Do Mormons support the First Amendment?

[Da Blonde]

From the discussion (in the Danite thread) of the incident in Missouri, the "mob violence" seems to be sparked largely from Mormon preaching, and the printing of that sermon in pamphlets. Another "prime reason" for the problems there was the failure of the "bank scheme" at Kirtland.
If inciting mob violence is an undesirable result, perhaps the "Salt Sermon" would have been better off not preached.
You make it sound like the Mormons are the innocent victims of outside aggression.
I think it can be shown that the REASON for a lot of the violence was self-inflicted.

I think everyone is 100% responsible for their own behavior and this includes both the Mormon pioneers and those who opposed them.

It can be documented Mormon pioneers engaged in land theft and horse stealing and the like, much as tea cakers of today are associated with scams to avoid taxes and commit fraud.

The time of Joseph Smith's death was a time of inter-American violence that preceded the greatest of such, the Civil War.

But no murder victim is responsible for their own murder. Lynching and mob attack victims are no exception.

How much of antimormonism was fueled by antipolygamy ideology, anyhow? I would guess a lot.

[Cow Poke]

AGENDA. (Ominous Music can be heard drifting into the thread)

Note to self: When OC or Jo says something, it's logic or reasoning or debate. When "anti-s" (ANTS) say something, it's "agenda".

Because it was a red herring and a loaded question. Demonstrate that the premise of the question is true (the government would not protect Mormons from mob violence).

Careful, Hamster - he'll start repeating the question in different colors and implying that you are a COWARD if you don't answer!

[OtherCheek]

Do I "approve" of them? No. Do I think they have the right to hold stupid opinions? Yes.

But you think the Constitution protects the right of people to publish papers calling for genocide against the Jews or mob violence against them?

I couldn't help but notice how you cut off my statement, and only replied to what you wanted to.

You also said that the Mormons should have applied for redress. You are therefore assuming that such an application would have been affective. And I asked you:

Where did this ever happen, that the government came to the defense of Mormons and protected them from mob violence? Where is the precedent that this had ever happened?

Redress for mob violence had been applied for on many occasions, but none was given. Unless you can find it. Do you care to take the challenge to find where redress was granted?

[Da Blonde]

But you think the Constitution protects the right of people to publish papers calling for genocide against the Jews or mob violence against them?

I'm not sure; it's a sticky constitutional issue.

You also said that the Mormons should have applied for redress. You are therefore assuming that such an application would have been affective. And I asked you:

Where did this ever happen, that the government came to the defense of Mormons and protected them from mob violence? Where is the precedent that this had ever happened?

Redress for mob violence had been applied for on many occasions, but none was given. Unless you can find it. Do you care to take the challenge to find where redress was granted?

Though not specifically applied to Mormons, those who supported an antigay referendum in Washington State are seeking redress to make their names and addresses and so forth on the petetions they signed confidential. This was specifically due to retaliation, primarily economic, against persons in California who signed the petetions for Proposition H8, and funded the campaign for it, which included a lot of official Mormon funds as well as individual Mormon donors. I believe these efforts will be generally ruled against, as election law requiring disclosure of petetion signers' info trumps the rights of the Mormons and others who did this to privacy.

[Hamster]

But you think the Constitution protects the right of people to publish papers calling for genocide against the Jews or mob violence against them?

I couldn't help but notice how you cut off my statement, and only replied to what you wanted to.

I cut it off because it was a vain attempt to change the subject

You also said that the Mormons should have applied for redress. You are therefore assuming that such an application would have been affective. And I asked you:

Where did this ever happen, that the government came to the defense of Mormons and protected them from mob violence? Where is the precedent that this had ever happened?

Redress for mob violence had been applied for on many occasions, but none was given. Unless you can find it. Do you care to take the challenge to find where redn ress was granted?

Please show that the Mormon government requested assistance in curtailing a threat and it was rejected. Please also show how this justifies the oppressive and violent suppression of criticism of Joseph Smith

[OtherCheek]

I cut it off because it was a vain attempt to change the subject


Please show that the Mormon government requested assistance in curtailing a threat and it was rejected. Please also show how this justifies the oppressive and violent suppression of criticism of Joseph Smith

Mormon government? You mean Mormon leaders, right?

Read Chapters sixteen and seventeen.

When Joseph and Hyrum petitioned governor Ford (in Illinois) for protection, it was also denied them. And they were murdered.

The laws of God allow for self-defense.

[Cow Poke]

The laws of God allow for self-defense.

What would have happened to the owners of the Expositor if they had tried to defend their printing press?

[OtherCheek]

What would have happened to the owners of the Expositor if they had tried to defend their printing press?

They would have been taken into custody.

[OtherCheek]

Hamster, here's a book you might like.

http://byustudies.byu.edu/showTitle.aspx?title=6138

[Cow Poke]

They would have been taken into custody.

Wow - that's a lot better deal than the Fancher-Baker emigrants got at Mountain Meadows!

So, how do you KNOW they would have been taken into custody?

[OtherCheek]

Wow - that's a lot better deal than the Fancher-Baker emigrants got at Mountain Meadows!

So, how do you KNOW they would have been taken into custody?

Or maybe shot if they had started a gun battle. That's pretty much what happens now-a-days and even back then.
But I think if they had been Mormons in a community of Anti's they might have been tarred, feathered, dragged by a horse over the rocks, and poisoned to death like was attempted with Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon.

As you can see, they did not resist or try to start a gun battle, and so your what-if's are irrelevant.

[Cow Poke]

Or maybe shot if they had started a gun battle.

The Fancher-Baker emigrants? They WERE shot, OC. (or were you ignoring that part and only focusing on the owners / publishers of the Expositor?

That's pretty much what happens now-a-days and even back then.

But the owners / publishers of the Expositor didn't START a gun battle, did they, OC? They were proposing a peaceful expose' of the problems at hand, and trying to get their concerns aired. What other avenue did they have for redress, OC?

But I think if they had been Mormons in a community of Anti's they might have been tarred, feathered, dragged by a horse over the rocks, and poisoned to death like was attempted with Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon.

Well, that all depends, OC. If a bunch of Mormons moved into my community and started riding around on horses with their very own militia, and overtook the city government, and made themselves the exclusive government, electing their own leader Mayor, and condemning my religion as apostate, I might be a tad upset, and think they didn't have my best interest at heart. Now, you have already said that you would take action, even breaking the law, if you felt like the community standards were overly offensive (or however you worded that) so would it be wrong for me to want them out of my town?

Remember, Texas is the only state in the Union where an acceptable defense for murder is "well, your honor, he JUST needed killin". (possible slight exaggeration here)

As you can see, they did not resist or try to start a gun battle, and so your what-if's are irrelevant.

Well, thanks for making my point! - they did not resist and start a gun battle - because.. maybe they were interested in PEACE? How DARE they! I thought they were trying to incite riots.

[OtherCheek]

The Fancher-Baker emigrants? They WERE shot, OC. (or were you ignoring that part and only focusing on the owners / publishers of the Expositor?

I was focusing on the owners and publishers of the Expositor. Did you want to divert off on another subject?

But the owners / publishers of the Expositor didn't START a gun battle, did they, OC? They were proposing a peaceful expose' of the problems at hand, and trying to get their concerns aired. What other avenue did they have for redress, OC?

The Warsaw Signal. Or they could have set up shop outside the confines of Nauvoo.

Well, that all depends, OC. If a bunch of Mormons moved into my community and started riding around on horses with their very own militia, and overtook the city government, and made themselves the exclusive government, electing their own leader Mayor, and condemning my religion as apostate, I might be a tad upset, and think they didn't have my best interest at heart. Now, you have already said that you would take action, even breaking the law, if you felt like the community standards were overly offensive (or however you worded that) so would it be wrong for me to want them out of my town?

Stay on target, CP. No Mormons moved into anybody's community like that. You should read some of the history of Nauvoo. And how it was built from malaria infested swamp land.

I thought they were trying to incite riots.

Yep. I think you nailed it.

[Cow Poke]

I was focusing on the owners and publishers of the Expositor. Did you want to divert off on another subject?

Of COURSE you were focusing on the Expositor. You would love to forget the Mountain Meadows Massacre. But, in trying to see how somebody would have handled things "way back when", it's fair to look at OTHER matters that they actually DID handle, and see how they managed it. MMM didn't go so well. I don't have a great degree of confidence in "Mormon justice".

The Warsaw Signal. Or they could have set up shop outside the confines of Nauvoo.

So, there's only freedom of the press OUTSIDE Nauvoo limits?

Stay on target, CP. No Mormons moved into anybody's community like that. You should read some of the history of Nauvoo. And how it was built from malaria infested swamp land.

I'll do that, OC. Thanks. And I clearly said "IF".

Yep. I think you nailed it.

Actually, OC, you have failed to show "intent" in the Expositor "inciting a riot". You keep dodging that. You CLAIM their intent was to incite mobs to riot, but you have failed to make a case for that.

[OtherCheek]

Of COURSE you were focusing on the Expositor. You would love to forget the Mountain Meadows Massacre. But, in trying to see how somebody would have handled things "way back when", it's fair to look at OTHER matters that they actually DID handle, and see how they managed it. MMM didn't go so well. I don't have a great degree of confidence in "Mormon justice".

I haven't forgotten the MMM, and neither have you. But this thread is not about that.

So, there's only freedom of the press OUTSIDE Nauvoo limits?

Not even outside Nauvoo if the press is stirring up mob violence. I think it behooves citizens to protect themselves from mobs. Especially when the government does not.

Actually, OC, you have failed to show "intent" in the Expositor "inciting a riot". You keep dodging that. You CLAIM their intent was to incite mobs to riot, but you have failed to make a case for that.

Yea. Clear intent is pretty easy to disguise. Especially when you are already near a flash point, you can always skirt blame and shift it elsewhere.

From the Nauvoo Expositor:

We have received the last number of the "Warsaw Signal;" it is rich with anti-Mormon matter, both editorial and communicated. Among other things it contains a lengthy letter from J.H. Jackson, giving some items in relation to his connection with the "Mormon Prophet," as also his reasons for the same. It will be perceived that many of the most dark and damnable crimes that ever darkened human character, which have hitherto been to the public, a matter of rumor and suspicion, are now reduced to indisputable facts. We have reason to believe, from our acquaintance with Mr. Jackson, and our own observation, that the statements he makes are true; and in view of these facts, we ask, in the name of heaven, where is the safety of our lives and liberties, when placed at the disposal of such heaven daring, hell deserving, God forsaken villains. Our blood boils while we refer to these blood thirsty and murderous propensities of men, or rather demons in human shape, who, not satisfied with practising their dupes upon a credulous and superstitious people, must wreak their vengeance upon any who may dare to come in contact with them. We deplore the desperate state of things to which we are necessarily brought, but, we say to our friends, "keep cool," and the whole tale will be told. We fully believe in bringing these iniquities and enormities to light, and let the majesty of violated law, and the voice of injured innocence and contemned public opinion, speak in tones of thunder to these miscreants; but in behalf of hundreds and thousands of unoffending citizens, whose only fault is religious enthusiasm, and for the honor of our own names and reputation, let us not follow their desperado measures, and thereby dishonor ourselves in revenging our own wrongs. Let our motto be, "Last in attack, but first in defence;" and the result cannot prove otherwise than honorable and satisfactory.

Ehhh. So you were driven from your homes, raped, shot at, killed, homes burned, damages suffered. So what. This is just harmless banter.

You don't know it, CP, but there were other presses destroyed in the several states at that time. But none brought a reaction like this:

The Nauvoo City Council and Mayor Joseph Smith declared the newspaper an illegal "nuisance" and directed the town marshal to destroy the press. This destruction inflamed the hostile anti-Mormons around Nauvoo. On June 12, 1844, Thomas Sharp's newspaper, the Warsaw Signal, called for the extermination of the Latter-day Saints: "War and extermination is inevitable! Citizens arise, one and all!!! Can you stand by, and suffer such infernal devils! to rob men of their property and rights, without avenging them…. Let [your comment] be made with powder and ball!!!" Two weeks later Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum were assassinated in Carthage Jail while awaiting trial on charges of treason.

Sharp defended the killing on the grounds that "the most respectable citizens" had called for it. Sharp and four others eventually were tried for the murders, but were acquitted for lack of evidence.

Take a look at some of the things that were published in the press about Mormons.
http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/r...ations_EOM.htm