Talk:Nauvoo Expositor

message: Contrary to propoganda or ignorance, the Nauvoo Charter does NOT "incorporate" the Illinois nor the US Constitutions. At most this is something like a counterpart to provisions like the Supremacy clause of the US constitution...a "subordination clause" if I may call it that. It is an unusual provision. The charter does give the Illinois state circuit courts appellate jurisdiction over Nauvoo's municipal courts, but it does not give Fed courts jurisdiction to rule on the matter nor could a city or state give juridiction to a fed court, nor would nor should a fed court rule on the matter because it is only a matter of local and state law...at most this sort of quasi-fed-law issue could only be appealed as far as IL's supreme court as odd as that may seem to give a state the final word on interpreting a quasi-fed-law. B
:I agree that the assumption that the US does not apply at all since this happened before the 14th ammendment.  I have no idea why people don't understand that.  I had assumed that the relationship between towns and states was different than the relationship between states and the federal government.  The states granted limmited powers to the federal government while on the other hand the states grant powers to the towns(at least in this case).  Based on the difference in their relationship, the state constitution would appear to apply to Nauvoo even though it is not incorporated into the charter.  You also bring up the point that freedom of speech/press is not unlimmited.  While this is clearly true, a signifficant part of what freedom of speech/press is supposed to protect is political speech.  When I read through the first issue of the Expositor it deffinitely did seem like a political publication, not just a mormon bashing paper.  It clearly stated that only the first few issues would even deal with mormonism since the Expositor was a political publication.  The paper clearly advocates against Joseph Smith's candidacy for president and Hyrum's candidacy for some state office.  The discussion about how Joseph ran the mormon church and his alleged abuse of Habeus Corpus to shield people from the law are used to show that Joseph Smith is unfit for office.  Politicians are not supposed to use the law to silence their critics; the gaurantee of a free press is supposed to prevent that.  I think that your latest revision generally improves what I added, but I think it still needs a little more work.  --andyh
Andy, thanks for engaging positively on this topic. This is a complex legal issue that has not been adequately addressed AKAIK. Ultimately, the legality of the censorship at that time is indeterminate since the case was never run thru the courts...so even if the law was clear, the most an intelligent mind could do is give an educated guess as to how the state judiciary would apply the law. A further problem is, even if it were run thru the courts, second-guessers who didn't like the outcome in this case wouldn't stop arguing; they would argue the courts decided wrongly because [fill in the blank]. Some of the issues would be novel to the judiciary at that time too, I'm sure...e.g., much of federal constitutional rights was only developed and matured in the last few decades. It will take some good research to develop the article substantially further, but some more tweaking might help the current article B 05:47, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anyone can argue persuasively that the Expositor was not political speech, but again, free speech is not absolute, even political speech...In this case where the speech is deemed a public nuisance, the issue is what limitations, if any, did nuisance law have on political speech. There is no immediately clear answer. B 05:47, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Nauvoo Charter

message: The quip claiming "even Oaks may have waffled later from his earlier defense" is unfounded.  Allow me to quote from a recent (May 2005) talk given by Dallin H. Oaks, in which he confirms his original position: "...Few men have been the targets of more assaults on their mission or their memory than Joseph Smith.  I investigated some of these charges by personal research in original records in Illinois where Joseph lived the last five years of his life.  The event that focused anti-Mormon hostilities that led directly to his murder was the action of mayor Joseph Smith and the Nauvoo city council in suppressing an opposition newspaper.  Early Mormon historians including B. H. Roberts conceded that this action was illegal.  However, as I researched the subject as a young law professor, I was surprised to find a legal basis for this action in the Illinois law of 1844.  My law review article reminded that the guarantee of freedom of the press in the Unites States Constituion was not declared applicable to the actions of city and state governments until 1931 and then only by a 5 to 4 court's reliance on a constitutional amendment adopted in 1868.  There were many suppressions of newspapers on the frontier in the period before the Civil War.  We should judge the actions of our predecessors on the basis of the laws and commandments and circumstances of their day, not ours" (starting a little after 34:30 in Session 3, available here: ).  Unless the claim of Oaks' alleged "waffling" can be proven with a direct quote--with reference--the claim should be removed. --tJM, 22 Jul 2005
:I will remove the unsourced statement concerning Oaks, but his defense of the "legality" of the city council's action places law above ethics.  It is like saying slavery in the US prior to 1863 can be justified because it was legal.  --Blainster 19:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Oaks comment unsourced

message: (Smith was in fact actively seeking multiple wives in secret, while publicly denying such rumors and accounts.) Is this a point of criticism or a substantiated fact? by ex-lds mbr. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.166.159.4 (talk • contribs) 15:09, June 1, 2006  (UTC)
:The parenthetical statement is an editorial statement added by an editor who agrees with the third point of criticism in the Expositor paper.  It should be referenced by a published source or removed, according to the policy on Wikipedia, which deprecates personal opinion or original research. Having said that, it is consistent with the research of historians such as those in the John Whitmer Historical Association --Blainster 04:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism of Smith

message: It doesn't matter 'what' Oaks was when he wrote this ... it does 'matter' what he is now, and his high rank in the lds church is relevant.
Typical WP ploy used here: <I> say that something should remain as it is until it has been thoroughly discussed, then do not actually have that discussion</i>. Let's have this go before the entire group of WP editors and hear their thoughts. I am sure that this information will be included then. Duke53 | Talk 15:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking a few sections back, it appears that there was a discussion (mostly last year), with most involved editors disagreeing with you that it is relevant. What new arguments do you have for the additions of your edit? Have you any documented cases of Oaks' current high rank in the lds church causing his previously published legal analyses to be suspect, or is this simply your perception? Alanyst did try to get an uninvolved, neutral third party involved, and if that isn't sufficient, go to the WP:RFC and place a notice. --FyzixFighter (talk) 16:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, you place a notice here, and it's automatically added on the RFC list. I've done that below. I've tried to describe the dispute neutrally. Let me know if it's unsatisfactory. Cool Hand Luke 17:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would just again state that I am not LDS - my only interest in editing these articles is for accuracy (and personal motivation, as I've stated, has been as a Smith) - and I see no reason whatsoever that the Oaks info is essential at that point in the article. I view it more as an effort by an editor to discredit the research. Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Dallin Oaks

message: So, let's assume for the moment that we should ascribe ONLY secular weight to Oaks' words-- which is one way to do it.  
This creates a new problem.   I think every reader to the article is going to ask "So, what do modern mormons think of this incident?".   To use an example,  what if the article on Jesus's Cleansing of the Temple never mentioned what modern christians make of the event.   
There should be a section where we mention that this wasn't just dispute about a free press-- the events have theological significance that should be talked about. 
I think Oaks is one great spokesperson for this, but if we don't want to bring up his religion, then we should find a different source or two to explain the mormon perspective and make a new section for it.
Readers want to know "What does the LDS church say about this"-- if we're not pointing them to Oaks, let's fill that hole with a different source.  --HectorMoffet (talk) 05:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What sources do you have in mind? There are relatively few on this topic. It's nice to speak in idealistic terms, but practically speaking, what is being proposed? What are the sources? Good Ol’factory (talk) 16:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: hehehe well, that's the rub isn't it.  :)  Maybe someone will suggest one here on talk-- if not I'll try to dig up source when I get to that section. --HectorMoffet (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: The glaring omission

message: The overall percentage of this article which is directly quoted text versus summary is much too high. Please see wp:QUOTEFARM. I tried to trim this down a few days ago, summarizing trivial & non-central information, but this was out-of-hand reverted. Since then the overuse of quotes in this article has only gotten worse in the article. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Direct quotes are sometimes the best tool for the job, but not always.  Do any sections jump out to you as especially needing summaries instead of quotes? --HectorMoffet (talk) 05:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything with more than maybe three sentences, as well as the trivial information. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that we have a link to the Wikisource on the page, I don't see a need to quote the affidavits verbatim. It's pretty easy to just briefly describe the contents of the affidavits in a sentence. I'm also not sure why we need the verbatim orders to destroy the press, the letter from Governor Ford, or the writ of arrest. I see that's basically all the stuff in dropdown boxes. None of this is information that is very hard to summarize. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotes

message: This section is in a sad state. It contains a singular response by one Mormon who essentially claims that its legal for a local government council to hold court and circumvention justice systems. This is not the case in the US. The singular source indicates that this is the modern authority on the matter, which is not the case either. I have no problem with the piece staying if it has counter arguments presented, but alone it is not suitable for Wikipedia. I will delete the section again if no additional material is found. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The cited analysis is by a Mormon, true (who is now a prominent leader in the LDS church), but is also the only scholarly, peer-reviewed legal analysis of the case that appears to exist. It is the modern authority on the matter until someone publishes another peer-reviewed legal analysis. If you know of counter-arguments that meet Wikipedia standards for reliable sources, let's have them. In the meantime, though, the section is informative and neutrally reports what the only reliable source has to say about the legal aspects, so it should remain. alanyst 17:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Per comment, I'd like to at least change the section name to something less POV. Its not the modern general viewpoint so much as one modern view. Arguments against Oaks are already considered in other sections of the article. "Oaks Analysis", perhaps? Considering the expansion tag, simply identifying Oaks' potential sensibilities/alignment would be enough. But, as you said, it seems unlikely at this point that we might find another view. i would imagine the ramifications of one somewhat obscure action in Mormon history is not exactly the most discussed topic in the general legal world. I would say this specific detail is of interest almost exclusively to Mormons, and people opposed to Mormons in some way. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 18:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: "Modern analysis" seems pretty neutral to me. It is a legal analysis from the recent past. How does it suggest a particular POV to you? alanyst 18:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The section title can be interpreted as singular, given the circumstances. We might as well make it 'the modern analysis', from my viewpoint. When articles feature "modern commentary", that's generally the section that shows commonly accepted modern viewpoints. Continuing with that reasoning, when there is only one commentary, there is only one upheld relevant modern view. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 03:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: "The modern analysis" might unintentionally imply that Oaks's analysis is the only possible correct legal analysis, or the one that has been universally accepted. I don't think either is the case. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Modern analysis

message: I was a bit shocked to discover that this page had asserted in its lead for almost two years that the destruction of the press was by an unauthorised mob, against the wishes of Smith and the City Council; despite our sources (including LDS ones, and ones in Smith's own words) saying clearly that he ordered the press to be destroyed and that this was carried out by the town marshal. Please watch out for inaccurate and unsourced information! TSP (talk) 23:15, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced information