Millions Shall Know

[Scott Lloyd]

Now, I think I see you point, because Jesus' death and resurrection is considered sacrosanct among Christians, its wrong to examine actual historical accounts, to address the issue objectively and dispassionately.

Jesus was a martyr and JS was a martyr, because to say otherwise is offensive to Christians and Mormons.

Got it.

Are you prepared to argue that Jesus was not a martyr, then?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Now, I think I see you point, because Jesus' death and resurrection is considered sacrosanct among Christians, its wrong to examine actual historical accounts, to address the issue objectively and dispassionately.

Jesus was a martyr and JS was a martyr, because to say otherwise is offensive to Christians and Mormons.

Got it.

My point is both are "debatable" especially depending on the sources you listen to. I'm not discouraging looking into it. In fact, I encouraged you to look into it.

Do you care to answer Scott Lloyd's question?

[Daniel Peterson]

Got it.

Doesn't got it, I think.

Same old same old.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Doesn't got it, I think.

Same old same old.

Whoa, Dan, no need to totally flip out and flip your lid here.

[Jaybear]

My point is both are "debatable" especially depending on the sources you listen to. I'm not discouraging looking into it. In fact, I encouraged you to look into it.

I agree that both are debatable.

Yet, you never addressed my point, which is that JS publicly denied the very doctrine that played a pivotal role in his incarceration. In other words, while polygamy led to his arrest and murder, have denied the doctrine, and accused those who said otherwise of slander, I just don't accept that he was a martyr, as I understand the concept.

Rather than address my point, you questioned Jesus status as a martyr.

LOP: Do you care to answer Scott Lloyd's question?

No. Not really. You are welcome to draw what ever conclusions you wish. I just don't see that the question is relevant to my stated point.

Peterson:

Doesn't got it, I think.

Same old same old.

Sigh.

[Gervin]

The newspaper editorial comes across as a lame excuse for religious bigotry. The editor objects to Joseph's self-characterization as a prophet. That is a matter of religious doctrine, not politics. And the other things mentioned (civil office, militia appointment, etc.) stem from efforts by the Church at self-preservation after it had repeatedly been denied the right to exist as a distinctive religious body.

This was very much about religion.

Then your quibble is with the BYU professor who was using it as an example of the political crack that Joseph Smith had put himself. Did you read the entire article. According to lifeonaplate, google.com has the answer to everything and could find the article easily enough. To reiterate Hill's point, it was not very much about religion.

And you have sidestepped my question. If this was all about enmity toward Joseph, why did oppression of the Church resume almost immediately after his martyrdom?

I'm not sidestepping your question, I'm ignoring it. Your question has nothing to do with my request that Peterson back up his statement that "the mob thought they'd finished Mormonism off when they murdered Joseph Smith."

[LifeOnaPlate]

I agree that both are debatable.

Yet, you never addressed my point, which is that JS publicly denied the very doctrine that played a pivotal role in his incarceration. In other words, while polygamy led to his arrest and murder, have denied the doctrine, and accused those who said otherwise of slander, I just don't accept that he was a martyr, as I understand the concept.

Rather than address my point, you questioned Jesus status as a martyr.

LOP: Do you care to answer Scott Lloyd's question?

No. Not really. You are welcome to draw what ever conclusions you wish. I just don't see that the question is relevant to my stated point.

Sigh.

Scott Lloyd already answered the polygamy question. What Joseph was accused of and what he was actually practicing are 2 different things; thus the public denials, to Joseph, and to many others, were not dishonest. Again, check Rough Stone Rolling, or In Sacred Loneliness.

Why would I answer Scott's question? I already know and agree with the answer; he has been asking you this entire time. And again, you dodge the opportunity to answer it.

Then your quibble is with the BYU professor who was using it as an example of the political crack that Joseph Smith had put himself. Did you read the entire article. According to lifeonaplate, google.com has the answer to everything and could find the article easily enough. To reiterate Hill's point, it was not very much about religion.

I'm not sidestepping your question, I'm ignoring it. Your question has nothing to do with my request that Peterson back up his statement that "the mob thought they'd finished Mormonism off when they murdered Joseph Smith."

You guys are remarkably circular.

[Gervin]

Oddly enough, Gervin, the opinion of one editor who was not part of the mob, written two years before the martyrdom, does not have very much to do with the opinions or motivations of the perpetrators.

Did you not actually know that?

You've been provided with quotes that indicate otherwise. You don't seem particularly interested in them at all.

Regards,

Pahoran

I've not seen any quotes by the mob that they they thought they'd finished Mormonism off when they murdered Joseph Smith. If you can point me to the quote on this thread that reflects the mob's motivations then I would be grateful because I can't seem to find it.

[solomarineris]

It's a response to Christopher Hitchens's bestselling god is Not Great. With Bill Hamblin. I'm having a great time.

I', sure you do, DP.

The reality of it is, that nobody reads Bill Hamblins book versus tens of millions reading Hitchens book.

I guess people are better informed than rest of us.

Peace.

[Pahoran]

I', sure you do, DP.

The reality of it is, that nobody reads Bill Hamblins book versus tens of millions reading Hitchens book.

I guess people are better informed than rest of us.

Peace.

Since the last two lines are clearly sarcastic, you seem to actually be saying that truth can be established by opinion poll.

It doesn't matter how many millions of fools read Hitchens' diatribe, it is still wrong.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Daniel Peterson]

Then your quibble is with the BYU professor who was using it as an example of the political crack that Joseph Smith had put himself.

I assume that that incomprehensible sentence is referring to moi?

To reiterate Hill's point, it was not very much about religion.

Which, even if it were true (which is debatable), would not refute the notion that, in killing Joseph Smith, these early anti-Mormons thought they were putting an end to Mormonism. A great deal of early anti-Mormonism (probably, indeed, most early anti-Mormonism) mingled socio-political concerns with theological objections. As anybody who has studied the phenomenon knows well.

I'm not sidestepping your question, I'm ignoring it. Your question has nothing to do with my request that Peterson back up his statement that "the mob thought they'd finished Mormonism off when they murdered Joseph Smith."

Before Gervin surrenders his attempted revisionism on this point, he wants signed affidavits from a representative sample of the members of the mob -- a very literary bunch, those Carthage Greys! -- assuring us that their motives in assassinating Joseph Smith were indeed essentially consistent with the agenda of those who egged them on and orchestrated the murder and who continued the persecution of the Mormons even after Joseph and Hyrum had been successfully liquidated. Otherwise, he's not going to believe it.

[Daniel Peterson]

I', sure you do, DP.

I shore as heck do, S&M, and tha's a fack.

The reality of it is, that nobody reads Bill Hamblins book versus tens of millions reading Hitchens book.

I doubt very much that tens of millions are reading Hitchens's book. I think it's sold about 200,000 copies.

And Professor Hamblin's latest book is, as a matter of fact, doing reasonably well. (And getting good reviews.) And it's being published in other languages, too.

Which, in any event, has what, exactly, to do with the book that we're currently writing?

I guess people are better informed than rest of us.

People do indeed tend to be better informed than some of us.

[Deborah]

I've been listening to Truman Madsen's lectures on Joseph Smith and have come to know the prophet even more and to love and honor him for all that he did. It is so sad that those with a hatred and prejudice toward him cannot see beyond the limited diatribes against him. There is so much more that can be known than all the negative stories that have been circulated, and which as far as I can tell have little basis in actual fact, and certainly have been taken out of context for the purpose of maligning.

[Daniel Peterson]

Thanks for a positive post. I agree entirely.

Today is the anniversary of a very, very sad event that took the lives of two very fine men. I believe that they were prophets, and that Joseph was among the greatest prophets who ever lived.

[erichard]

I've been listening to Truman Madsen's lectures on Joseph Smith and have come to know the prophet even more and to love and honor him for all that he did. ..

I have always believed this dream recorded by Brigham Young truly was a communication from Joseph, and verifies that he was free from his enemies in the Spirit world:

Given on Wednesday, February 17, 1847

A Dream to Elder Brigham Young at Council Bluffs, Iowa

(On the Mormon Frontier: The Diary of Hosea Stout 1:238)

I dreamed that I saw Joseph sitting in a room, in the South-West corner, near a bright window. He sat in a chair, with his feet both on the lower round. He said that it was all right-- that we should not be together yet; we must be separated from him. He said it was all right, and put his feet down on the floor. Now all you who know how he looks, when he used to give counsel, know all about how he looked then.

I told him that the Latter-day Saints were very anxious to know about the law of adoption, and the sealing powers, etc.; and desired a word of counsel from him. Joseph said, "Do you be sure to tell the people one thing. Do you be sure and tell the brethren that it is all important for them to keep the quiet spirit of Jesus;"

And he explained how the Spirit of the LORD reflected on the spirit of man and set him to pondering on any subject, and also explained how to know the Spirit of the LORD from the spirit of the enemy. He said, "The mind of man must be open to receive all spirits, in order to be prepared to receive the Spirit of the LORD; otherwise, it might be barred so as not to receive the Spirit of the LORD, which always brings peace and makes one happy, and takes away every other spirit. When the small, still voice speaks, always receive it, and if the people will do these things, when they come up to the Father, all will be as in the beginning, and every person stand as at the first.

I saw how we were organized before we took tabernacles, and every man will be restored to that which he had then, and all will be satisfied. After this I turned away and saw Joseph was in the edge of the light; but where I had to go was as midnight darkness. He said I must go back, so I went back into the darkness.

I want you to all remember my dream. For I, it is a vision of God, and was revealed through the spirit of Joseph.

Richard

[Gervin]

I assume that that incomprehensible sentence is referring to moi?

no

Which, even if it were true (which is debatable), would not refute the notion that, in killing Joseph Smith, these early anti-Mormons thought they were putting an end to Mormonism.

I've not seen any evidence of your claim that the mob thought they'd finished Mormonism off when they murdered Joseph Smith. If by "mormonism" you mean the political theocracy envisioned by Smith then perhaps we are talking about the same thing. I thought you were referring to your religion.

Before Gervin surrenders his attempted revisionism on this point, he wants signed affidavits from a representative sample of the members of the mob -- a very literary bunch, those Carthage Greys! -- assuring us that their motives in assassinating Joseph Smith were indeed essentially consistent with the agenda of those who egged them on and orchestrated the murder and who continued the persecution of the Mormons even after Joseph and Hyrum had been successfully liquidated. Otherwise, he's not going to believe it.

It's your claim, not mine, that the mob thought they'd finished Mormonism off when they murdered Joseph Smith. The group's literacy or lack thereof would bolster or refute your claims. The fact they don't appear to be on record to support your contention is not my problem.

[Deborah]

I've not seen any evidence of your claim that the mob thought they'd finished Mormonism off when they murdered Joseph Smith.

And of course you've seen "all" the evidence. I'm surprised this is even an issue as it always seemed obvious that the mob thought the church would die with the murder of the prophet.

[Daniel Peterson]

If by "mormonism" you mean the political theocracy envisioned by Smith then perhaps we are talking about the same thing. I thought you were referring to your religion.

Do you think that the mob made that subtle distinction? Do you think that mobs ever make subtle distinctions?

It's your claim, not mine, that the mob thought they'd finished Mormonism off when they murdered Joseph Smith. The group's literacy or lack thereof would bolster or refute your claims. The fact they don't appear to be on record to support your contention is not my problem.

Nor are your persistent urge to revisionist quibbling and your apparent lack of familiarity with the circumstances of the murder my problem.

[Yme]

As a non-member married to a member, this issue of Smith's death & martyrdom has always been an issue of confusion and debate within our marriage. For us, like a lot of LDS history, not a topic good to discuss before going to bed!!

But as the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor seemed to be the lightening rod leading up to his imprisonment and eventual death, I had always wondered, questioned or second guessed the following with respect to the fairness or legality of Smith's action:

The Nauvoo Charter required a 30 day period following the posting of a

written notice of a declared nusiance before action was allowed to be taken against those things declared a "nusiance". Why did Smith not give Law and the rest of those behind the Expositor the requistie notice under his own Charter? I think his (or the council's) order and action taken against Expositor violated his own Charter. Also, seems like based on written accounts I've read, that all the rioting and hostilities took place after the destruction of the press.

I've wondered if Smith's lack of respect for his own Charter had contributed to his very demise

[Gervin]

Do you think that the mob made that subtle distinction? Do you think that mobs ever make subtle distinctions?

Hill writes, "But many hundreds had come to Carthage from outlying areas a few days before, ready to sack Nauvoo, drive the Mormons out, and kill the prophet. George Rockwell, a militiaman from Warsaw, had to have been aware of the intentions of the downstate militia, for military action against Nauvoo depended upon their participation. Regarding the Saints at Nauvoo, he said, "their lives will be spared (excepting Jose [sic] Smith and a few of his advisers) but the city of Nauvoo will be destroyed."

Yes, I think there are distinctions. Hill's paper makes numerous distinctions. It appears the vast majority of people, however, rightly saw Smith as the source of the problems and they wanted him out of their town and out of their lives. They wanted to drive people off. It makes for good faith-promoting posturing to state that this is prophecy fulfilled; the mob "thought they'd finished Mormonism off when they murdered Joseph Smith." The historical record doesn't support your reading.

[Daniel Peterson]

It makes for good faith-promoting posturing to state that this is prophecy fulfilled; the mob "thought they'd finished Mormonism off when they murdered Joseph Smith." The historical record doesn't support your reading.

This is the kind of thing that makes your posts so unfailingly charming. You never merely disagree or question. You virtually always suggest that I've written in bad faith for disingenous propaganda purposes.

You've taken a serious and truly non-controversial comment, made in response to the fact that today is the anniversary of one of the principal historical achievements of anti-Mormonism, and tried to turn it into just one more of your wearisome suggestions that I'm dishonest.

It's boring.

And do you really think that your particular reading of Marvin Hill's particular reading of an aspect of the story truly represents (and exhausts) "the historical record"? That's simply laughable.

[Pahoran]

The David Irving of Mormon things wrote:

Hill writes, "But many hundreds had come to Carthage from outlying areas a few days before, ready to sack Nauvoo, drive the Mormons out, and kill the prophet. George Rockwell, a militiaman from Warsaw, had to have been aware of the intentions of the downstate militia, for military action against Nauvoo depended upon their participation. Regarding the Saints at Nauvoo, he said, "their lives will be spared (excepting Jose [sic] Smith and a few of his advisers) but the city of Nauvoo will be destroyed."

Yes, I think there are distinctions. Hill's paper makes numerous distinctions. It appears the vast majority of people, however, rightly saw Smith as the source of the problems and they wanted him out of their town and out of their lives.

Rightly?

So you approve, I take it. No wonder.

Joseph's murderers were evil, bloodthirsty bigots. Their modern sympathisers are no better. At least Joseph's murderers had the courage of their hatreds; their modern sympathisers add cowardice to their other fine qualities.

They wanted to drive people off. It makes for good faith-promoting posturing to state that this is prophecy fulfilled; the mob "thought they'd finished Mormonism off when they murdered Joseph Smith." The historical record doesn't support your reading.

As a matter of fact, it does. You are quite deliberately cherry-picking the evidence to support your denials.

As you perfectly well know.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Gervin]

You've taken a serious and truly non-controversial comment, made in response to the fact that today is the anniversary of one of the principal historical achievements of anti-Mormonism, and tried to turn it into just one more of your wearisome suggestions that I'm dishonest.

I thought you were seriously suggesting this was prophecy fulfilled. I have no idea what anniversary you are referring to and don't really care. You obviously are perturbed that I asked for a source. You should have just stuck with the "I've got a book to write and plane to catch so look it up yourself" response.

It's boring.

Not half as boring as your drivel.

And do you really think that your particular reading of Marvin Hill's particular reading of an aspect of the story truly represents (and exhausts) "the historical record"? That's simply laughable.

I really don't. If he's got it wrong or you have something you want to bring to light feel free to share.

[gtaggart]

Can't let the day pass without a thanks to brother Joseph on the anniversary of his martyrdom. Praise to the man! Indeed.

[Daniel Peterson]

the vast majority of people . . . rightly saw Smith as the source of the problems

How fitting and appropriate it is that, on the anniversary of the murder of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, Gervin endorses the cause of the murderers.

***

From Donna Hill, Joseph Smith: The First Mormon (New York: Doubleday, 1977), 420:

For a while the citizens of Hancock County were subdued in shock and fear, and the Mormons devastated by grief. However, if the assassins thought they would cause the disintegration of the Mormon Church by killing the leaders, they soon discovered their mistake. The Mormons now had a martyr to their cause. Instead of weakening, they grew stronger. Their faith was confirmed, their zeal increased and so did their numbers. Converts continued to pour into Nauvoo, which by now had a population of about 15,000, and there were members in nearby villages and settlements. The neighbors' fear and envy of the Mormons was only dormant, the lull in hostilities temporary.

In July 1844 [the murder of Joseph and Hyrum was carried out on 27 June], a delegation went to Governor Ford to petition that he expel the Mormons. Of this, Ford wrote, "It seemed that it had never occurred to these gentlemen that I had no power to expel a citizen."

Obviously, as Gervin says, the mobbers' problem was only with Joseph Smith. Once he was gone, all was sweetness, tolerance, and love. There was no hostility toward Mormonism or Mormons in general, just a justified grievance against Joseph.

Incidentally, Donna Hill, who allegedly wrote Joseph Smith: The First Mormon, was the sister of Professor Marvin Hill. She never published anything else on Mormon history, before or afterwards, and it is generally suspected among the cognoscenti that he was the real author of the book.

I thought you were seriously suggesting this was prophecy fulfilled.

I seriously suggested that Moroni's prophecy that Joseph's name would be known around the world has been fulfilled. I think that quite obvious and undeniable.

your drivel.

What a peach of a fellow you are.