Artikkelit >

In Mormonism--Shadow or Reality?

Dr. Clandestine has taken exception to our use of B. H. Roberts' statement:

"Two other examples of the Tanners' 'suppression of evidence' indicate their slanted use of sources. On page 257, the Tanners quote B. H. Roberts, who was not trained in law or legal history, to support their conclusion that the suppression of the Nauvoo Expositor by orders of Joseph Smith as mayor of was illegal. Seven years prior to the revised edition of Shadow-Reality, Dallin H. Oaks, at that time a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, published an article in a legal journal demonstrating that the suppression (abatement) of the Nauvoo Expositor as a 'public nuisance' was within the powers granted by the state of Illinois in the Nauvoo Charter, was consistent with contemporary judicial interpretations of the First Amendment, and was supported by legal precedents in support of suppression of newspapers prior to 1844. I find it hard to believe that the Tanners were unaware of this article, in view of the fact that they frequently cite Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, and the Oaks article was reviewed in the Summer 1966 issue of Dialogue." (Jerald and Sandra Tanner's Distorted View of Mormonism, pp. 15-16)

A careful reading of the article by Dallin H. Oaks, who is now President of the Church's Brigham Young University, reveals that even Dr. Oaks feels that Joseph Smith went beyond the law. Oaks maintains that Smith had a right to destroy the published newspapers but not the press they were printed on:

"In view of the law discussed above, particularly the statement in Blackstone, the combination of these three considerations 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 an in summarily abating them by destruction.

"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.... there 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." (Utah Law Review, Summer 1965, pages 890-891)

According to the History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 448, it was Joseph Smith himself who directed that the press be destroyed. Acting as Mayor of Nauvoo, he issued this order:

"You are here commanded to destroy the printing press from whence issues the Nauvoo Expositor, and pi the type of said printing establishment in the street, and burn all the Expositors...if resistance be offered to your execution of this order by the owners or others, demolish the house;... fail not to execute this order without delay, and make due return hereon.
"By order of the City Council,
"JOSEPH SMITH. Mayor."

Joseph Smith tried to justify his action before Governor Ford, but the Mormon historian B. H. Roberts had to admit that Smith had gone too far when he destroyed the press itself: "The destruction of libelous 'prints and papers' can scarcely be held to sustain the action of destroying a 'printing press."' (History of the Church, Vol. 7, p. 91, footnote)

In Mormonism-Shadow or Reality? pp. 247 and 257 we demonstrated that the Nauvoo Expositor exposed the fact that Joseph Smith was secretly practicing polygamy. The Mormon leaders claimed that this was a lie. Eight years later, however, the Church published the revelation on polygamy which proved that the allegation in the Expositor was true. Thus it is clear that the Expositor was condemned on the basis of false testimony given by Joseph and Hyrum Smith. Even Dr. Oaks has to admit that the Nauvoo Expositor contained some rather accurate information on plural marriage:

"The allegation about plurality of wives was buttressed by the affidavits of William and Jane Law and Austin Cowles to the effect that in 1843 Hyrum Smith had read them a written document which he said was a revelation from God sanctioning this practice. The affiants' descriptions of the revelation were very brief, but, insofar as they were specific about its contents, they gave generally accurate descriptions of portions of the revelation on plural marriage, later published in the Church's Doctrine and Covenants." (Utah Law Review, Summer 1965, p. 869)

The reader will remember that Dr. Clandestine mention a review of Dallin Oaks' article which was published in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1966, pp. 123-24.In this very review Thomas G. Alexander, of Brigham Young University, frankly stated that there was "no legal justification for the destruction of the press, and the proprietors might have sued the council for recovery of the machine's value."

It is interesting to note that James B. Allen, who serves as Assistant Church Historian under Leonard Arrington acknowledges that Joseph Smith "acted illegally" when he destroyed the press:

"...when 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 the assassination. Some people maybe disturbed by the suggestion that Joseph Smith acted illegally in this instance, but it is important to understand that under the tense pressures of me times he, too, may have made a mistake." (Brigham Young University Today, March 1976, page 10)