LDS Joseph Smith Smashes the Printing Press of His Critics

[Dale]

What did Joseph Smith think of religious freedom? The King Follett sermon is his most famous sermon. In this sermon, we find:

“But meddle not with any man for his religion: all governments ought to permit every man to enjoy his religion unmolested.”

Did Joseph Smith practice religious freedom or only pay lip service to it?

In 1844, some members of the church became so fed up with Joseph Smith that they set up a newspaper, the Nauvoo Expositor, to criticize him. Joseph Smith’s response:

“With the sanction of the city council, Joseph Smith ordered a marshal, with the assistance of the Nauvoo Legion, to destroy the printing press. On Monday evening, June 10, [1844], the marshal and his posse of approximately 100 men removed the press, scattered the type, and burned the remaining copies of the newspaper.”

Joseph Smith didn't have much patience with anyone who disagreed with him.

Both of these quotes are from official Mormon sources. Both contain the heading:

Links

The King Follett Sermon
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1971/04/the-king-follett-sermon?lang=e

On the Nauvoo Expositor
Nauvoo Expositor

 

[Ironhold]

Something not many people realize is that the Bill of Rights did not extend below the federal level until a series of legal decisions in the late 1800s / early 1900s.

Instead, Illinois Common Law at the time allowed for city councils to order the seizure of "nuisance" printing presses... which is what the Nauvoo City Council did, ordering Joseph Smith, the mayor, to take care of the Expositor's press.

I personally am not sure where the fault lies, but somehow the order was ultimately given for the press to be destroyed, which was a bridge too far. Most rational speculation seems to be a misunderstanding of what the law allowed for.

 

[Rescued One]

"Scholars have concluded that the Nauvoo City Council acted legally to destroy copies of the newspaper but may have exceeded its authority by destroying the press itself."

That's an interesting bit of information. It's no wonder critics became angry that the Mormons destroyed someone else's property. I'm not condoning anyone's actions. But sometimes people don't listen to God. The destruction of the press was wrong. The angry mob was wrong.

"The early 1840s were a time of growing tension between Mormon and non-Mormon settlers in Hancock County, Illinois. In April 1839, Joseph Smith, having escaped from a Missouri jail where he was being held on state treason charges, arrived in northwestern Illinois, near the banks of the Mississippi River, to join Mormons who had begun to locate there in large numbers. Soon, the new city of Nauvoo was established and became a magnet for Mormons from the eastern U.S., Canada, and Europe. By 1844, Nauvoo, with a population of 12,000, rivaled Chicago for the title of the largest city in the state of Illinois."
Carthage (Joseph Smith Murder)

Acquittals for all five defendents May 30, 1845:
The Carthage Conspiracy Trial: An Account

 

[BigDaddy4]

Something not many people realize is that the Bill of Rights did not extend below the federal level until a series of legal decisions in the late 1800s / early 1900s.

Instead, Illinois Common Law at the time allowed for city councils to order the seizure of "nuisance" printing presses... which is what the Nauvoo City Council did, ordering Joseph Smith, the mayor, to take care of the Expositor's press.

I personally am not sure where the fault lies, but somehow the order was ultimately given for the press to be destroyed, which was a bridge too far. Most rational speculation seems to be a misunderstanding of what the law allowed for.

Who gets to decide what is a "nuisance"? If I disagree with something you print, can I call you a "nuisance"? Or vice versa?

 

[Ironhold]

Who gets to decide what is a "nuisance"? If I disagree with something you print, can I call you a "nuisance"? Or vice versa?

The "snarky but straight to the point" answer to this would go into modern-day politics and thus be inappropriate for this forum.

The "polite but vague" answer is to simply remind everyone to be grateful for the laws as we have them now.

 

[Peter1000]

Who gets to decide what is a "nuisance"? If I disagree with something you print, can I call you a "nuisance"? Or vice versa?

In that day it was the city council. They did call it a nuisance (for printing false information) and ordered it to be silenced.

Who is going to jail or who is going to pay for the times that JS printing presses were destroyed by angry mobs?

The Law brothers were the main owners of the Nauvoo Expositor, along with a couple of high energy anti-Mormon non-members who were out to get JS. The Laws were 2 brothers that began to hate JS when they bought large plots of property in and around Nauvoo, and when Mormons from all over the land came to Nauvoo, the Laws wanted to charge exagerated prices for their lots, and JS got in the middle of it and got them land for far less. They never forgave him for that and so as new doctrine came forth, they didn't like it either and apostatized and went over to the enemy to help get JS. So not a good situation.

JS wanted to take everyone west, but before he could do that, he gave himself up on charges of destroying a printing press. While in jail, the gov. added treason of the US to his charges, which of course was not true.

 

[Peter1000]

"Scholars have concluded that the Nauvoo City Council acted legally to destroy copies of the newspaper but may have exceeded its authority by destroying the press itself."

That's an interesting bit of information. It's no wonder critics became angry that the Mormons destroyed someone else's property. I'm not condoning anyone's actions. But sometimes people don't listen to God. The destruction of the press was wrong. The angry mob was wrong.

"The early 1840s were a time of growing tension between Mormon and non-Mormon settlers in Hancock County, Illinois. In April 1839, Joseph Smith, having escaped from a Missouri jail where he was being held on state treason charges, arrived in northwestern Illinois, near the banks of the Mississippi River, to join Mormons who had begun to locate there in large numbers. Soon, the new city of Nauvoo was established and became a magnet for Mormons from the eastern U.S., Canada, and Europe. By 1844, Nauvoo, with a population of 12,000, rivaled Chicago for the title of the largest city in the state of Illinois."
Carthage (Joseph Smith Murder)

Acquittals for all five defendents May 30, 1845:
The Carthage Conspiracy Trial: An Account

Who went to jail, or who compensated JS for the printing presses that he lost to mob violence?

 

[BigDaddy4]

The "snarky but straight to the point" answer to this would go into modern-day politics and thus be inappropriate for this forum.

The "polite but vague" answer is to simply remind everyone to be grateful for the laws as we have them now.

Not really talking about these days, are we? Who, back then, gets to determine what is a nuisance? If I disagree with what you say, or vice versa, who gets to make that determination?

 

[BigDaddy4]

In that day it was the city council. They did call it a nuisance (for printing false information) and ordered it to be silenced.

Who is going to jail or who is going to pay for the times that JS printing presses were destroyed by angry mobs?

The Law brothers were the main owners of the Nauvoo Expositor, along with a couple of high energy anti-Mormon non-members who were out to get JS. The Laws were 2 brothers that began to hate JS when they bought large plots of property in and around Nauvoo, and when Mormons from all over the land came to Nauvoo, the Laws wanted to charge exagerated prices for their lots, and JS got in the middle of it and got them land for far less. They never forgave him for that and so as new doctrine came forth, they didn't like it either and apostatized and went over to the enemy to help get JS. So not a good situation.

JS wanted to take everyone west, but before he could do that, he gave himself up on charges of destroying a printing press. While in jail, the gov. added treason of the US to his charges, which of course was not true.

I would think the city council, JS, et al, were in violation of Illinois state law. The 1818 Illinois State Constitution in effect at the time states:

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.

Illinois Constitution of 1818 - Wikisource, the free online library

 

[He is the way]

I would think the city council, JS, et al, were in violation of Illinois state law. The 1818 Illinois State Constitution in effect at the time states:

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.

Illinois Constitution of 1818 - Wikisource, the free online library

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.

That is what happens when liberty is abused, the authorities are allowed to take, sale or destroy the evidence. They auction off police evidence where I live.

 

[Peter1000]

I would think the city council, JS, et al, were in violation of Illinois state law. The 1818 Illinois State Constitution in effect at the time states:

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.

Illinois Constitution of 1818 - Wikisource, the free online library

Are the 1818 law still valid in 1844?

They were also wared to be responsible for the abuse of that liberty. The Laws brothers new exactly what they were doing. They went too far, and abused their liberty.

 

[BigDaddy4]

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.

That is what happens when liberty is abused, the authorities are allowed to take, sale or destroy the evidence. They auction off police evidence where I live.

Being critical of someone's beliefs is not abuse and does not give anyone permission to destroy a printing press just because your feelings are hurt. You are misusing the wording to fit your agenda.

 

[BigDaddy4]

Are the 1818 law still valid in 1844?

They were also wared to be responsible for the abuse of that liberty. The Laws brothers new exactly what they were doing. They went too far, and abused their liberty.

The 1818 Illinois constitution was changed in 1848, but did not change this section.

Again, being critical of someone's beliefs is not abuse and does not give anyone permission to destroy a printing press just because your feelings are hurt. You are misusing the wording to fit your agenda.

 

[Ran77]

Being critical of someone's beliefs is not abuse and does not give anyone permission to destroy a printing press just because your feelings are hurt. You are misusing the wording to fit your agenda.

It's rather premature to jump to this conclusion until you have actually read what was being printed. Have you done that? Could you please post the articles that Joseph Smith found to violate the laws of liberty so that the rest of us can also make that determination?

 

[BigDaddy4]

It's rather premature to jump to this conclusion until you have actually read what was being printed. Have you done that? Could you please post the articles that Joseph Smith found to violate the laws of liberty so that the rest of us can also make that determination?

It's not premature to declare one's constitutional rights allows that person to have the freedom of speech. You will have to demonstrate to "the rest of us" that whatever was printed on those presses was not covered by 1840's Illinois law and the reasoning behind it, as well as prove said reasoning allows for the lawful destruction of private property. The law says what it says until it is changed, or challenged and ruled otherwise. Please feel free to do that research.

 

[He is the way]

Being critical of someone's beliefs is not abuse and does not give anyone permission to destroy a printing press just because your feelings are hurt. You are misusing the wording to fit your agenda.

Defamation of character is indeed abuse:

(Old Testament | Psalms 57:4)

4 My soul is among lions: and I lie even among them that are set on fire, even the sons of men, whose teeth are spears and arrows, and their tongue a sharp sword.

 

[Dale]

Something not many people realize is that the Bill of Rights did not extend below the federal level until a series of legal decisions in the late 1800s / early 1900s.

Instead, Illinois Common Law at the time allowed for city councils to order the seizure of "nuisance" printing presses... which is what the Nauvoo City Council did, ordering Joseph Smith, the mayor, to take care of the Expositor's press.

I personally am not sure where the fault lies, but somehow the order was ultimately given for the press to be destroyed, which was a bridge too far. Most rational speculation seems to be a misunderstanding of what the law allowed for.

Ironhold: "Instead, Illinois Common Law at the time allowed for city councils to order the seizure of "nuisance" printing presses... which is what the Nauvoo City Council did, ordering Joseph Smith, the mayor, to take care of the Expositor's press. "

I didn't really start this thread to discuss the legalities. I tried to focus on Joseph Smith's inability to take criticism. I also pointed to Joseph Smith's hypocrisy. The King Follett sermon was given on April 7, 1844. The smashing of the printing press took place on June 10. That's about two months after Joseph Smith called on governments to respect religious freedom. Not much time for him to change his mind.

The Nauvoo Expositor was supposed to be a weekly paper. The owners put out one issue and then had their papers confiscated and the printing press destroyed by a posse led by the town Marshal. Joseph Smith and the Nauvoo Council didn't wait to see what a typical issue would look like, did they? A few paragraphs they didn't like and they resorted to violent action.

If you want to look at legal ideas, consider this. One of the most ancient and universally recognized principles is that no one can be the judge in their own case. The judge must not be a party to the case. When Joseph Smith ordered the town Marshal to destroy the Nauvoo Expositor for criticizing Joseph Smith, he violated that principle. J. Smith was too close to the case to have an unbiased opinion .

 

[Dale]

In that day it was the city council. They did call it a nuisance (for printing false information) and ordered it to be silenced.

Who is going to jail or who is going to pay for the times that JS printing presses were destroyed by angry mobs?

The Law brothers were the main owners of the Nauvoo Expositor, along with a couple of high energy anti-Mormon non-members who were out to get JS. The Laws were 2 brothers that began to hate JS when they bought large plots of property in and around Nauvoo, and when Mormons from all over the land came to Nauvoo, the Laws wanted to charge exagerated prices for their lots, and JS got in the middle of it and got them land for far less. They never forgave him for that and so as new doctrine came forth, they didn't like it either and apostatized and went over to the enemy to help get JS. So not a good situation.

JS wanted to take everyone west, but before he could do that, he gave himself up on charges of destroying a printing press. While in jail, the gov. added treason of the US to his charges, which of course was not true.

Peter: "Who is going to jail or who is going to pay for the times that JS printing presses were destroyed by angry mobs?"

I haven't heard about that. Maybe you could provide a link to that information.

 

[Dale]

In that day it was the city council. They did call it a nuisance (for printing false information) and ordered it to be silenced.

Who is going to jail or who is going to pay for the times that JS printing presses were destroyed by angry mobs?

The Law brothers were the main owners of the Nauvoo Expositor, along with a couple of high energy anti-Mormon non-members who were out to get JS. The Laws were 2 brothers that began to hate JS when they bought large plots of property in and around Nauvoo, and when Mormons from all over the land came to Nauvoo, the Laws wanted to charge exagerated prices for their lots, and JS got in the middle of it and got them land for far less. They never forgave him for that and so as new doctrine came forth, they didn't like it either and apostatized and went over to the enemy to help get JS. So not a good situation.

JS wanted to take everyone west, but before he could do that, he gave himself up on charges of destroying a printing press. While in jail, the gov. added treason of the US to his charges, which of course was not true.

Peter: "The Law brothers were the main owners of the Nauvoo Expositor, along with a couple of high energy anti-Mormon non-members who were out to get JS. The Laws were 2 brothers that began to hate JS when they bought large plots of property in and around Nauvoo ..."

This isn't an entirely accurate picture of who these people are. Here's a quote from the second source that I cited in the OP.

"The publishers were a former First Counselor in the First Presidency, William Law; Law’s brother, Wilson; Charles Ivins; Charles and Robert Foster; and Francis and Chauncey Higbee.1 The dissenters, several of whom had been recently excommunicated, published the Expositor to stir up controversy over practices and teachings with which they strongly disagreed."

We are told that several of the people involved had been "recently excommunicated." The excommunication process was about as fair as the destruction of the newspaper and its press. In other words, these men were Elders in the LDS church. William Law in particular held the rank of First Counselor to the First Presidency. Sounds pretty impressive, doesn't it? I wish I could put that on my resume. The contents of the Nauvoo Expositor were not an outpouring of ignorance. They had been members of the LDS church and still considered themselves to be members in God's eyes. They had heard sermons by Joseph Smith and other LDS leaders. No one could have been better informed about LDS beliefs and practices.

 

[Ran77]

It's not premature to declare one's constitutional rights allows that person to have the freedom of speech.

What constitutional right is that? Can you cite the law that was in effect at that time? Is it the First Amendment? Can you yell, "Fire" in a theater? Can you yell hateful comments about minority groups? Can you share government secrets under the freedom of speech? Unless you can legally do all these things, it does indeed appear that it is premature to declare one's constitutional right to free speech.

I should point out that your response has all appearances of having avoided the fact that you seem to have jumped to a conclusion and have absolutely no idea of whether the press that was destroyed because it violated the liberty of others. It's hard to take a person's arguments seriously when they toss out comments without any seeming regard for the facts.

You will have to demonstrate to "the rest of us" that whatever was printed on those presses was not covered by 1840's Illinois law and the reasoning behind it, as well as prove said reasoning allows for the lawful destruction of private property. The law says what it says until it is changed, or challenged and ruled otherwise. Please feel free to do that research.

I didn't make the claim that the presses didn't contain any material that would offer as reasonable evidence of having violated the liberty of others. I just pointed out that it was premature to jump to that conclusion without having read the paper. Then I asked if you had. Have you?