Joseph Smith Died In A "shoot-out"

[Buckeye]

Im sure you will think Im a monster for saying this..

But...given the situation...viscous lions, no escape, etc...

I would break my daughters neck...so she would not have to experience disembowelment..being eaten alive..or watching daddy being disembowled and being eaten alive first.

I would kneel pray for forgiveness for those who put us here and for forgiveness for myself, while waiting for death.

What would you do Buckeye?

Wow. So you be more approving of Joseph's actions if he shot his companions rather than the mob?

I would fight the lions, of course. In the above situation, would you consider yourself a martyr?

[staccato]

Again, what was the law that was broken?

(Wiki Nauvoo Expositor)

Thus, whether or not the destruction of the press was legal depends primarily on the laws of the state of Illinois and the Nauvoo Charter. Among the rights enacted in the 1818 Constitution of Illinois were a prohibition against ex post facto laws[6] and a provision for the freedom of the press.[7] It is clear that the city of Nauvoo's actions against the Expositor violated the Illinois constitution's freedom-of-press provision. This provision read as follows:

"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.

"23. In prosecutions for the publication of papers investigating the official conduct of officers, or of men acting in a public capacity, or where the matter published is proper for public information, the truth thereof may be given in evidence. And in all indictments for libels, the jury shall have the right of determining both the law and the fact, under the direction of the court as in other cases." (Art. VIII, cl. 22â??23).

The destruction may also have violated Illinois' prohibition against ex post facto laws. Even without a specific ordinance, the city of Nauvoo could have tried to rely upon the existing common law doctrines of nuisance and libel, but it is doubtful whether they were applicable. The city might also have acted under the common law doctrine of eminent domain, which allows the government to take private property for public use. Such a taking, however, would have required, under the Illinois "Takings Clause", that the taking be approved by the Illinois general assembly, and that just compensation be given.[8]

Oaks' analysis

A detailed legal analysis of the Nauvoo City Council's actions was undertaken by Dallin H. Oaks, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School.[9] Oaks opined that while the destruction of the press itself was legally questionable, under the law of the time the Expositor certainly could have been declared libelous and a public nuisance by the Nauvoo City Council. He therefore states that while under the law of the time it would have been legally permissible for city officials to destroy the actual printed newspapers, the destruction of the printing press was probably outside of the council's legal authority, and its owners could have sued for damages.

[Mudcat]

Perhaps avenging, though he may of had a sudden realization after his brother died in his arms that he was not the soul target for assassination there, and put up a fight in a bleak defense of his friends still alive, not necessarily in defense of himself, which in context of his statements when arrested, he was fully expecting that he was going to die and originally went unarmed.

I think a lot of this post...is haggling over what the word martyr means.

Websters and other dictionaries have similar definitions to each other all seem to allow plenty of room for JS to be considered one.

I define "martyr" differently than the dictionary.

I define it through the Bible. The only well documented example of martyrdom was that of Stephen. Stephen died with forgiveness towards his oppressors prayerfully on his lips. Since this is the only example of martyrdom, this is the one I use to define martyr...not a dictionary, or examples of other people who were considered martyrs but their acts are not in the canon.

John the Baptist..was also documented but not as indepth.

[Buckeye]

I think a lot of this post...is haggling over what the word martyr means.

Websters and other dictionaries have similar definitions to each other all seem to allow plenty of room for JS to be considered one.

I define "martyr" differently than the dictionary.

I define it through the Bible. The only well documented example of martyrdom was that of Stephen. Stephen died with forgiveness towards his oppressors prayerfully on his lips. Since this is the only example of martyrdom, this is the one I use to define martyr...not a dictionary, or examples of other people who were not in the canon.

John the Baptist..was also documented but not as indepth.

And of course the Savior was a martyr. I think we would all agree on that one.

[mledbetter]

I think a lot of this post...is haggling over what the word martyr means.

Websters and other dictionaries have similar definitions to each other all seem to allow plenty of room for JS to be considered one.

I define "martyr" differently than the dictionary.

I define it through the Bible. The only well documented example of martyrdom was that of Stephen. Stephen died with forgiveness towards his oppressors prayerfully on his lips. Since this is the only example of martyrdom, this is the one I use to define martyr...not a dictionary, or examples of other people who were not in the canon.

John the Baptist..was also documented but not as indepth.

You seem to be cherry picking your definitions, now.

[Mudcat]

No offense, but you being a mortal have absolutely no clue how you will react when a lion is facing you ready to eat you. We all like to think of ourselves as tough until we are actually in a very life/death situation. Once your adreniline kicks in and even if shock doesn't overtake you, I seriously doubt you will have the mental clarity to reason all of these things out. BTW, I certainly wouldn't fault you for whatever it is that you do in your final seconds.

I hate to disagree.

I've been in more than one life/death experience and Im well aware of my capabilites under intense stress.

[Jaybear]

Perfect.

Not really.

When the phrase "lamb to the slaughterhouse" is used its not referring to the peaceful, serene nature of the lamb, but the fact the lamb is completely ignorant of its impending demise.

If JS believed that he was going to be killed, no matter how peacefully he went along, the phrase "lamb to the slaughterhouse" just doesn't fit.

I say you play up the prophetic claim, and lose the lamb analogy. You are only inviting a discussion of the gunfight.

[HanClinto]

Even considering he fought back, I'd say that one little pistol vs. a mob of rifles pretty much adds up to a "lamb to the slaughter" in my book. Lambs can bite back sometimes.

I never denied that one pistol vs. a mob was a "slaughter" -- I made that clear in my first post.

Coming at it from my perspective, I'm trying to exegete the phrase "lamb to the slaughter." I'm looking at where else that phrase is used, and what it meant in those other context. I'm trying to honestly ask what parallels to the other situations are drawn there, what that meant in other uses (such as Jesus), and what that means as to how we should anticipate Joseph Smith's actions being. If you want to redefine lambs to have sharp pointy teeth, go ahead, though I'd strongly caution you that I think that's eisegesis.

That's all I was saying. Clear as mud?

Sidenote: It seems like people are saying that Joseph fought back in order to protect his friends. But if his brother was already dead before Joseph started fighting back, it seems clear that they were already willing to kill others in order to get Joseph. I'd assume that when attacked by such people, surrender is the best way to stop more people from getting killed. Either him coming out with his hands up, shouting "don't shoot, we surrender!", or *something* would have been more in line with the mindset of him going there with the intention of giving himself up.

He certainly went like a lamb to the 'slaughter house'. His actions once there were not so meek.

Haha -- very nice.

--clint

Not really.

When the phrase "lamb to the slaughterhouse" is used its not referring to the peaceful, serene nature of the lamb, but the fact the lamb is completely ignorant of its impending demise.

I'd respectfully disagree, with the statement that Jesus knew exactly where He was going and what would happen to Him when He gave himself up as a "lamb to the slaughterhouse".

Jesus was many things, but "ignorant" was not one of them.

--clint

[Mudcat]

Wow. So you be more approving of Joseph's actions if he shot his companions rather than the mob?

I would fight the lions, of course. In the above situation, would you consider yourself a martyr?

JS' companions were grown men...there is a difference between grown men and a my 12 year old daughter, wouldn't you say?

Would I consider myself a martyr....no

[Jaybear]

I'd respectfully disagree, with the statement that Jesus knew exactly where He was going and what would happen to Him when He gave himself up as a "lamb to the slaughterhouse".

Jesus was many things, but "ignorant" was not one of them.

--clint

I respectfully stand my ground:

Jeremiah 11:19:

"But I was like a gentle lamb led to the slaughter; And I did not know that they had devised plots against me"

[Buckeye]

JS' companions were grown men...there is a difference between grown men and a my 12 year old daughter, wouldn't you say?

Would I consider myself a martyr....no

I see. Well, if you wouldn't consider yourself a martyr, I can't fault you for not thinking Joseph one either. I guess it comes down to different understandings of what a martyr is. For the record, I do not (and I doubt any here does) believe Joseph's sacrifice to be anything close to that of Christ.

And, to respond to your whole post, while I agree that the sensibilities of grown men are different than a 12 year old, I don't think Taylor and Richards would have stood any more chance at surviving Carthage than a girl would have at surviving the lions. Joseph's act firing and running to the window did save their lives.

[cjcampbell]

This thread is degenerating into wrangling over terms, such as what is a martyr.

Let us make this clear: Joseph Smith was not a fugitive from Missouri justice. He was "arrested" by an armed mob which illegally locked him and other Church leaders up and tortured them. The mob had no legal warrant for their arrest and never did. No charges were ever brought against Joseph Smith and the others, but they were denied habeaus corpus. There was an attempt by the mob, which called itself a 'militia,' even though they openly defied direct and legal orders from their superiors, to court martial Joseph Smith, even though they had no right to do so and even though Joseph Smith was a civilian. Joseph Smith was rescued from kidnappers; he did not escape from any legally constituted authority.

Those who wish to change the definition of 'martyr' do so in full knowledge that they are doing so in contravention of common English usage. Their only reason for doing so is to obfuscate and deceive. In other words, when they say that Joseph Smith was not a martyr, they are lying. And they know it. They are working for the father of lies, which is singularly un-Christian behavior. So there it is. This magazine claims to be 'Christian,' but its actions speak louder than its words. In fact it is the tool of Satan.

This goes also for those who try to foist off non-standard definitions of 'Christian' in spite of generally accepted English usage. In general, I consider dictionaries to be authoritative than people who are willingly used as the tools of Satan.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Not really.

When the phrase "lamb to the slaughterhouse" is used its not referring to the peaceful, serene nature of the lamb, but the fact the lamb is completely ignorant of its impending demise.

If JS believed that he was going to be killed, no matter how peacefully he went along, the phrase "lamb to the slaughterhouse" just doesn't fit.

I say you play up the prophetic claim, and lose the lamb analogy. You are only inviting a discussion of the gunfight.

In my opinion, Joseph smith died a martyr. I really don't care if he fired a weapon or not, or if the "lamb to the slaughter" doesn't measure up to someone's expectations.

[HanClinto]

I respectfully stand my ground:

Jeremiah 11:19:

"But I was like a gentle lamb led to the slaughter; And I did not know that they had devised plots against me"

Mark 8:31-33

31 And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.

32 And he spake that saying openly. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him.

33 But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.

34 And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I never denied that one pistol vs. a mob was a "slaughter" -- I made that clear in my first post.

Coming at it from my perspective, I'm trying to exegete the phrase "lamb to the slaughter." I'm looking at where else that phrase is used, and what it meant in those other context. I'm trying to honestly ask what parallels to the other situations are drawn there, what that meant in other uses (such as Jesus), and what that means as to how we should anticipate Joseph Smith's actions being. If you want to redefine lambs to have sharp pointy teeth, go ahead, though I'd strongly caution you that I think that's eisegesis.

That's all I was saying. Clear as mud?

Sidenote: It seems like people are saying that Joseph fought back in order to protect his friends. But if his brother was already dead before Joseph started fighting back, it seems clear that they were already willing to kill others in order to get Joseph. I'd assume that when attacked by such people, surrender is the best way to stop more people from getting killed. Either him coming out with his hands up, shouting "don't shoot, we surrender!", or *something* would have been more in line with the mindset of him going there with the intention of giving himself up.

Haha -- very nice.

--clint

I'd respectfully disagree, with the statement that Jesus knew exactly where He was going and what would happen to Him when He gave himself up as a "lamb to the slaughterhouse".

Jesus was many things, but "ignorant" was not one of them.

--clint

Jesus doesn't count, he was convicted of breaking the law, right?

I respectfully stand my ground:

Jeremiah 11:19:

"But I was like a gentle lamb led to the slaughter; And I did not know that they had devised plots against me"

Joseph Smith never claimed to be gentle in the accounts.

Mark 8:31-33

I seem to recall an apostle of Christ attempting to cut some ears off or whatnot.

[Avatar4321]

Let me make absolutely clear, Joseph Smith was unjustly murdered in a horrible fashion. The question for us here is would most people define Joseph Smith as a Martyr.

The common definition of a religious martyr includes willingly suffering or dying for a religious cause. Since Joseph fought back, many people would commonly discount his death as a martyrdom. This is compounded by the fact that Joseph was being held for violating the secular law, namely the destruction of the Nauvoo press.

Let me use an example for illustration. Joan of Arc is generally considered to be a martyr because she willing submitted to the will of the Church in her execution. If she had died in battle or had fought her captors to try to escape, she still might be considered a hero but most people would not consider her a martyr.

I seem to have hit a nerve on this one. I am just trying to point out a lexical disconnect between Mormons and non-Mormons.

John

That's absurd. Joseph willingly went to Carthage when he knew he would be killed. He could have easily escaped to the west. but he went willingly.

The fact that he fired shots blindly into a stairwell where there is a mob coming to kill him and his friends to delay them long enough to jump out the window and save his friends doesn't make him any less willing. Heck he jumped out into the mob to protect his friends. Any idea that it wasnt willing is absurd.

Besides, willingness is not a requirement in the definition.

[Avatar4321]

One must be careful about defining the word â??martyrâ? as simply dying for a religious cause. This casts a very wide net. Wouldnâ??t the 9/11 perpetrators then be defined as martyrs? Or Japanese Kamikaze pilots? Or Palestine who blow themselves up on buses?

I donâ??t mean to imply Joseph was a terrorist. I think Joseph was justified in shooting back. I am just trying to hone in on the word martyr. Going back to the original post comparing the loaded word â??martyrâ? with the loaded words â??shoot outâ?. The latter implies Joseph was a criminal, the former implies he was innocent or passive. Both extremes are a stretch.

John

Again this is absurd. Your definition includes the 9/11 perpetators and Japanese Kamikaze's and any sort of terrorist because they are willingly giving up their lives for a religious cause. Your net is just as broad.

[Avatar4321]

I would think that the people that support the same beliefs as terrorists, would support the fact that their actions are the actions of a martyr. After all, they are sacrificing themselves for their beleifs

However, the rest of the world would call them a terrorist.

I think Consig...has made a good point about the "defense of others".

However, to non LDS, the fact that JS fired at assailants (injuring and maybe killing men) with a smuggled in pistol, regardless of intention of defense, will put a "cloud" over his martyrdom to some degree.

The only cloud over his martyrdom is created by those who try to justify the actions of the mob. Why should their opinion change the truth that Joseph died for his faith?

[maklelan]

Thus, whether or not the destruction of the press was legal depends primarily on the laws of the state of Illinois and the Nauvoo Charter. Among the rights enacted in the 1818 Constitution of Illinois were a prohibition against ex post facto laws[6] and a provision for the freedom of the press.[7] It is clear that the city of Nauvoo's actions against the Expositor violated the Illinois constitution's freedom-of-press provision. This provision read as follows:

"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.

"23. In prosecutions for the publication of papers investigating the official conduct of officers, or of men acting in a public capacity, or where the matter published is proper for public information, the truth thereof may be given in evidence. And in all indictments for libels, the jury shall have the right of determining both the law and the fact, under the direction of the court as in other cases." (Art. VIII, cl. 22â??23).

The destruction may also have violated Illinois' prohibition against ex post facto laws. Even without a specific ordinance, the city of Nauvoo could have tried to rely upon the existing common law doctrines of nuisance and libel, but it is doubtful whether they were applicable. The city might also have acted under the common law doctrine of eminent domain, which allows the government to take private property for public use. Such a taking, however, would have required, under the Illinois "Takings Clause", that the taking be approved by the Illinois general assembly, and that just compensation be given.[8]

Oaks' analysis

A detailed legal analysis of the Nauvoo City Council's actions was undertaken by Dallin H. Oaks, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School.[9] Oaks opined that while the destruction of the press itself was legally questionable, under the law of the time the Expositor certainly could have been declared libelous and a public nuisance by the Nauvoo City Council. He therefore states that while under the law of the time it would have been legally permissible for city officials to destroy the actual printed newspapers, the destruction of the printing press was probably outside of the council's legal authority, and its owners could have sued for damages.

Was this the code cited when he was arrested? It appear Oaks' conclusion is that it was a civil matter.

[Avatar4321]

Perhaps you could tell us exactly which law was violated by that event.

Or how it even applies since he was being held for Treason

I get John Larsen's point. Some people state that by shooting back and other actions JS was not willingly dying. Some don't believe he is a martyr, others do. We can't prove he was. Yes, he died for his beliefs, but he died fighting for them. So maybe hero is a better word. I can deal with either.

I get his point to. But the facts just dont justify it.

[MormonMason]

In my opinion, Joseph smith died a martyr. I really don't care if he fired a weapon or not, or if the "lamb to the slaughter" doesn't measure up to someone's expectations.

It really does not matter what he did BEFORE he was killed. At the time he was killed he had no weapon, having dropped it to the floor before running to the window. At the time he was killed, there was no shooting and no weapon. He leapt from the window with the help of a bullet to the back and ended up on the ground. When he was shot to death on the ground outside, he was unarmed and did not put up a fight. He died as a martyr. He did not die in the gun battle, the attempted gun-fight being over before he jumped the window. He was on the ground, defenseless. He was killed in that state. He died a martyr's death. End of story.

[HanClinto]

I seem to recall an apostle of Christ attempting to cut some ears off or whatnot.

Good! Jesus also rebuked that apostle for the action.

Matthew 26:51-54

51 And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest’s, and smote off his ear.

52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?

54 But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?

Jesus doesn't count, he was convicted of breaking the law, right?

Is this a serious question, or sarcasm?

Joseph Smith never claimed to be gentle in the accounts.

That's what we're talking about -- D&C 135:4. I'm saying that Smith drew parallels between the manner of his anticipated death with the death of Christ, and one of those parallels (the "lamb" reference) seems to say that he would be killed similarly to Christ -- calmly, innocently, and without retaliation -- as a lamb to the slaughter, similar to Christ. I'm noting the clear parallels in the prophecies, and the clear differences in the actions.

--clint

[cjcampbell]

The common definition of a religious martyr includes willingly suffering or dying for a religious cause.

This is pure nonsense, as any reference to a standard dictionary will show. The most common definition of a martyr is someone who is killed for his religious beliefs. Willingness has nothing to do with it.

[KingZedekiah]

Actually whether a person "fights back" or not doesn't totally fit. Most Christians consider the Apostle Paul a martyr, but he used every legal maneuver taking his trial clear to Rome. That's fighting back and not just folding. Many other martyrs used whatever legal rights at their disposal to actively fight an unjust verdict. When they lost, they died terrible deaths. But I would NOT say they "willingly gave up their lives for their beliefs". They defended their rights, they defended their beliefs, they refused the recant their so-called heresy. This in my mind is fighting back nonviolently. They are martyrs for their faith.

I find it curious that a smuggled gun was even accepted and used by Joseph Smith. If he truly believed as he said earlier that he was like a lamb going to slaughter, why would he use a gun to defend himself. He knew his life was in danger and should have been trusting in God's will like Jesus did in the Garden of Gethsemene. Jospeh Smith was assassinated for political and religious reasons by a community that hated him. That doesn't necessarily qualify him as a martyr.

It was my understanding that Hyrum Smith was shot in the chest and exclaimed, "I am a dead man." So where did this shooting in the head (which would make such an exclaimation impossible) come from?

[mledbetter]

Is this a serious question, or sarcasm?

--clint

When Jesus overturned the money changing tables in the Temple, he WAS breaking established Jewish law at this time. As a matter of fact, it was probably what finally gave the Sanhedrin the excuse they needed to finally arrest Him and it was certainly one of the most serious 'transgressions' they used to plead for Rome to put Him to death.