Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

consiglieri

Joseph Smith Died In A "shoot-out"

Recommended Posts

Wow! This topic really did go astray, didn't it? Anyway, I was reading Klausner's Messianic Idea in Israel again and something caught my eye in a footnote in the chapter on Messiah ben Joseph, preparer of the way for the Messiah ben David, and the idea's importance, or lack thereof, to Judaism in a peacetime climate. The phrase that caught my eye was one about the coming Messiah ben Joseph being understood to "die in battle."

Now, the differences in the strands of tradition on this subject of dying in battle are extensive so I am not advocating using this information as evidence of the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith. However, it is of interest that Messiah ben Joseph was to die in a battle and that evangelicals often describe Joseph Smith's death as one that takes place in a "blazing gun battle."

Could further evidence be marshalled that might turn the critic's criticism on its head and turn it into evidence for the calling of Joseph Smith? Hmmm.... What think ye? :P

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for your thorough response. I confess that, in some ways, I am myself outside the normative of Mormonism. Perhaps you and I can meet somewhere outside the normative of our respective religious affiliations.

One of the reasons that I think "all" should get the opportunity to hear the gospel is because we don't know (as humans) who will accept and who will not, and oftentimes appearances can be deceiving.

The apostle Paul would be a classic example of someone who, from all outward appearances, could not have been any less likely to accept the gospel . . . and yet he did.

I think that part of God's fairness and justice requires him to give all the opportunity, whether he may know beforehand that they will accept it or not.

Then, his judgment can be fair and impartial.

The alternative would be for God to judge somebody as not even meriting the opportunity to hear the gospel, because they wouldn't have accepted it anyway.

Now, while I think that God may well be in a position to make such a judgment, in order to be fair, the person has to have at least had the full opportunity to hear and then accept or reject.

I don't see God as being really fair and just otherwise.

By the way, have you given consideration as to how 1 Peter 3:16-18 and 1 Peter 4:6 may play into this discussion?

Heretically yours,

--Consiglieri

And thats exactly where I feel Mudcat diverges from the Apostle Paul... the Gospel must be preached by those with beautiful feet... to ALL the world. Wether in this life or the next. All must have the opportunity to call on his name or not.

Share this post


Link to post

Could further evidence be marshalled that might turn the critic's criticism on its head and turn it into evidence for the calling of Joseph Smith? Hmmm.... What think ye? :P

You are perhaps aware of Joseph Fielding McConkie's treatment on the "Messiah ben Joseph" from some time back in the 1980's?

There are a number of parallels between this Jewish second messiah and Joseph Smith, which also happen to line up with prophecies in the Book of Mormon about Joseph Smith, including the view that he would be a Moses secondarius, or second Moses.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

And thats exactly where I feel Mudcat diverges from the Apostle Paul... the Gospel must be preached by those with beautiful feet... to ALL the world. Wether in this life or the next. All must have the opportunity to call on his name or not.

I think we may be closer to Mudcat's point of view than, say, with Hoops, though I would let this latter luminary speak for himself on the issue.

Make Mine Mudcat!

--Consiglieri

Share this post


Link to post
And thats exactly where I feel Mudcat diverges from the Apostle Paul... the Gospel must be preached by those with beautiful feet...

Well, that lets me off the hook then.

Regards,

Pahoran

Share this post


Link to post

Well, that lets me off the hook then.

Regards,

Pahoran

You can say that again. My feet are so not "beautiful". THey are freaking fugly.

Share this post


Link to post

Well beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

PAB2349.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

Well beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

PAB2349.jpg

Are you claiming this to be "beauty"? Lol.

Share this post


Link to post

Hey... thats what my shoes looked like when I came home on the plane. :P

Share this post


Link to post

Hey... thats what my shoes looked like when I came home on the plane. :P

Ah. THat takes on a whole new meaning then. I can understand this only becuase my shoes too were trashed.

Share this post


Link to post

I think thats the same meaning Isaiah and Paul where giving to the metaphore as well. :P

Share this post


Link to post

Consiglieri,

I've tried to take a little more time on this response...its been a hectic day and I finally got some breathing room.

Thanks for your thorough response. I confess that, in some ways, I am myself outside the normative of Mormonism. Perhaps you and I can meet somewhere outside the normative of our respective religious affiliations.

One of the reasons that I think "all" should get the opportunity to hear the gospel is because we don't know (as humans) who will accept and who will not, and oftentimes appearances can be deceiving.

I won't rule out your line of reasoning...this train of thought had crossed my mind once or twice.

The apostle Paul would be a classic example of someone who, from all outward appearances, could not have been any less likely to accept the gospel . . . and yet he did.

Granted Saul of Tarsus was as wicked as they come.

However, given the particulars of how God revealed himself...striking him blind, etc... I would say rather improved his odds of accepting the Gospel. Some people come to Christ..almost naturally. Some like Paul and myself had to be hit over the head with a brick, metaphorically speaking.

I think that part of God's fairness and justice requires him to give all the opportunity, whether he may know beforehand that they will accept it or not.

Then, his judgment can be fair and impartial.

The alternative would be for God to judge somebody as not even meriting the opportunity to hear the gospel, because they wouldn't have accepted it anyway.

BTW..for the record...I hate to make allegories, but I will use a couple of parables and ...what can you do with a parable except make an allegory. I realise that bringing scripture into this opens its own can of worms. I guess if somebody wants to scripturally hack my belief to pieces....I asked for it.

I think God is fair, just and impartial. I do think he gives everyone an oppourtunity. However, I would say that I view this particular opportunity, in reference to those that don't hear the Gospel of Christ on this earth, as differently. I believe we are here..on this earth..for a particular reason. That reason is to choose to serve God and serve him or not to.

Christ referred to people being like wheat and the need to harvest it (us). But to become worthy of harvesting we must first be a seed of wheat and then be cultivated and grow ripe. America is fortunate and blessed by the hand of God. We live in the most spiritually fertile land the world has thus far seen. I hate to say being a Christian is easy, it isn't. But it is easier to be one here than anywhere else.

The reason Im saying this is to infer something else, its got to do with hearing the Gospel of Christ. I don't think I could (if I spoke Arabic)...walk up to a Muslum, present the Gospel and then boom badda bing...if he doesn't believe me...he's going straight to hell. They say that out of Moslum converts to Christianity (which is a very small number) the actual process when it does occur averages close to a decade from start to finish. Even in this case of a man hearing the Gospel only once, could God, if he were fair condemn him based upon that. I don't think so.

However, I think at some point God, being the God of truth, reveals himself to all men. God has revealed himself in many ways throughout the Bible and the light of creation reveals God to all men. I think all men have a choice to pursue what truth they can from this revelation. Now, I do not think all men choose to follow the truth.

To go back to Christ and the wheat....he also talked of tares(weeds). Here is how I think this parralells with God revealing himself through different means to those who do not hear the Gospel. I honestly think we all begin as tare seeds but we will all be given the oppourtunity here to choose to be a wheat seed(not even a harvestable crop in and of itself) but with fertile growing conditions, cultivation, etc...we can become this wheat.

At the very basic level of it....I believe there is a decision that has to be made here...in this world in our mortal state and I believe tare seeds get equal treatment with tares at the end ot the age.

Now, while I think that God may well be in a position to make such a judgment, in order to be fair, the person has to have at least had the full opportunity to hear and then accept or reject.

I don't see God as being really fair and just otherwise.

I don't know that one way is more or less fair. I am making an assumption that you are saying we can only be judged, if we are in full knowledge or light of all there is to know of Christ and that all get full knowledge presented to them.

I would take a standpoint that we can be judged by the knowledge or light we have been given. As long as that judgement is realative to the light we have been given...it is still fair. If God determines that we are worthy of what he has given, we will have the oppourtunity to recieve full knowledge. But if we are unworthy of it.... :P

I believe God gives all man some degree of light, regardless of circumstance.

Christ...in the parable of the servants with the talents draws a good comparison. Im using the "talent" as the measure of "light" we are given. Its not really how many talents we get....its what we do with them that counts. Do we choose to try to increase them for our master or do we do nothing with them. I think for the record that if the guy with the most had done nothing with his talents...hed have been in the same boat as the guy who only had one.

By the way, have you given consideration as to how 1 Peter 3:16-18 and 1 Peter 4:6 may play into this discussion?

Yes, I have. They reinforce both our views...but I don't want to say they are the anchor scriptures of what I believe, on this issue. Im a little leary to use them as such. I've read them many times and done some layman parsing with them as well, however I don't really want to run the risk of contextual contortions with scripture.

And don't get me wrong, I think both our rationales have merit, but at at current...I prefer mine. Though Im totally open to further dialouge....I like this sort of thing. And as always I appreciate your thoughts and opinions.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

Share this post


Link to post
I don't know that one way is more or less fair. I am making an assumption that you are saying we can only be judged, if we are in full knowledge or light of all there is to know of Christ and that all get full knowledge presented to them.

I would take a standpoint that we can be judged by the knowledge or light we have been given. As long as that judgement is realative to the light we have been given...it is still fair. If God determines that we are worthy of what he has given, we will have the oppourtunity to recieve full knowledge. But if we are unworthy of it....

I believe God gives all man some degree of light, regardless of circumstance.

Christ...in the parable of the servants with the talents draws a good comparison. Im using the "talent" as the measure of "light" we are given. Its not really how many talents we get....its what we do with them that counts. Do we choose to try to increase them for our master or do we do nothing with them. I think for the record that if the guy with the most had done nothing with his talents...hed have been in the same boat as the guy who only had one.

See I think thou art a Mormon and just don't know it.

I could give you chapter and verse for scriptures that back up everything you have just said. :P

Share this post


Link to post

See I think thou art a Mormon and just don't know it.

I could give you chapter and verse for scriptures that back up everything you have just said. :P

Well, I can see where there is some agreement at face value to what we both think, on this one issue. You've got to bear in mind that I don't hold this as official Mudcat doctrine or anything. If anything, its a hang over viewpoint I developed in my former agnostic approach to the message of Jesus. And IMO, I don't consider my perspective as "essential". In the big scope of things it my way of rationalizing God being fair and just along with the existence of hell.

However, my perspective really doesn't allow room for other LDS doctrines that tie into this, their is enough of a difference to make the difference quite significant.

The whole thing is rather difficult to articulate. I wished I could actually put this a little better, but some thoughts are difficult to put on paper entirely.

Wished I could remeber how to do that "Vulcan Mind Meld Trick" on you....then you would see the differences more clearly.

Share this post


Link to post

I think God is fair, just and impartial. I do think he gives everyone an oppourtunity. However, I would say that I view this particular opportunity, in reference to those that don't hear the Gospel of Christ on this earth, as differently. I believe we are here..on this earth..for a particular reason. That reason is to choose to serve God and serve him or not to.

However, I think at some point God, being the God of truth, reveals himself to all men. God has revealed himself in many ways throughout the Bible and the light of creation reveals God to all men. I think all men have a choice to pursue what truth they can from this revelation.

Dear Mucat,

You may be interested to know that your view appears to be mirrored in the Book of Mormon passage below.

I have taken the liberty of bold-facing certain words from your post, in addition to words from the Book of Mormon passage, for comparison purposes.

Moroni 7:16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.

17 But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him.

18 And now, my brethren, seeing that ye know the light by which ye may judge, which light is the light of Christ, see that ye do not judge wrongfully; for with that same judgment which ye judge ye shall also be judged.

Moroni is here writing down a sermon given by his father, Mormon.

It looks like you and Mormon are pretty close on this issue.

What do you think?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Share this post


Link to post

It looks like you and Mormon are pretty close on this issue.

What do you think?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Consiglieri,

True, Its almost and may be a direct paralell of thought. It's been several years since I read through the BoM but I do remember that this was a place that gave me pause. No intent to offend, but at present, I would believe the credit for the concept as quoted in the BoM belongs to Joseph Smith and not Mormon.

Sincerely,

Mudcat

Share this post


Link to post

Consiglieri,

True, Its almost and may be a direct paralell of thought. It's been several years since I read through the BoM but I do remember that this was a place that gave me pause. No intent to offend, but at present, I would believe the credit for the concept as quoted in the BoM belongs to Joseph Smith and not Mormon.

Sincerely,

Mudcat

Then what are we to make of the fact that a "parallel of thought" exists between you and Joseph Smith, if not Mormon, in this regard?

Perhaps you are both inspired?

Another favorite passage of mine that pertains to this issue is Alma 29, where Alma wishes that he were an angel so that he could declare the gospel to everyone on the face of the earth; but then stops and realizes he sins in his wish, because if God wanted an angel, God would have an angel; but instead God has chosen to give as much light to all mankind as they are willing to receive; through individuals called from among their own ranks, culture and nationality.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Share this post


Link to post

Then what are we to make of the fact that a "parallel of thought" exists between you and Joseph Smith, if not Mormon, in this regard?

Consiglieri,

I never have made to much out of it, though I do agree with you that it apparently exists. I know a few people...who have drawn the same conclusions on their own.

In retrospect....

What is the deeper meaning of all that?

...I don't have a clue.

Mudcat

Share this post


Link to post

Consiglieri,

I never have made to much out of it, though I do agree with you that it apparently exists. I know a few people...who have drawn the same conclusions on their own.

In retrospect....

What is the deeper meaning of all that?

...I don't have a clue.

Mudcat

If nothing else, I think the deeper meaning may mean a fuller conception of the justice and mercy of God.

Have a great weekend!

--Consiglieri

Share this post


Link to post

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

I realize I'm jumping into this way, way, after the fact but I just wanted to respond to this particlualry post. For the sake of effective communication I think we can disregard the common definition of martyr and just rely on the actual definition of martyr.

The Oxford English Dictionary, which is the foremost authority on such matters says it this way.

1. a. Christian Church. A person who chooses to suffer death rather than renounce faith in Christ or obedience to his teachings, a Christian way of life, or adherence to a law or tenet of the Church; (also) a person who chooses to suffer death rather than renounce the beliefs or tenets of a particular Christian denomination, sect, etc.

2. a. In extended (esp. non-religious) contexts: a person who undergoes death or great suffering for a faith, belief, or cause, or (usu. with to; also with of, for) through devotion to some object.

So case closed on that. Joseph was a martyr.

But really it's this reference to Joan of Arc that sparked my ire. Joan of Arc was a rebel who launched an illegal attach against the sovereign King of France, namely, Henry V, the King of England. Not only did she submit to no one but God but she actively attempted escape from prison on numerous occasions including leaping from a 70 ft tower. She is a martyr because she died for her beliefs, we love her because her side won and France was eventually taken from the English. What would we say of Joseph if his side had won?

Share this post


Link to post

I realize I'm jumping into this way, way, after the fact but I just wanted to respond to this particlualry post. For the sake of effective communication I think we can disregard the common definition of martyr and just rely on the actual definition of martyr.

The Oxford English Dictionary, which is the foremost authority on such matters says it this way.

1. a. Christian Church. A person who chooses to suffer death rather than renounce faith in Christ or obedience to his teachings, a Christian way of life, or adherence to a law or tenet of the Church; (also) a person who chooses to suffer death rather than renounce the beliefs or tenets of a particular Christian denomination, sect, etc.

2. a. In extended (esp. non-religious) contexts: a person who undergoes death or great suffering for a faith, belief, or cause, or (usu. with to; also with of, for) through devotion to some object.

So case closed on that. Joseph was a martyr.

But really it's this reference to Joan of Arc that sparked my ire. Joan of Arc was a rebel who launched an illegal attach against the sovereign King of France, namely, Henry V, the King of England. Not only did she submit to no one but God but she actively attempted escape from prison on numerous occasions including leaping from a 70 ft tower. She is a martyr because she died for her beliefs, we love her because her side won and France was eventually taken from the English. What would we say of Joseph if his side had won?

If he had won and survived the encounter, I believe it would be sufficient to say that in history he would not be considered a martyr. And we would all feel rather foolish for posting 18 pages of comments on this topic, if that were the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...