The Largest Repository Of Ex-Mormon Material In The World
Containing 3,238 Articles Spanning 204 Topics
Online Since January 1, 2005
|
PLEASE NOTE:
If you have reached this page from an outside source such as an
Internet Search or forum referral, please note that this page
(the one you just landed on)
is an archive containing articles on
"DALLIN H. OAKS".
This website,
The Mormon Curtain
- is a website that blogs the Ex-Mormon world. You can
read
The Mormon Curtain FAQ
to understand the purpose of this website.
CLICK HERE to visit the main page of The Mormon Curtain.
|
|
|
DALLIN H. OAKS
Total Articles:
21
Topics surrounding Dallan H. Oaks - a Mormon Apostle married to more than one woman.
|
|
From Dallin H. Oaks this last conference:
We must also act to protect those we love. Parents install alarms to warn if their household is threatened by smoke or carbon monoxide. We should also install protections against spiritual threats. Protections like filters on internet connections and locating access so others can see what is being viewed. And we should build the spiritual strength of our families by loving relationships family prayer, and scripture study. Finally, do not patronize pornography. Do not use your purchasing power to support moral degradation. And young woman, please understand that if you dress immodestly you are magnifying this problem by becoming pornography to some of the men who see you. Please heed these warnings. Let us all improve our personal behavior and redouble our efforts to protect our loved ones and our environment from the onslaught of pornography that threatens our spirituality, our marriages, and our children.
Meanwhile, you can still purchase pornography at any Marriott Hotel, owned by an LDS General Authority by the same name.
Funny how we never hear the brethren say, "And you young men, be sure never to play "shirts-n-skins" on the asphalt, as the sight of your bare chests may invoke impure thoughts in the minds of our sisters." Or maybe they should reprimand young men who "adjust" themselves in the church hall? Or send home deacons if we can see their nipples through the white shirts?
| | | The Weirdest Talk In Modern GC History: Dallin Oaks' "Language Of Prayer"
Article Archived: May 31, 2005, at 09:15 AM
Stored Under Topic: DALLIN H. OAKS
Outside Link To Article: RIGHT CLICK - COPY LINK LOCATION
Original Author Of Article: Anonymous |  | |
I'm a big fan of everyone's right to say stupid things. In fact, I myself have said a lot of stupid things on here. The worst was when I incorrectly announced that my prophecy that the "principal ancestors" phrase would be eliminated from future editions of the BOM had been fulfilled in the new Doubleday version, when it hadn't. It was still there, but I'd missed it reading over the intro in the bookstore. It can be mortifying to have to eat your shorts any time, but since we all make mistakes, and hopefully, all wish to learn, I think it's just part of life.
So, I don't hold think there is anything particularly unusual, or even wrong, about anyone, including Dallin Oaks, saying silly things once in awhile. (After all, the only reason why someone might say far fewer silly things than average would be if they were a "special witness" of, with special access to, the faultless, omniscient mind of a deity, like the ascended Jesus of Nazareth.) Often times, silly comments lead to serious discussion where new insights are made. And of course, silly comments sometimes turn out not to be so silly upon inspection.
But that brings us to what may be the weirdest talk in modern General Conference history, Dallin Oaks' "Language of Prayer" talk. There are so many internal contradictions and problems with this talk, that a full critique of it would be a couple of times the length of the original talk. But since a few people asked me last week for a few comments after this talk came up on a thread that I started, here are a few. (The full text of this talk can be read at www.lds.org, May 1993 Ensign).
It is easy to imagine that addressing the Creator of the universe, the embodiment of all righteousness and perfection, should impel us to use language different from that which we use to talk to goldfish or prison inmates. It is all the more significant, then, what a hash Elder Oaks makes of his defense of it.
For example, he writes:
>> The special language of prayer follows different forms in different languages, but the principle is always the same. We should address prayers to our Heavenly Father in words which speakers of that language associate with love and respect and reverence and closeness. The application of this principle will, of course, vary according to the nature of a particular language, including the forms that were used when the scriptures were translated into that language. Some languages have intimate or familiar pronouns and verbs used only in addressing family and very close friends. Other languages have honorific forms of address that signify great respect, such as words used only when speaking to a king or other person of high rank. Both of these kinds of special words are appropriately used in offering prayers in other languages because they communicate the desired feelings of love, respect, reverence, or closeness.
Question: How does it make sense to say that the “special language of prayer follows different forms in different languages, but the principle is always the same”? What principle? Oaks says that in prayer, “some languages have intimate or familiar pronouns…other languages have ‘honorific forms’” but that "BOTH...ARE APPROPRIATELY USED". Huh? Familiar forms of address, versus formal forms, are opposites. What “principle” could erase the very distinction on which his entire talk depends for its point? This is totally bizarre. If it is true that different languages use either the formal or informal in addressing God, and then he says that that's appropriate, on what grounds is he arguing that in English, we shouldn't use "you"? WHAT PRINCIPLE?
Oaks writes that "thou" and "thee", etc., constitute "dignified" language. But then he writes this:
>>The special language of prayer that Latter-day Saints use in English has sometimes been explained by reference to the history of the English language. It has been suggested that thee, thou, thy, and thine are simply holdovers from forms of address once used to signify respect for persons of higher rank. But more careful scholarship shows that the words we now use in the language of prayer were once commonly used by persons of rank IN ADDRESSING PERSONS OF INFERIOR POSITION...These same English words were also used in communications between persons in an intimate relationship." (That is, they constituted the informal form).
So, according to Elder Oaks, we should use "thou" because it is more "dignified", AND, according to Elder Oaks, "thou" is NOT more dignified, because (as most people interested in English know), it actually IS the now obsolete informal, intimate form of address - exactly the one people did use to address golfish and criminals with, 500 years ago. How does this make sense? Oaks says in effect, "'thou' is formal" AND "'thou' is informal".
How does Oaks get around this obstacle to his argument? Very easily. He simply ends up declaring, as though hopefully to make the conundrums he gets himself into in this talk magically, instantly vanish:
>>But the history of English usage is not the point.
Previously in this talk, Oaks notes that the meanings of words change over time, as though to insinuate that "thou" had. But it isn't that "thou" has "changed meanings"; it is that it has been totally obsolete - hasn't been used - in "standard English" (hereafter "SE") for going on half a millenium. Even by the time of Shakespeare and the KJV it was falling out of use in SE, and I know for a fact that some linguists believe that the only reason Shakespeare used it so often in his plays (whereas contemporaries like Ben Jonson used it rarely) was that he (supposedly) hailed from Warwickshire, where it was still a part of the dialect.
(And by the way, my wife is from Lancashire; and if you went there right now and talked to people over fifty [as I have a few times] who still speak in dialectic, you would hear them quite frequently use the INFORMAL "thou" and "thee" to their grandchildren, farm animals like goats and pigs, and grocery boys. It never has been - and is still not, where it is used - the "reverent", "dignified", or "formal" form, not in regional dialects, nor in SE).
Anyway, it is easy to wonder if for Oaks, "the history of English usage" has ceased to be the point only because "the history of English usage" completely destroys the weird arguments he keeps trying to make. How can "usage" and its "history" NOT be the point, when his whole talk is about 500 year old words that he wants us to keep using, on grounds that they are "dignified", even though, as he also admits, they aren't? How can ANY discussion of a word's meaning, nuances, etc., completely divorce itself from the history of that word? Oaks doesn't really answer this question. But why should he have to? He's an apostle, and even though his talk contains numerous internal inconsistencies, that he is an apostle should be all that is required for us to not notice, I supppose.
So far, Oaks has argued that "thou" should be used because it is "dignified", even though as he explains, it wasn't ever actually "dignified" at all; insinuated then that it might be appropriate just because the meaning has changed, even though it hasn't where still used in regional dialect, and in fact has dropped entirely from SE.
And in seeming (subconscious?) recognition of his increasingly embarrassing position, he finally concedes that, okay, "thou" might be obsolete - but that THAT is precisely why we SHOULD use it for "the language of prayer"! (He says, "In our day the English words thee, thou, thy, and thine are suitable for the language of prayer, not because of how they were used anciently but because they are currently obsolete in common English discourse".)
Confession: I don't understand. Why does "obsolete" mean "more sacred"? Would Dallin Oaks insist that we all start listening to the MoTab on wax cylinders or vinyl LP's, or wear burlap robes to church instead of navy business suits with red silk ties?
Oaks' position seems to come down to this: SE currently lacks a formal "you", since "you" now is used in both formal and informal settings. But, deity must be addressed, in English, using formal speech (though he doesn't explain why all other languages should use the informal, as the church insists they do). So, the obsolete "thou" can be appropriated to this end, despite the fact it was always - and is still, where used - the informal form.
This might be okay, except that THE CHURCH ITSELF translates ALL references to Deity, in its scriptures, its manuals, its conference talks (even Oaks'!), everything, into the INFORMAL form of address of every language of which I am aware. German, French, Italian, Spanish, Portugese, Dutch, every other language with two forms of address, I believe - the church itself always uses the INFORMAL! On what grounds, in the end, does Oaks argue that "right" requires English speakers to try essentially to create out of nothing, like Kwanzaa, and use, a formal form of address, while "right" ALSO requires virtually all non-English Mormons to do EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE? Again, “what principle”? Why?
I think, in the end, the answer is - "because". That's always the ultimate answer in authoritarian organizations, whether we all realize it or not. "Because" - because Spencer Kimball said so, because Joseph said so, because we always have...but as each "because" (just as we have seen in Oaks' own talk) evaporates under scrutiny, another "because" replaces it. And in the end, there is nothing else, except "because". Because we said so. And when the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done. And that should settle the matter for all faithful Latter-day Saints. The end.
----------------------
MORE COMMENTS.
Any discussion of Dallin Oaks’ version of the “language of prayer” might take into consideration the language of the KJV, since Mormon prayer language seems to be an effort to continue its form of speech. As well, while Oaks' talk isn't specifically about the KJV, Mormon defenses of its continued use often rely on the same kinds of arguments used by Oaks for defending obsolete language in prayer. And I feel pretty sure that Oaks' would defend the continued use of the KJV as staunchly (and as unconvincingly) as he does "the language of prayer". Just a few comments then for what they're worth.
The first English translation of the Bible was done by John Wycliffe in the late 1300's (don't remember the exact year). It was revolutionary because it was a translation of the scriptures into the language of the common man; and as such, was a total karate kick in the face of the church. The church opposed Latin to English translations, at bottom, because it weakened their power - up until that time, the priests (obviously this is pre-church/state separation) had been the referees in the game of life, but the players themselves had little or no access to the "definitive" rule book, The Bible. All priestly opinions had to be accepted just on faith as being accurate expressions of what The Bible itself said. Human nature being what it is, it is difficult to imagine even the most saintly pope or priest (or prophet) never wielding such power to satisfy his own interests.
Wycliffe, with his English translation, helped to start changing this situation. Though with great faith in God, he aligned himself with reason, autonomy, and enlightenment, and against the dark forces of dogma and questionable, irresponsible religious authority claims. He once said that even if a hundred popes were to announce something, their opinions on faith shouldn't be accepted unless they squared with holy writ. It is no wonder the church was so angry at him. Suddenly, they were being held accountable. Their power derived from their ability to be the final interpreters of a scripture withheld from the very people they sought power over (does that sound familiar?); even at the same time they claimed that scriptures were the only word of God, they reserved ALL RIGHT to INTERPRET that word of God; which in effect substituted them for that word of God itself, without acknowledging this was what was happening (and does THAT sound familiar?). Was it Brennan or Black who said the Constitution was "whatever wesay it means"?
Wycliffe's successor translator, William Tyndale, similarly wished for holy writ to be accessible to the common man. He once said to a priest, “ere many years, I will cause a boy that driveth a plough to know more of the scriptures than thou dost”. After he published his translation, one which broadly would come to serve as the template for future translations, including the KJV, he was pursued by the Catholic church, caught, and then burned at the stake. His crime? Facilitating access to religious information, a “crime” that the Mormon church would probably make, in essence, against the guy who smuggled Joseph’s “Kirtland Papers” (the Egyptian Grammar book) out of the archives, against the Tanners for publishing it, against Grant Palmer or Michael Quinn or anyone else who would dare reveal religious information and facilitate the holding accountable of men who make authority claims identical to (and identically as specious as) the Catholic popes and priests the church once derided in its endowment ceremony.“The truth”, in the end, does not matter - only “the church”. But since the church’s very claims to authority are based on claims about “the truth”, how can it fight against access to it, without legitimately arousing the gravest suspicion? Without suggesting it could not be what it claims to be?
In the story of the English bible, the Catholics are the bad guys. And Dallin Oaks, whether he knows it or not, seems to be on the side of the bad guys; he seems very much to agree with uber-Catholic Sir Thomas More, who once complained bitterly about the holy word of God being translated into the language of ploughboys - rather than left in the more exalted, reverential language of….Latin. (How stupid). (Just replace “Latin” with “KJV English”, which for many people, four hundred years later, seems about as incomprehensible as a Robert Burns poem written in Scottish dialect, and you have Oaks' position). Oaks would have been criticizing Tyndale, Wycliffe, and the KJV translators if he’d lived several centuries ago. He can’t get around that, without disavowing his main position, which he hasn’t done, that I know of.
The protestant King James repudiated More’s/Oaks’ position by authorizing a new translation, one that would combine the best features of all then extant versions, to be written in the tongue of the common man - not some fake language which we’re supposed to pretend is “exalted”. The whole point of the King James Version of the Bible was to put it into common tongue - NOT keep it “exalted” or “obscure” or “archaic (although a few of Tyndale’s by then famous phrases, 80 years old by that time and already sounding a bit dated, were kept). The whole point was to make it comprehensible, so as to neutralize the claims of priests - and Mormon apostles - who in effect argue that the scriptures mean whatever they say they mean.
Because the KJV translators - whose project, oddly enough, Oaks reveres and loathes at the same time without realizing it - wanted the word of God totally comprehensible to everyone, I believe very strongly they would say he was every bit the religious bigot, upholder of superstition, and self-styled divine "authority" who actually INHIBITS the spread of the divine word by warring against its intelligibility, as were the Catholic friars who, well, "fried" John Wycliffe.
What’s even worse is that neither the Old Testament nor the New was originally written in anything other than plain language. The New Testament, for example, as is well known, wasn’t written in “formal, dignified Greek” at all, but in koine Greek, the Greek used by fishermen, prostitutes, and...Jewish tentmakers like Paul - the Greek, by the way, used by people whose native tongue wasn’t Greek at all, but Aramaic.
So, if Matthew and Paul and Luke et al didn’t use some archaic, pseudo-dignified form of speech in writing about the most sacred matters imaginable - Jesus’ suffering, crucifixion, and resurrection - and don’t even quote Jesus using anything other than common speech in addressing God, on what grounds can Dallin Oaks or anyone NOW claim that the scriptures (and our prayers) are so sacred as to merit warping in this way? It makes no sense. To endorse this warping is to insult the very KJV translators who the church claims were inspired to write what they did. They wrote in common speech. Any translation which doesn’t represent that fact is a slap at them, and reveals yet another example of a Mormon claim which undermines itself when seen in the light of other Mormon claims.
I mentioned Jesus using common language to address God. I’d like to ask Dallin Oaks who “the great exemplar” is, if not Jesus? Of course, he would say Jesus. So, if, as Oaks claims, we need some formal language with which to address God, why then does Jesus, the great exemplar, address God using the very intimate term “Abba”? (And according to some authorities, he would have done so all the time, not just where it is specified in NT text).
Abba does not, as is commonly suggested, translate exactly into “Daddy”, but it definitely is a familiar, intimate term, maybe something like "papa" - NOT “Your Royal Highness” or whatever it is that Oaks seems to think Jesus would want us to use.
Oaks might reply that he was entitled to use this term, since God was his literal father. I might then ask why Paul tells his congregations that the Spirit of God says that believers in Christ should worship God as “Abba”? (See, e.g., Gal. 4:6, Rom. 8:15). Aren’t the standard works THE standard for official church doctrine? That’s what Oaks would say - and in saying so, he would have just exploded his own weird thesis, for in it, prayer to and praise of God is explicitly exemplified, and recommended to be, in FAMILIAR language.
Further, I’d like to know (if we are to maintain the kind of “appropriate distance” to deity recommended by Oaks and before him, by McConkie), why Gordon B. Hinckley announced in public that “Jesus is my friend”?
If Oaks really wants to read the Bible in something like a faithful translation, he could try the RSV (forget what J. Reuben Clark said), or the NRSV, even the ESV which maintains the “virgin”/parthenos/alma/beutlah/Isaiah/Matthew deal for the born agains. Heck, even the NIV would be better than the KJV for accuracy. Maybe even better in my mind is Richmond Lattimore’s translation of the New Testament. THAT is near to what it would have sounded like to the contemporaries of its writers.
Let me try something out here, to conclude.
The church continues to insist on using “thees” and “thous” in prayer, because to replace them would raise the question of why the church is still then sticking with an archaic Bible translation which has been greatly superceded in accuracy and intelligibility by a number of others. But questions like this are bad.
They’re bad, because we might start to wonder, after digging more deeply into the various translations, if the KJV can’t be replaced because to do so might undermine the basis for many of Joseph’s teachings and doctrines, which were “riffs” or midrashic embellishments on particular KJV verses - which in some cases were mistranslations (unbeknownst to Joseph), or which were misunderstood by him due to ambiguity in the translation. But that can’t happen without calling into question the reliability of the charismatic Joseph, and thus the authority of his church.
Therefore, use of the KJV, and the use of KJV language for Mormon prayers, must be defended in whatever way possible - even in ways which make no sense, which are contradicted not only by the facts of history but by the scriptures themselves (as suggested above), and even by statements within the very talks of people trying to defend them - like Dallin Oaks' "The Language of Prayer".
Just as we might expect if the church were not run, in the end, by anything approximating Omniscience no matter how diluted by mortal minds, but by mortals whose access to omniscience is every bit as non-existent as our own, the church once again seems to find itself painted into a corner, any escape attempt from which - while maintaining church claims - must of necessity provoke the greatest violence on the rudimentary rules of logic, and the most basic respect for fact, truth, and reality.
I'll give Oaks' credit for this, though his talk is a carcrash - I don't imagine anyone being able to do better defending the indefensible than he does. What else could we really expect? The thing, in the end, just isn't defensible without ending up sounding like you're creating your own version of the Nicene Creed. If the thing itself is nonsense, it is no wonder defenses of it are as well. How could they not be?
| I happened past the BYU channel the other day just in time to see Dalin Oaks talking about a paper he had coauthored with another lawyer proving that it was legal for Joseph as mayor of Nauvoo to destroy the printing press. Of course he did not go into detail about why Joseph felt it was necessary to destroy the printing press or whether the information the press was distributing was in anyway false or misleading.
I wonder if this is the exception to the rule of freedom of the press that Oaks was referring to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_...
Quote:
One form of speech that was widely restricted in England was the law of seditious libel that made criticizing of the government a crime. The King was above public criticism and that statements critical of the government were forbidden, according to the English Court of the Star Chamber. Truth was not a defense to seditious libel because the goal was to prevent and punish all condemnation of the government.
Joseph after all was pronounced the King of Israel by the saints. And this rule still applies to the freedom of speech in the church as evidenced by Simon's ordeal.
More interesting stuff from that page:
Quote:
The notion of "freedom of the press" that later was enshrined in the United States Constitution is generally traced to the seditious libel prosecution of John Peter Zenger by the colonial governor of New York in 1735. Zenger was acquitted after his lawyer, Andrew Hamilton, argued to the jury (contrary to established English law) that there was no libel in publishing the truth. Yet even after this celebrated case, colonial governors and assemblies asserted the power to prosecute and even imprison printers for publishing unapproved views.
During the American Revolution, a free press was identified by Revolutionary leaders as one of the elements of liberty that they sought to preserve. The Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776) proclaimed that "the freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty and can never be restrained but by despotic governments." Similarly, the Constitution of Massachusetts (1780) declared, "The liberty of the press is essential to the security of freedom in a state: it ought not, therefore, to be restrained in this commonwealth." Following these examples, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution restricted Congress from abridging the freedom of the press and the closely associated freedom of speech.
So it would seem that even if other governors of the day were enforcing sedition laws Joseph was not acting in accordance with the views of the men whom the Church teaches were inspired by God to lay the foundations of this country and was not acting in a manner which upholded and sustained the freedom of expression in his community. But then the church has never really believed in the idea of freedom of expression among its members.
| For those who say polygamy is "behind us" or "not doctrinal" or a "blip of history" let me quote Dallin Oaks at a BYU devotional, Jan 29, 2002:
"When I was 66, my wife June died of cancer. Two years later--a year and a half ago--I married Kristen McMain, the eternal companion who now stands at my side."
|  | The Legaleze Trapeze Of Dallin H. Hoax Vs. The Illegal Destruction Of The Nauvoo Expositor
Article Archived: Feb 23, 2006, at 07:35 AM
Stored Under Topic: DALLIN H. OAKS
Outside Link To Article: RIGHT CLICK - COPY LINK LOCATION
Original Author Of Article: Steve Benson | | |
Dallin Oaks' Shameless Defense of the Outlaw Joseph Smith
Supreme manipulator, deceiver and Mormon hired gun Dallin H. Oaks authored an appallingly apologetic defense of Joseph Smith's 1844-ordered destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor, entitled "The Suppression of the Nauvoo Expositor", published in the Utah Law Review, vol. 9 (Winter 1965), pp. 862-903.
_____
It was an order, by the way, which led directly to Smith buying the farm in a hail of bullets.
As authors Robert Gottlieb and Peter Wiley observe:
"[When Smith's opponents] founded a newspaper to denounce [him] from inside the holy city [of Nauvoo] itself, Smith took the fatal step of ordering the press destroyed.
“Two weeks later Smith, who had predicted his demise, was jailed . . . along with his brother . . . The jail was soon attacked, and Smith and his brother were shot to death.”
(Robert Gottlieb and Peter Wiley, America’s Saints: The Rise of Mormon Power [New York, New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1984], pp. 42-43)
_____
Author Ernest H. Taves notes that, when all was said and shot, Smith had no one else to blame but himself for his fate:
”In the end, [when] the [Nauvoo] City Council declared that the Expositor was guilty of slander and was a nuisance ‘worse than a dead carcass’ and directed . . . mayor [Smith] to eliminate it[,] . . . [h]e did [and] in so doing, [made] perhaps the greatest mistake of his life. He ordered the city marshal and a detail from the [Nauvoo] Legion to destroy the press, pi the type in the street, burn all the papers in the establishment, and (if any resistance was offered to all this) to destroy the building that had housed the press. . . .
“When [William Law] returned [from Carthage to Nauvoo,] he rode through his pied typed, looked at the gutted building, and saw his furniture in the street.
“The stage was set for the final act.”
(Ernest H. Taves, Trouble Enough: Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon [Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Press, 1984], pp. 202-03), emphasis added
____
Surprise, Surprise: The Mormon Church's Official Propaganda Arm FARMS Backs Oaks’ Defense of the Expositor’s Destruction
Falling back on Oaks' slippery defense of Smith's unlawful act, FARMS apologist Elden J. Watson justifies Smith's illegal order to destroy the Nauvoo Expositor in a review of the book, Cultures in Conflict: A Documentary History of the Mormon War in Illinois, by John E. Hallwas and Roger D. Launius.
In typical fancy-fudging FARMS fashion, Watson predictably whines that the book in question is "anti-Mormon" but, just as predictably, fails to offer any fact-based refutation of the authors' premise--resorting, instead, to huffing and puffing in hyperbolic histrionics, as he merely refers his audience to Oaks' article, without bothering to go into any details:
"There is one more item I would like to comment on before closing. The destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor is perhaps the keystone of the authors' presentation. It is one of the most reiterated and frequently mentioned topics throughout the volume.
“Time and time again the authors allude to this incident as the prime documented example of an illegal and aggressive action perpetrated by Joseph Smith and other leaders of the Church against a few upstanding and honorable men of the community who wanted nothing more than a reform of the Church.
"These claims were answered before they were ever raised, but because the primary legitimate and accepted scholarly assessment of the action taken against the Nauvoo Expositor does not agree with their presumptions, the authors discard it with a mere wave of the hand [quote]:
‘Dallin H. Oaks, former justice on the Utah Supreme Court and present apostle in the church, has tried to pound a square peg into a round hole in seeking to legitimate the clearly illegal act of destroying the Expositor in June 1844. See Dallin H. Oaks, "The Suppression of the Nauvoo Expositor," Utah Law Review, 9 (Winter 1965): 862-903. (p. 9 n. 6)'
"The authors' authority for dismissing forty pages of documentation, detailed legal examination, discussion, and findings by a former member of the Utah Supreme Court is that 'virtually everyone except the Latter-day Saints' considered it illegal at the time and that Governor Ford, 'as fair an individual as was present in the Mormon conflict,' called the action 'irregular and illegal, and not to be endured in a free country' (p. 9, n. 6).
"They make the additional unsupported assertion that [Illinois] Governor [Thomas] Ford was an authority on constitutional law, but neglect to indicate what bearing that may have on Elder Oaks's review.
"Oaks's review responds thoroughly and sufficiently to the legality of the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor."
(Elden J. Watson,“Cultured Conflicts: History Served on the Half Shell,” at http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=344
Oh, yeah? So you say.
Or, better yet, bray.
_____
Hold Your Horses There, FARMS: Oaks Actually Admits that Joseph Smith Unlawfully Ordered the Destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor
In reality, Oaks himself admitted in the article to which Watson robotically refers that Smith broke the law in ordering the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor:
"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. . . .
"[T]here 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."
(Oaks, "Suppression of Nauvoo Expositor, pp. 890-891), emphasis added
_____
In a separate and later examination, Oaks also admits that the Nauvoo Expositor was demolished, on orders of Smith, without the benefit of due process of law:
”[Smith] urged that the newspaper be declared a nuisance and destroyed without judicial process, a procedure supported by Blackstone. . . . “John Taylor, a city councilman and high-ranking church leader, agreed, saying that the Expositor ‘stinks in the nose of every honest man.’ . . .
“[Smith] won over most of the council. They passed an ordinance declaring the newspaper a public nuisance and issued an order to the mayor to have it abated. 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 [thereafter], citizens and legionnaires marched to the Expositor office and smashed the press, scattering the type as they did so.”
(Dallin H. Oaks and Marvin S. Hill, Carthage Conspiracy: The Trial of the Accused Assassins of Joseph Smith [Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1976], p. 15), emphasis added
_____
But, Wait: Oaks Then Famously (and Faithfully) Flip-Flops
Despite his confession that Smith broke the law in ordering the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor, Oaks apparently can’t stay honest for long and ultimately contends/pretends that in other respects, Smith did not break the law:
First he writes:
"In view of the law discussed . . . in Blackstone, . . . [there] seems to have been sufficient to give the Nauvoo City Council considerable basis in the law of their day for their action in characterizing the published issues of the Nauvoo Expositor as a nuisance and in summarily abating them by destruction."
(“The Illegal Destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor", at http://www.mormonismi.info/jamesdavid/postin17.htm )
_____
Oaks' Unenlightened and Unlawful Reading of the Law
There are significant problems, however, with Oaks' above excuses, as noted below:
"Oaks' position is that the First Amendment didn't apply to the suppression of the Expositor because the doctrine of 'incorporation' (which was developed during the New Deal era) wasn't in force at the time. So state and local governments, such as the Nauvoo City Council, weren't [Oaks claims] bound by the First Amendment.
"There are two BIG problems with this defense. First, the Nauvoo Charter (which is available on-line) EXPRESSLY incorporated the U.S. and Illinois State Constitutions, with their respective protections of the freedom of speech, press, assembly, etc.
"So Oaks' legal argument is a tissue of sheer sophistry.
"Second, Oaks and other Morg leaders persist in upbraiding President Van Buren for his statement: 'Your cause is just, but I can do nothing for you,' as if this were a cowardly dereliction of duty.
"But Van Buren was right: He could only have intervened in Missouri on the application of the state government for help in quelling an insurrection.
"Why is this important? Simple: Oaks' claim that the suppression of the Expositor was constitutional and legal rests on a strict federalist interpretation of the Constitution (allowing for Oaks' dishonest treatment of the Nauvoo Charter).
"The same is true of Van Buren's infamous statement. So, strict federalism would justify mob action by Mormons, but supposedly wouldn't justify Washington's refusal to quell mob action against them."
("Oaks, Smith and the Constitution," authored by "Will,"
14 March 2003, at http://www.salamandersociety.com/foyer/prophets/dallinhoaks/ ; and "Nauvoo Charter," at http://www.nauvoo.com/charter.html ), original emphasis
_____
The Nauvoo Expositor and the U.S. Constitution: Both Nuisances to Joseph Smith
The patent illegality of the Nauvoo City Council's action in ordering (on Smith's command] the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor press is beyond serious debate, despite what Deceptive Dallin wants others to believe. Smith's destruction of the Expositor press clearly violated the U.S. Constitution, as acknowledged by Brigham Young University’s own website:
"With the powers granted by the [Nauvoo] city charter, they [the City Council] declared the newspaper a nuisance, as they felt its declarations threatened the security of the city. They authorized the mayor (Joseph Smith) to see that the nuisance was abated.
"[Smith] instructed the city marshal to abate the nuisance which he and his men accomplished by breaking into the printing shop, throwing the press into street where it was smashed with a sledge hammer, dumping the type into the street, and burning the undistributed copies of the newspaper.
"Such an extra-legal method of abating a newspaper was not without precedent in Illinois (though not in keeping with long established practices concerning abatement of a public press), but it was viewed as a violation to the federal Constitution which forbids destruction of property without due process of law. The city council had only the authority to abate the nuisance by suspending further publication of the paper pending a court hearing which would determine whether it was a public nuisance.
"The proprietor of the paper went to Carthage and swore out a warrant for the 18 members of the City Council, charging that they had violated the federal Constitution by destroying property with the resultant implication of 'suppression of the freedom of the press.'
"In response to the charge, 15 members of the Nauvoo City Council appeared before the justice of the peace in Carthage on Tuesday, June 25, and were bound over to the next term of the circuit court on bail of $500 each. Jointly they posted $7500 in bonds . . .
"[The Smiths], however, remained in Carthage to have an interview with Governor Ford. While awaiting audience with him, they were arrested on charges of treason and rioting for having used some of the Nauvoo Legion to assist the town marshal in the destruction of Expositor equipment. For this charge they were committed to the Carthage jail that afternoon."
("The Nauvoo Expositor Office Which Joseph Smith Destroyed," quoted from BYU’s website, at http://www.lds-mormon.com/06.shtml )
_____
Contrary to claims often advanced by Mormons defending the indefensible actions of Smith against the Nauvoo Expositor, the city of Nauvoo--despite its supposedly all-powerful municipal charter--was not a sovereign entity. Therefore, Nauvoo (meaning its mayor/council form of government) was ultimately subordinate to laws of the state of Illinois, as well as to those of the nation, as embodied in the U.S. Constitution.
As one student of the subject observes:
"Nauvoo was not a 'sovereign entity.' It was a city just like any other, and was subordinate to the laws and authority of Hancock County, which seat was at Carthage. That's why, after Smith ordered the Expositor press destroyed, its owners went to Carthage to file charges; lawmen from Carthage attempted to enter Nauvoo to arrest Smith; and Smith eventually submitted to arrest at Carthage.
"Nauvoo was most certainly not a 'theocracy independent of the state of Illinois.' Joseph Smith & Co. may have secretly planned for it to be that way, but it certainly was not true, legally speaking. Mayor Joseph Smith could not legally 'pardon himself if he broke the law.' In fact, it was his abuse of state and federal laws which led to his arrest and murder. And Smith's illegal pardoning of other criminals in Nauvoo added fuel to the flames.
Even [Mormon historian] B.H. Roberts noted that the Nauvoo Charter allowed nothing that was 'inconsistent with the constitution of the United States, and the State Constitution of Illinois.' (The Rise and Fall of Nauvoo, p. 80.)
"No municipal laws can override state laws, and no state laws can override federal laws. . . .
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/msg/f1164576b5d92e3c"
("Nao crer, please read . . .," post by "Randy J.," Recovery from Mormonism board, 23 February 2006, at [RFM LINK REMOVED]
_____
Unable to deny the actual facts concerning the Nauvoo City Charter, the LDS-biased and –published Encyclopedia of Mormonism acknowledges that it was ultimately subject to the overriding authority of the Illinois and federal constitutions:
”The Nauvoo document . . . was much like the charters of other Illinois cities. . . .
“One important provision stated that the Nauvoo Council could pass any ordinance not repugnant to the constitutions of the United States or to that of Illinois. . . . Ordinances passed by the Nauvoo Council could be in direct violation or disregard of state law and still be valid in Nauvoo, provided they did not conflict with specific powers granted by the federal and state constitutions. Leaders of the city militia, known as the Nauvoo Legion, and the [U]niversity [of the City of Nauvoo] trustees could also pass laws, limited only by state and federal constitutions.”
Which is a big “only.”
(James I. Kimball, Jr., “Nauvoo Charter,” in Encyclopedia of Mormonism: : The History, Scriptures, Doctrine, and Procedures of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, vol. 3 [New York, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1992], p. 994), emphasis added
_____
Even Mormon Historians Disagree with Oaks on This One
Moreover, despite Oaks' mischievous misdirects, BYU history professor Thomas G. Alexander has explicitly and publicly acknowledged that there existed " no legal justification for the destruction of the [Nauvoo Expositor] press, and the proprietors might have sued the council for recovery of the machine's value."
(Thomas Alexander, "The Church and the Law," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 1, Summer 1966, pp. 123-24), emphasis added
______
Even apologetic LDS historians harboring obvious sympathies for scoundrel Smith--such as Leonard J. Arrington and Davis Bitton--acknowledge his panicked rush to judgment over the publication of the Expositor’s damning revelations, while also noting that alternatives to the newspaper’s destruction were available:
”In the spring of 1844 . . . a small group of Mormon dissidents [in Nauvoo] founded a counter-organization and began publishing the . . . Expositor. They got out only one issue . . . which contained inflammatory allegations about the sex lives of the Mormon leaders and members.
“Smith, who was mayor, his brother Hyrum, vice-mayor, and the City Council, citing Blackstone on a community’s right to abate as a nuisance anything that disturbs the peace, declared the newspaper libelous and a public nuisance endangering civil order, and directed the city marshal to destroy that issue and the press.
“Some had argued for merely fining the libelers simply burning the papers, but Smith said he would ‘rather die tomorrow and have the thing smashed, than live and have it go on, for it was exciting the spirit of mobocracy . . . and bringing death and destruction upon us.’ The Council, which included at least one non-Mormon, concurred.
“Nothing could have provided better ammunition for the anti-Mormons in Illinois . . . Although suppression of inflammatory periodicals was not without precedent and abatement of a nuisance was within the powers of the city council, leaders of the anti-Mormon party were quick to raise the issue of freedom of the press.”
(Leonard J. Arrington and Davis Bitton, The Mormon Experience: A History of the Latter-day Saints [New York, New York: Alfred A,[, Knopf, 1979], pp. 77-78), emphasis added
_____
Adding fuel to the Expositor fire, former assistant Mormon Church historian under Arrington, James B. Allen, admitted that Smith "acted illegally" in ordering the destruction of the newspaper:
". . . [W]hen Joseph Smith ordered the actual destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor printing press, he provided his enemies with a clearly legitimate means of arresting him for violation of the law. They seized upon this to inflame the public even more, and this led directly to [his] assassination.
"Some people may be disturbed by the suggestion that Joseph Smith acted illegally in this instance, but it is important to understand that under the tense pressures of the times he, too, may have made a mistake."
(James B. Allen, Brigham Young University Today, March 1976, p.10, quoted in Jerald and Sandra Tanner, “Destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor: Answering Dr. Clandestine. A Response to the Anonymous LDS historian,” at http://www.xmission.com/~country/reason/clndest8.htm ). emphasis added
_____
Allen, together with fellow Mormon historian Glen M. Leonard, also (albeit reluctantly and not surprisingly, since they were writing under the guiding influence of the LDS Church Historical Department) noted that the Nauvoo City Council ultimately exceeded—at least in certain respects--its legal authority in its questionable decision to have the Expositor demolished:
“The councilmen suspended one of their own members, non-Mormon Sylvester Emmons, who was editor of the Expositor, and discussed the identity of the publishers and the intent of the newspaper.
“After analyzing legal precedents and municipal codes, the Council decided the paper was a public nuisance that had slandered individuals in the city. . . . [T]he Council acted under the nuisance ordinance. The mayor, Joseph Smith, then ordered the city marshal to destroy the press, scatter the type, and burn available papers. Within hours the order had been executed. The publishers, ostensibly fearing for their personal safety, fled to Carthage, where they obtained an arrest warrant against the Nauvoo City Council on a charge of riot.”
Allen and Leonard then seek to defend the shaky constitutionality of the Council’s command decision to destroy the newspaper press:
“The Council had acted legally in its right to abate a nuisance, though contemporary legal opinion allowed only the destruction of published issues of an offending paper, not the destruction of the printing press itself. The city fathers had not violated the constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press, though they had probably erred in violating property rights.”
(James B. Allen and Glen M. Leonard, The Story of the Latter-day Saints, Published in Collaboration with the Historical Department of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 1976], p. 192), emphasis added
_____
Then-Mormon and noted historian Fawn M. Brodie, is far less reluctant to point out the breathtakingly unconstitutional nature of Smith’s un-American assault on the Expositor:
”Calling together the City Council, [Smith] ordered a trial, not of the apostates, but of the Expositor itself. It was a strange, high-handed proceeding. There were no jury, no lawyers, no witnesses for the defense. The councilors simply stood up, one after another, and accused the editors of seduction, pandering, counterfeiting, and thievery. . . .
“Then he went on to add . . . to his list of denials of polygamy . . .
“The City Council now declared that the press was libelous and must be destroyed. [Smith] issued a proclamation declaring it a civic nuisance; a portion of the Legion marched to the office, wrecked the press, pied the type, and burned every issue of the hated paper that could be found. . . .
“. . . [F]or [Smith] . . . to indulge in [the] sport [of destroying an Illinois newspaper was] . . . a violation of the holy Constitution. It was a greater breach of political and legal discipline than the anti-Mormons could have hoped for. Joseph could not have done better for his enemies, since he had at last given them a fighting moral issue."
Brodie then describes the response Illinois Governor Ford’s reaction to Smith’s unabashed law-breaking:
”When Thomas Ford learned of the burning of the Expositor, he went directly to Carthage for an investigation, determined to call out the militia if necessary to bring the offenders to justice. . . . Ford wrote to the prophet demanding that he and everyone else implicated in the destruction of the Expositor submit immediately to the Carthage constable and come to that city for trial. . . .
“. . . Ford brought a discriminating and sensitive intelligence and a stubborn loyalty for the law. . . .
“Ford himself came to the [Carthage] jail and talked with the prophet for several hours. . . . They argued back and forth, testing each other’s sincerity and strength . . . [ending up in strong disagreement on] the wrecking of the Expositor.
“’The press in the United States is looked upon as the great bulwark of American freedom,’ Ford insisted [to Smith], ‘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.'”
(Fawn B. Brodie, No Man Knows My History: The life of Joseph Smith, the Mormon Prophet [New York, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1983], pp. 377, 388-89), emphasis added
_____
LDS historian Donna Hill describes succinctly the wayward activities of Smith that led to his untimely demise:
”About two weeks before his death he had defied the sacred American precept of freedom of the press by demolishing an opposition newspaper . . . the Nauvoo Expositor, on the grounds that it was libelous and a public nuisance.”
Hill then explains Smith’s twisted thinking, where he decided that allowing the Nauvoo Expositor to continue publishing its embarrassing revelations would interfere with Smith’s grandiose plans to, among other things, take over the world and impose a Mormon theocracy:
"[Smith's]. . . tolerance . . . of the continued publication of . . . the newspaper would [have] disrupt[ed] the harmony of his religious community, endanger[ed] his candidacy for the highest office in the land, threaten[ed] the establishment of the political kingdom of God and, in short, dash[ed] all his dearest hopes.
"To suppress his enemies and their newspaper would [have been] a violation of those principles of freedom on which he was now so vigorously campaigning for office.
"To sue the paper for libel over issues that were already charged with emotion [such as Smith's 'moral imperfections,' i.e., polygamy] would [have] expose[d] him to sensational publicity, even if he should win, which was not likely. To lose such a suit would [have] endanger[ed] the city charter and might [have] result[ed] in the dissolution of the city government, or its assumption by dissenters."
What, then, to do?
Smith chose to simply ignore the U.S. Constitution:
"In a session [of the Nauvoo City Council], [Smith] read aloud and denied the charges in the Expositor. He declared that the Constitution did not authorize the publication of libel. . . . Hyrum Smith pronounced the paper a nuisance. Another councilman defined 'nuisance' as anything that disturbed the peace . . . Another councilor found and cited a passage in Blackstone on public wrongs.
"Hyrum suggested that the best solution would be to smash the press and pie the type.
"One councilor by the name of Warrington, a non-Mormon, proposed instead that the council levy a fine of $3,000 for every libel, but [Joseph] Smith protested that not would dare to go to Carthage to prosecute, and that his own life had been threatened there.
"The council found the Expositor guilty of libel, declared it a public nuisance and directed [Smith], as mayor, to have the nuisance removed. [Smith] immediately ordered the marshal, with the aid of troops under Jonathan Dunham, acting major general of the Nauvoo Legion, to destroy the press. . . .
"[That] same day . . . the marshal and a contingent of the Legion marched out at [Smith's] order and wrecked the press, broke down what had been set up . . ., spilled the type into the street and burned every printed sheet in the office."
The Governor of Illinois was not pleased.
Hill writes:
"[In a subsequent meeting with Joseph and Hyrum Smith in Carthage, Governor Ford] . . . came to the conclusion that the proceedings of the Nauvoo City Council, court and mayor had been illegal on many counts . . .
"In [a] message [delivered to Joseph Smith] and the City Council . . . Ford said:
"'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. It may have been full of libels, but this did not authorize you to destroy it.
"'There are many newspapers in this state which have been wrongfully abusing me [Ford] for more than a year, and yet such is my regard for the liberty of the press and the rights of a free people in a republican government that I would shed the last drop of my blood to protect those presses from any illegal violence.’
"Ford continued that the Mormons had violated at least four principles of the Constitution: that the press should be free, that proprietors of a libelous press may be brought to trial but had the right to give evidence, that the people should not be subject to search and seizure of their property without due process and that there should be no union of legislative and judicial powers in the same body. . . .
“[Joseph and Hyrum Smith], John Taylor, Porter Rockwell, William W. Phelps and thirteen other members of the Nauvoo City Council were [eventually] charged with riot in destroy the . . . and were released on bond of five hundred dollars each, to appear at the next term of the circuit court.”
(Donna Hill, Joseph Smith, the First Mormon: The definitive story of a complex man and the people who knew him (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, 1977], pp. 2, 393-95, 399-400, 402, 410), emphasis added
_____
Mormon writer William E. Bennett admits that Smith’s criminal assault on the offices of a free press resulted in his ultimate undoing:
”’[The destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor] proved to be the spark which ignited all the smoldering fires of opposition into one great flame . . . The cry that the ‘freedom of the press’ was being violated, united the factions seeking the overthrow of the Saints as perhaps nothing else would have done.’ . . ."
After citing Bennett, author Richard Abanes further details the legal entanglements now closing fast around Smith:
“In response to Smith’s actions, those opposing the Mormon prophet filed a complaint against him in Hancock County, Illinois, claiming that Smith had violated the freedom of the press. Smith was arrested, but quickly tried in Nauvoo and released. The opposition immediately accused Smith of manipulating the law. Suddenly, the familiar thread of mob violence surrounded Nauvoo. Smith declared martial law . . . and put his troops on full alert.
“Illinois Governor Ford then stepped into the situation, demanding that Smith give himself up to be tried in Carthage, Illinois. But [Smith], along with his brother, Hyrum, decided instead to flee into Iowa. Once there, however, they began to have misgivings about running from the law.
“First, they had abandoned their flock, which produced in them a significant degree of guilt.
“Second, their presence in Iowa did not insure their safety since that territory’s governor had never agreed to ignore Missouri’s extradition order for Smith on [an] old charge of treason.
“Third, Smith’s departure had left the Saints with virtually no leadership since many of the loyal apostles were away on missions.
“Fourth, a messenger informed Smith that the Nauvoo Legion had divided between those who wanted to defend the city and those who wanted to flee.
“So back across the Mississippi both he and Hyrum journeyed, continuing on to Carthage, where they were placed in the town’s jailhouse.”
(Richard Abanes, One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church[New York, New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 2002], p. 198), emphasis added
_____
Even the LDS -biased and -published Encyclopedia of Mormonism has been forced to admit that Smith’s illegal assault on the offices of a free press provided ample reason for his arrest:
[Smith’s prompt order to] the city marshal to destroy the press and burn all the copies of the paper . . . justified or not, played into the hands of the opposition. It riled anti-Mormon sentiment throughout Hancock County and provided substance for the charges used by the opposition to hold Joseph Smith in Carthage Jail, where he was murdered on June 27, 1844.”
(Reed C. Durham, Jr., “Nauvoo Expositor,” in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, vol. 3, p. 997), emphasis added
_____
Indeed, the “substance” to which Mormonism’s Encyclopedia blandly refers was broadly outlined in the Nauvoo Expositor--that is, before Smith destroyed the press in a futile attempt to cover up the illegal and immoral acts of himself and his associates--and which was subsequently followed by the destruction of other private property owned by those who had published the newspaper. These acts of lawlessness quickly formed the legal justification for the arrest and imprisonment of Smith at Carthage:
”On June 7th, 1844, the first and only edition of the Nauvoo Expositor was published. This paper exposed polygamy and some of the other illegal activities of Church leaders. Smith ordered this printing press destroyed. He also ordered all copies of this newspaper to be confiscated and burned.
“The next day a mill and some other buildings belonging to the Laws, Higbees, Fosters, and others who printed the Nauvoo Expositor were also destroyed. These men and their families who dared to question Smith’s unlimited power were forced to flee Nauvoo for their lives! Smith and his outlaws were on a rampage.
“Soon after the Nauvoo Expositor incident, several warrants were issued by state and county authorities for the arrest of Joseph [and] Hyrum [Smith], and a number of other Church leaders. Charges included treason against the State of Illinois, polygamy, adultery, resisting arrest, destruction of property, and perjury.
“These new charges, in addition to . . . old Ohio and Missouri charges along with [an] outstanding warrant for high treason by the President of the United States certainly justify calling Smith an ‘outlaw.’ Unfortunately, Smith was turned into a martyr before he could stand trial for his crimes.”
(Arza Evans, The Keystone of Mormonism [St. George, Utah: Keystone Books, Inc., 2003], p. 162), emphasis added
_____
Non-Mormon Historians Also Conclude That Smith Violated the Law in Ordering the Demolition of the Nauvoo Expositor
Noted journalists Richard N. and Joan K. Ostling, dispassionately report the events surrounding the irrational and illegal trashing of the Expositor on the orders of a deeply desperate Smith:
”In the context of the times, and for dissidents [in Nauvoo] who had been denied a public forum, [the Expositor’s] writers were relatively restrained in their wording. The paper advanced a desire for a ‘reformation in the Church,’ ‘hazarding every earthly blessing, particularly property, and probably life itself, striking this blow at tyranny and oppression.’
“It argued against polygamy, political intrigue, ‘false doctrines’ such as the ‘doctrine of many Gods’ preached in Smith’s [King] Follett sermon, the habeas corpus provision of the city charter, Smith’s participation in Nauvoo land speculation, and acknowledgment of ‘any man as king or law-giver to the church, for Christ is our only king and law-giver.’
“Robert Foster and William and Jane Law included signed affidavits that they had read the text of the prophet’s secret revelation on plural marriage, and that [Smith’s] brother Hyrum had introduced the revelation in secret council.
“An emergency meeting of Nauvoo’s city council was called . . . Since polygamy was not legal in Illinois (and not publicly acknowledged by the church until 1852 from the safe vantage point of Utah), Hyrum Smith blandly reaffirmed past official denials of plural marriage, assuring the council that his brother’s 1843 revelation was not for modern times; it referred only to ancient days. Therefore, the Expositor had libeled Smith.
“The Expositor, of course, was a clear threat to the prophet’s control of Nauvoo. In addition to the publicly denied polygamy, some of Smith’s political activities represented a radical break from the normal parameters of Jacksonian democracy: Smith knew that someone had betrayed him by giving information to Foster and Law. . . . But [Smith], as mayor of Nauvoo, declared action was essential because the Expositor faction would ‘destroy the peace of the city’ and foment a ‘mob spirit.’”
The Ostlings then cut Smith an undeserved break, but still leave him a criminal:
“With the backing of his Council, Smith ordered that the new paper be smashed and all possible copies of the press run destroyed. The spirit of the Bill of Rights may thus have been grossly violated, but technically, under Illinois law at the time and Nauvoo’s charter, the only crime committed by Smith . . . was a violation of privacy rights. The following day Law was informed of a murder plot against him and his associates. Aware of the prophet’s security forces and the well-armed Legion, Law and Foster fled with their families from Nauvoo.”
Then, commenting on how the Mormon Church has historically misrepresented the events surrounding the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor, the Ostlings describe the brash LDS propaganda film, “Legacy,” which became a popular, featured fixture for faithful Mormons flocking to Temple Square:
”Smith dies off-camera with someone crying, ‘They’ve killed him! They’ve murdered Joseph Smith at the Carthage Jail!’ There is no scene that shows the smashing of the Expositor press or gives a real clue to the issues raised by the newspaper. The drama and scenery of the trek are so beautifully photographed that many Mormons [saw] the movie over and over, every time they visit[ed] Temple Square.”
(Richard N. Ostling and Joan K. Ostling, [San Francisco, California: HarperSanFrancisco, 1999], pp. 15-16, 242), emphasis added
_____
A Prominent Resident of Nauvoo At the Time of the Expositor’s Destruction Expresses Uncertainty Over the Legality of Smith’s Demolition Order
Historian H. Michael Marquardt sets the scene:
”Joseph Smith . . . commanded the city marshal to destroy the printing press, pi the type in the street, and burn all the Expositor papers.
“William Clayton reported:
“’The city council passed a resolution declaring the printing press on the hill a “nuisance” and ordered it destroyed, in not moved in three hours notice. About sundown the police gathered at the Temple . . . and after organizing, proceeded to the office and demolished the press and scattered the type.’
“Vilate Kimball wrote to her [Mormon apostle] husband Heber about the activities of that day:
“’Nauvoo was a scene of confusion last night. Some [one] hundred of the Brethren turned out and burned the printing press, and all the apparatus pertaining to the office of the opposite party; this was done by order of the City Council. They had only published one paper, which is considered a public nuisance, but I do not know whether it will be considered so in the eyes of the Law or not. They have sworn revenge, and no doubt they will have it.’”
(H. Michael Marquardt, The Rise of Mormonism: 1816-1844 [Longwood, Florida: Xulon Press, 2005], pp. 632-33), emphasis added
_____
Giving Oaks the Benefit of the Doubt, He Still Comes Up Empty-handed and Empty-headed
Even if, as some have suggested, existing law in 1844 was unclear on the matter of the legality of the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor, it was nonetheless a matter of law at the time that the city of Nauvoo would have required Illinois state sanction in order to take action against the newspaper:
"Even without an [authorizing city] ordinance, . . . the city of Nauvoo could have relied upon the long-existing common law doctrines of nuisance and libel. The city might also have acted upon the common law of eminent domain, which allows the government to take private property for public use.
"Such a taking, however, would have required, under the Illinois 'Takings Clause,' that the taking be approved by the Illinois general assembly, . . . that just compensation be given (Art. VIII, clause 11)."
("Nauvoo Expositor," at "Wikipedia," http://www.answers.com/topic/nauvoo-expositor ), emphasis added
_____
Summing Up Smith: Damn the Constitution, Full Speed Ahead
As Loren Franck writes in his "Ten Lies I Told as a Missionary:"
"It did not matter that they [the Nauvoo City Council] did not have legal authority to [destroy the presses of the Nauvoo Expositor. . . .
“It did not matter that the sole reason for declaring it a 'public nuisance' was that it publicly dared to state that Joseph Smith was a polygamist and had established a political Kingdom of God on earth, both of which were true. . . .
“The press had to go and the Mayor, conveniently none other than Joseph Smith himself, saw to it with a vengeance."
(Loren Franck, “Ten Lies I Told as a Missionary,” at http://newsletters.cephasministry.com/mormonism_03_03.html ), emphasis added
_____
Sigh . . .
It must be tough being a Mormon apologist when there is so much to apologize for.
| | | Dallin Oaks--The Overblown, The Underwhelming And The Nonprincipled
Article Archived: Feb 28, 2006, at 07:34 AM
Stored Under Topic: DALLIN H. OAKS
Outside Link To Article: RIGHT CLICK - COPY LINK LOCATION
Original Author Of Article: Steve Benson | | |
Dallin Oaks, the shameless excuse-maker for Joseph Smith, the press-destroying criminal--should be regarded as a profound embarrassment to those solidly grounded in the legal profession.
http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_st...
_____
Lying Lawyer for the Lord
This, despite Neal Maxwell's posterior-kissing boast to me in September 1993 (in the presence of Oaks whose favor he was also shamelessly currying) that he (Maxwell) had been instrumental in getting Oaks called into the Quorum of the Twelve because, Maxwell said, the Church needed Oaks' legal expertise.
This was the same conversation in which Oaks privately confessed to me that Boyd K. Packer was out of his league (as well as out of bounds) when Packer intervened in the excommmunication of Paul Toscano; that it was Oaks'--not Packer's--responsibility to handle matters of Church discipline, as he (Oaks) had been chosen to rewrite the rules in the Church Handbook of Instructions; that, thanks to Packer, Toscano would probably sue the Mormon Church for violation of Toscano's ecclesiastical rights; and that Packer was ultimately a "grizzly bear" who could not be "stage managed."
Oaks then preceeded to lie about Packer's involvement in Toscano's ecclesiastical execution (on the record, no less) to a newspaper reporter during the public controversy surrounding the LDS hierachy's ham-handed hanging of the "September Six."
_____
Subpoena? We Don't Need to Honor No Stinkin' Subpoena
Oaks also admitted to me in personal conversation that the Mormon Church had purposely decided not to cooperate with the Salt Lake City police department's investigation of the Mark Hofmann murders, by refusing to honor a subpoena calling for the turnover to the SLPD of the papers of William McClellin.
In this regard, Oaks told me that the Church had unilaterally decided that police detectives didn't need what the LDS Church had in its possession because, he claimed, the papers that the Church controlled were from McClellin's earlier, believing days and not from his later apostate period.
Oaks told me, as well, that the Mormon Church--even if it wanted to--could not have cooperated with Salt Lake law enforcement on its subpoena because the order from the Salt Lake police for the McClellin documents was made at a time when the General Authorities were out of the office on scheduled vacation, thus leaving, Oaks claimed, no one to make an authorized decision on whether or not to assist the police.
Oaks also informed me, curiously, that it was only later--when the LDS Church supposedly actually examined the papers in the McClellin collection--that it realized the collection's contents were not germaine to the Hofmann police investigation.
The trouble is, Oaks had told me that the Mormon Church already was aware of the collection's contents when it refused to cooperate with the subpoena--because it had concluded they were not relevant to the Hofmann investigation and therefore off-limits to the police for purposes of their criminal probe.
_____
Scraping the Bottom of the Barrister's Barrel
This is the man--Dallin Oaks--whom the LDS Church picks for the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as its premier legal beagle.
Good gawd.
Is this the best the Mormons can do--appoint a consumate, amoral apologist?
Apparently, obviously and predictably so.
Dallin Oaks is a hired gun of modest legal skills, excessive ego and stunted morals--a person whose professional abilities have been overhyped by Mormons desperate for someone with supposed "smarts" to carry their kooky and corrupt banner.
An individual who, corrupted by power, has prostituted his personal conscience, sullied his judicial career and brought shame upon the legal profession in order to further his own interests, in calculated alignment with those of the Mormon Cult--the latter which butters his bread and provides him a position of authority within a primitive, patriarchal, outcast caste system where he is worshipped and followed in odd awe by the blindly obedient.
In short, Dallin Oaks might best be regarded as a jurist's and a gentleman's joke.
| | | More From Deceptive Dallin: What Oaks Has Said In Private, Vs. Public, About The Book Of Mormon
Article Archived: Mar 1, 2006, at 07:24 AM
Stored Under Topic: DALLIN H. OAKS
Outside Link To Article: RIGHT CLICK - COPY LINK LOCATION
Original Author Of Article: Steve Benson | | |
|
