Friday, April 24, 2009

Nauvoo Expositor


Ask yourself why Joseph was taken to the Carthage Jail in June 1844? It wasn't false charges as the Mormon Church likes to promote.

In the U.S. you cannot destroy a newspaper just because you don't like it and get away with it - even if you are the Mayor. The State of Illinois Constitution guaranteed: The right of a “free press, and freedom from illegal search and seizures without evidence of committing a crime.” The Nauvoo Expositor was telling the truth about Joseph’s polygamy and teaching the plurality of gods. By Illinois law, Joseph as Mayor of Nauvoo, broke the law when he ordered The Nauvoo Expositor destroyed because he was angered by the paper exposing the actions he was trying to hide!

13 comments:

  1. Hi Rocky and Helen, we are looking forward to seeing the two of you this summer during the Mormon Pageant. May not have agreed with you on everything, but you are a special couple. See you here in Nauvoo!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Do a little research.

    1844.

    No such thing as the 14th Amendment.

    With no 14th Amendment, states and local governments were not bound by the 1st Amendment. Therefore, Joseph Smith could not have violated the 1st Amendment.

    Ask any legal scholar- Mormon or not- and they will tell you this is true. I challenge you to ask any practicing lawyer this question. I doubt you will and if you do I doubt you will have the courage to post the response on this blog.

    Some quest for "truth".

    You are just like everyone else in religion- starting with the conclusion and then cherry picking the facts that are convenient.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Bueller? Bueller?

    Are you going to defend your statement that Joseph Smith violated the 1st Amendment?

    How can Joseph Smith have violated the 1st Amendment as Mayor when such an act was legally impossible for local governments in 1844?

    The 14th Amendment is what binds state and local govt to uphold the 1st Amendment. But the problem for your argument is that the 14th Amendment didn't exist in 1844. Infact, our contemporary concept of free speech did not evolve until about 1930. It was quite acceptable legally in the 19th century for presses to be destroyed as nuisances.

    That's bad scholarship, Rocky. But you are no scholar. You start with the conclusions and then cherry pick the facts that support your preconceptions.

    Do you have a desire for the truth as you say?

    Are you willing to contact ANY constitutional law professor in America to check the veracity of this argument?

    Will you admit you were wrong?

    Rocky?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Go to the website of this couple www.MormonOutreach.org and you will find the answers to this and much more.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous - I really don't understand your problem with my statements. Freedom of the press was guaranteed in the 1st Amendment, one of the original 10 Amendments ratified as the "Bill of Rights" on December 15, 1791. I don't believe I have anything to defend.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Rocky,

    GO ASK ANY LAWYER IN AMERICA.

    They will tell you what I am telling you. The 1st Amendment was not binding on anyone EXCEPT Congress until the 14th Amendment was ratified. The first words of the 1st Amendment are, "CONGRESS shall make no law..."

    Did Congress destroy the Expositor? If not, how could the 1st Amendment have been violated in 1844 when the 14th Amendment was yet to exist.

    I am about to graduate from law school. Your "scholarship" is sloppy and laughable and this is another great example.

    If you don't believe me, ask ANY lawyer or constitutional law professor at any law school about the effect of the 14th Amendment on the 1st Amendment in relation to state and local government.

    The legal and cultural interpretation of the 1st Amendment you are using didn't start to formulate until about 1920, and yet you use it to analyze an event in 1844.

    Seriously, Rocky.

    Embarrassing.

    Sloppy.

    Biased.

    You need to be more careful in the assertions you make.

    ReplyDelete
  7. PS- You are afraid to ask a lawyer or conlaw professor as I have challenged you, right? This is why you have not and will not ask because you are afraid you are wrong and are not willing to accept that.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Here's an article that explains how the 14th Amendment makes the 1st Amendment operative on state and local government:

    http://www.krusch.com/real/14th.html

    Will you admit you were wrong Rocky? Have you talked to any constitutional law professors as I have challenged you or are you afraid that you made an accusation in ignorance?

    ReplyDelete
  9. It is futile to talk facts to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.
    Thomas Sowell

    ReplyDelete
  10. Helen,

    Please tell me that's not your response to the legal analysis above, because if it is it ironically best applies to you and your husband who refuse to recant your erroneous allegation that Joseph Smith violated the 1st Amendment in spite of the evidence that I have provided.

    In fact, I have challenged you to seek out the advice of any constitutional law professor in America regarding the effect of the 14th Amendment on the application of the 1st Amendment to state and local governments.

    You are so afraid that you might be wrong that you won't ever take up my challenge. Instead, you'll continue headstrong with the allegation.

    Like I said, you're really no different than the Mormons your criticize. They, like you, start with a conclusion and cherry pick the facts that support them while doing all kinds of mental gymnastics to avoid and dismiss facts that contradict.

    You and the Mormons are peas in a pod and you don't even know it!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Am I and others to infer from your repeated refusal to answer my argument that you have conceded that Joseph Smith could not have violated the First Amendment as a Mayor in 1844 because the 14th Amendment had not yet been ratified?

    Please respond with your explanation of how it was legally possible for Joseph Smith to have violated the First Amendment as the Mayor of Nauvoo.

    After all, it's the pursuit of truth that you are (supposedly) after!

    ReplyDelete
  12. This will be in two posts:

    Post 1:

    O.K., Anonymous or David Young, if that is who you really are, since you’ve hidden under Anonymous for so long and now, under David Young, your profile is listed as “Profile Not Available.”

    I fell and broke my ribs and fractured my elbow back on September 24, 2009. I’ve been slightly incapacitated and slowed down since then; however, now that I can type again, I’ve done some additional research and here’s your answer.

    When quoting this response, don’t take my answer out of context. My research has concluded that Joseph Smith was not in violation of the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, so I was wrong on that point; however, he was in violation of the Constitution of the State of Illinois; so, whether it was Federal Law, or State Law, Joseph Smith illegally ordered the destruction of “The Nauvoo Expositor.”

    In Barron v. Baltimore (1833), the Supreme Court ruled that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states, so in 1844 when Joseph Smith ordered the destruction of The Nauvoo Expositor for telling the truth about what he was trying to hide, he was not in violation of the 1st Amendment.

    Illinois became a State on December 3, 1818. As a provision of Statehood, its Constitution had to be accepted by the U.S. Congress. The Illinois State Constitution was adopted on August 26, 1818, and provided for approval to the U.S. Congress. So, when Joseph Smith ordered the destruction of The Nauvoo Expositor, he was bound by the State of Illinois Constitution. I find Joseph Smith in direct violation of Paragraphs 7 and 22 of ART VIII:

    7. That the people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and possessions, from unreasonable searches and seizures; and that general warrants whereby an officer may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of the fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, whose offenses are not particularly described and supported by evidence, are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be granted.


    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.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Post 2:

    The right of a “free press, freedom from illegal search and seizures without evidence of committing a crime” was guaranteed in the Illinois Constitution. The Nauvoo Expositor was telling the truth about Joseph’s polygamy and teaching the plurality of gods. By Illinois law, Joseph as Mayor of Nauvoo, broke the law when he ordered The Nauvoo Expositor destroyed because he was angered by the paper exposing the actions he was trying to hide. Joseph couldn’t order an investigation and then issue a warrant to bring charges against the newspaper because the newspaper was telling the truth

    The original post here (Nauvoo Expositor – posted Friday, April 24, 2009) read as follows:
    “Ask yourself why Joseph was taken to the Carthage Jail in June 1844? It wasn't false charges as the Mormon Church likes to promote.

    In the U.S. you cannot destroy a newspaper just because you don't like it and get away with it - even if you are the Mayor. There's this little legal idea known as the 1st Amendment!”

    I have now edited it to read:

    “Ask yourself why Joseph was taken to the Carthage Jail in June 1844? It wasn't false charges as the Mormon Church likes to promote.

    The State of Illinois Constitution guaranteed: The right of a “free press, and freedom from illegal search and seizures without evidence of committing a crime.” The Nauvoo Expositor was telling the truth about Joseph’s polygamy and teaching the plurality of gods. By Illinois law, Joseph as Mayor of Nauvoo, broke the law when he ordered The Nauvoo Expositor destroyed because he was angered by the paper exposing the actions he was trying to hide.”

    I will correct any of my writings were I have referred to Joseph as breaking the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States when he ordered The Nauvoo Expositor destroyed, and correct it to his being in violation of the Illinois State Constitution.

    Now, let’s get to the real crux of the matter. It’s not whether Joseph violated the U.S. Constitution or the State of Illinois Constitution. The real issue is: Why did Joseph Smith, the Founding Prophet of the Mormon Church, God’s very oracle on earth, order the destruction of The Nauvoo Expositor? The answer is: The Nauvoo Expositor revealed the truth about Joseph Smith clandestinely practicing polygamy and teaching the plurality of gods, which Joseph did not want the world to know. Joseph was lying about what he was doing and he was exposed by the newspaper: The Nauvoo Expositor.

    God doesn’t have to cover up and hide from the truth of what His “Prophets” are teaching in His name. If and when God speaks through man, unlike Congressman, Senators and false prophets, He doesn’t have to “revise and extend” His remarks, nor does He have to order a publication destroyed that prints what He said or what He did. God has nothing to hide; Joseph on the other hand did!

    For Mormons to place their eternities in the hands of a man proven to be dishonest, a liar, a philanderer, and a proven false prophet, instead of trusting in Jesus Christ, is really very sad; very sad, indeed!

    ReplyDelete

Rocky and Helen Hulse

Rocky and Helen Hulse
Defending Christianity From Mormon Doctrine