The Destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor was LEGAL

Рет қаралды 997

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 86

@whatsup3270 5 ай бұрын

"I now express to you my opinion that your conduct in the destruction of the press was a very gross outrage upon the laws and the liberties of the people." - Governor Ford ( a real lawyer)

@mmeszmurrized7872 5 ай бұрын

Source???

@jaybravo2199 5 ай бұрын

@@mmeszmurrized7872Google… Anyway, it was a letter sent from Ford to Smith… you can find it in its entirety in History Of The Church, volume 6.

@JeremyJohnson-i6i 5 ай бұрын

@@mmeszmurrized7872 you can plug the quote into google and come up with multiple citations validating the quote.

@jaybravo2199 5 ай бұрын

@@mmeszmurrized7872I’ve tried a few times pointing you to a source, and repeatedly it gets deleted. If you simply put the quote in a search engine, you’ll find plenty of citations.

@user-mg8in3ku1l 5 ай бұрын

Governor Ford had also pledged to protect Joseph in the event of the latter's going to Carthage Jail. Joseph's death was a direct result of Governor Ford intentionally withdrawing that protection, through agreement with the mob leaders. Claiming afterwards that the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor was a terrible idea helped cover his own actions.

@krismurphy7711 5 ай бұрын

1818 State of Illinois Constitution. "Sect. 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."

@krismurphy7711 5 ай бұрын

1818 State of Illinois Constitution. "Sect. 23. In prosecutions for the publication of papers investigating the official conduct of officers, or of men acting in a public capacity or where the matter published is proper for public information, the truth thereof may be given in evidence. And in all indictments for libels, the jury shall have the right of determining both the law and the fact, under the direction of the court, as in other cases."

@jaybravo2199 5 ай бұрын

Double reply... sorry... Jasmine accused the Nauvoo Expositor of printing, "inflammatory accusations" and "incendiary rhetoric". What exactly was the newspaper printing which wasn't true?

@thelastgoonie6555 5 ай бұрын

They won't answer this inconvenient question. lol

@krismurphy7711 5 ай бұрын

EXACTLY!! And in the Illinois Constitution, THE TRUTH is a defense in such cases. Of course if Joseph Smith CONTINUED TO LIE, then it would be hard to get to the truth. Joseph Smith had a CONFLICT OF INTEREST and should not have participated in ANY deliberations on the matter. Hyrum too. And probably the REST OF THE "CITY COUNCIL" which was made up mostly of APOSTLES OF THE CHURCH.

@MD-cb8ov 5 ай бұрын

Was polygamy LEGAL? There should be a video about that.

@jaybravo2199 5 ай бұрын

Such a good point... Jasmine is trying to say the burning down of a newspaper's printing press was legal when said newspaper was printing the truth about the illegal activities of the people who burned the printing press down.

@JeremyJohnson-i6i 5 ай бұрын

mormons defending the burning down of a newspaper is a new thing I've never heard before. legal or not its a train wreck of a situation

@ChristIsMyRedeemer2024 5 ай бұрын

Definitely something a fine against the city government could have been enforced by the Governor. not the execution of the Mayor of Nauvoo and his brother 😂 Joseph was found not guilty of destroying the expositor in front of a jury, then recapruted by the governor and he had them murdered It is sad the church pushed the narrative about the expositor for so long. It was just another false allegation against the prophet

@thelastgoonie6555 5 ай бұрын

Many things are legal that are morally wrong. If Mormons can find a loophole to justify something, they'll do it--especially for Joseph Smith. I've heard countless "justifications" for a 37 year old taking multiple teenage brides. What other church has their membership publicly defending sexual predators? Oh yes...FLDS and Warren Jeffs.

@krismurphy7711 5 ай бұрын

It is an indication of how pliable their patriotism is....and how desperate they have become.

@DustyB Ай бұрын

On days like this I want to remind everyone, that Joseph Smith is burning in hell

@Enos_Envy 5 ай бұрын

Mormon Legalism is your most pharisaical move yet @ScripturePlus! "If it's LEGAL, then it's OKAY guys! Sure Joseph Smith was immoral, but in this case, it was arguably legal!" Funny that you neglect to mention the crime he was convicted of early in his career as a 'Glass Looker' since legality is your measurement.

@jaybravo2199 5 ай бұрын

Mormon apologetics need to play both sides of the argument depending on what they are trying to defend. The irony, one apologetic may seem to answer one criticism but in turn validate another criticism.

@Enos_Envy 5 ай бұрын

@@jaybravo2199 The ONLY explanation that doesn't contradict other apologetics is: Joseph was a fraud.

@benjaminsmith6031 5 ай бұрын

You do such a good job explaining the background. Thank you for posting!

@thelastgoonie6555 5 ай бұрын

lol...19th Century context and subtext in 90 seconds or less! Good job!

@krismurphy7711 5 ай бұрын

She's full of it. Apologetics as usual.

@JD-pr1et 5 ай бұрын

Things were a bit different back then. That's the trouble of trying to analyze events using modern statutes and standards.

@jaybravo2199 5 ай бұрын

Umm... burning down a newspaper because it was printing as Jasmine put it, "inflammatory accusations" and "incendiary rhetoric" which when using modern standards we've learned those accusations were in fact true and not rhetoric reads the same today as it did then... people in power trying to keep their lies secret. Still not a good look.

@thelastgoonie6555 5 ай бұрын

Moral relativism is a problem too, JD. You really think there is no moral objectivity? This isn't the route you want to go down.

@JD-pr1et 5 ай бұрын

@@thelastgoonie6555 Yes. Moral relativism is also a problem, but again, one cannot analyze events from that perspective either as that was not the standard of the day.

@thelastgoonie6555 5 ай бұрын

@@JD-pr1et Then you cannot analyze people today for drinking coffee, living together before marriage, watching Rated R movies, using common language, supporting gay marriage, abandoning garments, rejecting callings, wearing crosses, embracing transgenderism, etc. etc. etc. It all goes out the window.

@JD-pr1et 5 ай бұрын

@@thelastgoonie6555 You are confusing direct commandments from the Lord with looking back on events and imposing modern values on those situations. What you are arguing for is moral relativism with your last comment.

@adamparley 5 ай бұрын

Freedom of the press does not mean freedom from consequences.

@fairywingsonroses 5 ай бұрын

Sure, but they could have just as easily shut the paper down or required them to publish less controversial material. Violently burning down a building because you don't like what the paper said about your religion doesn't exactly seem like a sustainable or logical solution to the problem. Not only are you destroying someone's property and valuable resources as buildings were much harder to build back then, but you're also promoting this idea that freedom of speech can and should be silenced with violence (which people were more than happy to exact on Mormons following this incident). It's not surprising at all that this led to the eventual incarceration of Joseph Smith, his violent death, and the forced removal of Mormons from Nauvoo. Had he responded without violence, who knows if that would have changed the eventual outcome for both Joseph and the Mormon people.

@adamparley 5 ай бұрын

@@fairywingsonroses You forgot just one detail, that destroying presses that were nuisances was a common practice of the time period, and a mob had done just that with a Mormon printing press before the Nauvoo Expositor even existed.

@jaybravo2199 5 ай бұрын

@@adamparley I'd love to read citations how the destruction of presses was common place. Jasmine in this very video claimed there wasn't precedence for this situaiton.

@ChristIsMyRedeemer2024 5 ай бұрын

@@fairywingsonrosesthe Mormons were not kicked out of nauvoo for this. They left 2 years later because Brigham Young and a few other church leaders were accused of counterfeiting.

@krismurphy7711 5 ай бұрын

Nauvoo was in The State of Illinois.....not Heaven.

@krismurphy7711 5 ай бұрын

Missy....you need to read Section 22 & 23 of the 1818 Constitution of The State of Illinois. I believe your claim about public nuisance is incorrect...in that there were not grounds for such...AND, The Truth is the ultimate defense. No discussions of the actual content of the Nauvoo Expositor seem to have been discussed by The Council. It was all about The Men behind the N E

@natedawg2020 5 ай бұрын

I think you are conflating destroying the press vs destroying the publications. Elder Oaks said Joseph would have been justified in destroying the publications, but not the press.

@user-mg8in3ku1l 5 ай бұрын

That is not what I found upon looking. Dallin H. Oaks published his research on this topic in the Utah Law Review (“The Suppression of the Nauvoo Expositor,” Utah Law Review 9 [1965]: 862.), in which he shared his findings that the destruction and shutting down of the press was indeed legal at the time. In a talking during the April 1996 General Conference, he summarized his findings and reminded us, "We should judge the actions of our predecessors on the basis of the laws and commandments and circumstances of their day, not ours."

@natedawg2020 5 ай бұрын

@@user-mg8in3ku1lIf you fully read the actual publication, Elder Oaks explains it thoroughly and goes through where Joseph Smith was and wasn’t on strong legal footing in his responses to the Governor. This is the last sentence from Elder Oaks’ conclusion: “Aside from damages for unnecessary destruction of the press, for which the Nauvoo authorities were unquestionably liable, the remaining actions of the council, including its interpretation of the constitutional guarantee of a free press, can be supported by reference to the law of their day.”

@user-mg8in3ku1l 5 ай бұрын

@@natedawg2020 Thank you for referring to the law review itself. Even there, "not on strong legal footing" is not the same as "this was illegal." It means there is room for differing legal opinions, which Joseph Smith himself acknowledged in the conversation with Governor Ford I referenced earlier-- "In relation to the press, you say that you differ with me in opinion; be it so, the thing after all is a legal difficulty, and the courts I should judge competent to decide on the matter. ... if it is deemed that we did a wrong in destroying that press, we refuse not to pay for it. We are desirous to fulfill the law in every particular, and are responsible for our acts."

@natedawg2020 5 ай бұрын

@@user-mg8in3ku1l I think that’s fair a counterargument, and maybe Joseph Smith was still liable for his actions although it was debatable whether his actions were illegal. Although Elder Oaks and Joseph Smith admitted to liability, I don’t believe Elder Oaks ever explicitly said what Joseph did was “illegal,” but rather he says it was “not entirely illegal.” However, Elder Oaks did state that the Nauvoo City Council did not legally exercise judicial powers because they did not properly give notice to the interested parties. There was no jury trial prior to the suppression. They probably should have used other forms of abatement or at least due process. Here is more of what Elder Oaks said about it being questionable: “There was no direct precedent in 1844 to support to use of nuisance-abatement powers to suppress a nuisance like the Expositor, but there was no direct authority against such use either. Subsequent history shows that other government officials also undertook to exercise suppressionist powers beyond the conventional damage or criminal action, and some even found high judicial approval for the use of the nuisance device. Once the Nauvoo City Council had concluded that its nuisance-abatement powers extended to the abatement of newspapers publishing scandalous or provocative material, it would be unrealistic to have expected them to observe limitations that were not articulated clearly in any constitution, statute, or court decision of their day.”

@natedawg2020 5 ай бұрын

@@user-mg8in3ku1l Yeah I think that’s a good counterargument to say although Joseph was liable, this doesn’t mean what he did was necessarily illegal. It is possible to be liable without necessarily doing something illegal. Although you could argue that the City Council illegally executed judicial powers without notice or due process, there was the leading 1832 precedence in Albany to abate public nuisances through destruction without judicial proceedings. Joseph should have used other means of abatement, but it’s not well founded to say what he did was entirely illegal. I’m just trying to quote Elder Oaks when I say it would not have been very questionable to destroy the publications. Destroying the press was legally questionable.

@Bluewater9 5 ай бұрын

In Gods kingdom life is True Amen. Sharing is beautiful.♥️

@thelastgoonie6555 5 ай бұрын

Wow...of all your terrible takes Jasmin, I didn't think things could get worse... You have out done yourself again madame. No wonder you won the Mental Gymnast of the Year award for 2023. Going for a repeat, I see.

@caseykaelin9430 5 ай бұрын

Where exactly are the mental gymnastics?

@thelastgoonie6555 5 ай бұрын

@@caseykaelin9430 You don't hear all the qualifying language Jasmin uses? -A lot -Perhaps -May have -likely -arguably You can't seriously say this is an objective portrayal.

@caseykaelin9430 5 ай бұрын

@@thelastgoonie6555 Jasmin uses a lot and perhaps once. She uses arguably twice. In the context of her talk these are perfectly fine to use. She is correct about the second and 14th ammendment. It appears the Nauvoo city council did their due diligence before making a decision. I think you are a little to liberal when it comes to handing out your mental gymnastic awards.

@thelastgoonie6555 5 ай бұрын

@@caseykaelin9430 You must have missed her Hippo video. Or the Tattoo video. Or her Peep stone video. Or her...

@caseykaelin9430 5 ай бұрын

@@thelastgoonie6555 This video just popped up on my feed and I watched it. I can't speak for the others but this video was pretty straight forward. I did not see what I would call mental gymnastic in it. Maybe you can explain how using arguably turns a talk into mental gymnastic.