivations and (hopefully) learn a thing or two.

[_Buffalo]

The odd thing to me is that whether Joseph did wrong in the Expositor episode is pretty much irrelevant to Joseph's prophetic calling. I don't understand why some people can't simply acknowledge that he did a wrong, stupid, and probably illegal thing in destroying the press. It's as if some people cannot imagine either an imperfect Joseph Smith or a narrative that strays from the party line.

Weird.

If you would have asked me when I still kind of believed, I would have admitted that Joseph was wrong to destroy the press. But then, look where that kind of thinking got me. ;)

[_Fence Sitter]

However, thank you for providing another case study of what it takes to try to rationalize a religious leader using a municipal government that he controls to silence public criticism of his secret, adulterous liaisons.

The odd thing to me is that whether Joseph did wrong in the Expositor episode is pretty much irrelevant to Joseph's prophetic calling. I don't understand why some people can't simply acknowledge that he did a wrong, stupid, and probably illegal thing in destroying the press. It's as if some people cannot imagine either an imperfect Joseph Smith or a narrative that strays from the party line.

Weird.

Mopologist vs. apologist