Joseph Smith Died In A "shoot-out"

[Ihearya]

For someone so great, so intelligent and so inspired, what a bad way to go. Yet, most of the original prophets and apostles died horrible deaths. Joseph Smith was also young. What was the mob so angry about to the point of wanting to kill him like that?

If you look at the life of the Savior, he too was shunned by a large mob of evil doers who made fun of Him, tortured him and laughed when he was crucified. I think it's just people being evil. Even today, if we didn't have certain laws to protect one another, I wouldn't doubt that a mob could easily lynch and kill someone in public if given a chance. Some people are just plain evil looking for an opportunity to act out their hatred.

Case example: the people against the British teacher. All because of some stupid teddy bear naming.

Any doubt that crowd would lynch and kill that teacher if given a chance?

I have no doubt that they would.

[Lachonius]

He calmly walked to the door and stuck his arm out the door and started firing blindly. There was no "I'm goin' to die anyway so I'm going to take out as many of them with me as I can" heroics there in this case. Fact is, he did not die in a "shoot-out" as has been claimed. The "shoot-out" was over nearly fifteen minutes and at least ten minutes before his death. In all scenarios, no matter where the disagreement elsewhere in the combined testimony, he died outside the prison, unarmed and defenseless, helpless, and quietly. He died as a martyr in the fullest sense. End of story.

I remember Truman Madsen quoting, I believe it was John Taylor, that Joseph indeed moved calmly toward the window, and also that the window was not large enough for a running leap or daring escape, but that Joseph would have had to climb out deliberately. I went away with the impression that he saw his friends' lives in danger because of him, and he would sacrifice himself rather than prolong their danger.

[mnn727]

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?

They are all martyrs for their causes, I have no problem defining them as such, do you?

As to whether their cause is/was 'just' is a whole 'nother discussion

[mnn727]

But since Joseph's actions that precipitated the event, namely the destruction of the Nauvoo press was illegal,

Actually, no it was not illegal, it was done strictly under the law granted the Nauvoo Charter by the State.

[rameumptom]

I remember Truman Madsen quoting, I believe it was John Taylor, that Joseph indeed moved calmly toward the window, and also that the window was not large enough for a running leap or daring escape, but that Joseph would have had to climb out deliberately. I went away with the impression that he saw his friends' lives in danger because of him, and he would sacrifice himself rather than prolong their danger.

And don't forget, there were somewhere between one and two hundred attackers. Only a handful were on the stairs. I seriously doubt jumping out the window would have allowed an escape. Rather it was probably done as an attempt to draw the fire away from his friends, which it did. Once he had fallen out the window, all the attackers left, allowing Willard Richards to escape with the seriously wounded John Taylor.

[Daniel Peterson]

Bottom line: Yes, it was a "shoot out" or a "gunfight" in the minimalist sense that both sides fired guns.

It's not the denotation of shoot out or gunfight to which I object. Technically, it's accurate. And I certainly don't think that Joseph's use of a gun was wrong, nor that it means he can't be regarded as a martyr.

However, in my experience with them (which is, sadly, considerable, over decades) critics of Joseph Smith don't describe the events at Carthage as a "shoot out" or a "gunfight" merely in order to say that guns were used on both sides. They are relying not so much on the denotation of those words as on the connotation, which seems to imply rough equality of force between the sides (e.g., "the gunfight at the OK Corral") and, very possibly, even rough moral parity between them.

But there was nothing like an equality of force. The mob was many times more numerous than the four targeted men in that little jail, and the cane and the two primitive little pistols possessed by Richards, Taylor, and the Smiths come nowhere near balancing the weapons controlled by the mob.

Shoot out and gunfight also connote rough equality of initiative. Both the Clancys and the Earps (with Doc Holladay) were intending a gun battle. The Clancys had promised one, and the Earps and Doc Holladay went to the OK Corral to give the Clancys what the Clancys wanted. But the four Mormons at Carthage Jail didn't go there for a fight. They didn't want a fight. The initiative was all that of the mob, which had carefully planned the whole undertaking downriver at Warsaw and was simply carrying out its plan.

Imagine a situation in which, say, fifty commandos from the organization calling itself "Al-Qaâ??ida in Iraq" assault the home of a small-town mayor in the southern part of the country. The mayor has an old World War Two vintage pistol, and, in a desperate bid to protect his own life and the lives of his wife and two daughters, he manages to fire that pistol several times before the family is killed in a hail of machine gun fire and grenades. Would it be even remotely enough, even if technically true, to say simply that the family were killed in the course of a "gunfight"?

To say, without careful explanation, that Joseph and his brother died in a "gunfight" in Carthage, Illinois, obscures the fact that they died, badly outnumbered, under a preplanned assault from a homicidal mob with painted faces while under the promise of protection from the state of Illinois. That is deeply misleading, and such mischaracterization ought to be resisted when it occurs.

[HanClinto]

Wow, a lot of replies since I went away for the weekend. I haven't had much Internet access, and I'd be inclined to let a sleeping dog lie (I thought I had done a decent job of wrapping up things from my perspective), but there are a couple of loose ends. I don't need to have the last word, I just want to be given a chance to fully explain myself.

At the risk of venturing into very sensitive and, in fact, offensive territory, perhaps an analogous story will help to express my revulsion at the way some anti-Mormons seek to revise history with regard to the murder of Joseph and Hyrum at Carthage Jail:

Melissa is walking to the bus stop from work, heading home, when she's accosted by an assailant and raped.

Suppose some well known and very righteous Evangelical is sitting at home with his family and all of a sudden he is attacked by a mob of crazy anti-Christians who attack him and his family simply because they are offended by his beliefs and teachings.

1. Should he defend his family or should he just let the Antis have they way with his family after he exposes his bare chest to the mob so they can have a clear shot at him? what should he do?

2. If he defends his family and resists the mob, should he be considered a martyr or should he be denied this title because he simply defended his family like the Lord would probably wanted him to do?

Or, consistent with how HanClinto thinks things should have gone re: Joseph and his brethren, should our hypothetical Evangelical step outside the house and give himself up to the mob, trusting that they will leave his family alone?

This is a bit of a strawman argument, and the problem with this line of thinking is that this hypothetical evangelical didn't set expectations by prophesying about his or her own death.

Please understand -- I would normally have no beef with the idea of Joseph Smith defending his friends, looking out for his friends, and doing things that any reasonable human being would do. The main thrust of my posts has always been about his prophecy, never about his human-nature.

Clint's argument appears to be that Joseph Smith didn't die in the specific manner Christ did. We already agree with you, Clint. Case closed. The case of Joseph the martyr is hereby closed, thus sayeth me.

I'm very glad that we agree on this point, LoaP, but I can't help feeling your pronouncement of closure is a bit lacking -- you're trying to finish the issue without commenting on whether or not Joseph Smith should have died more like Christ.

Though I don't suppose we'll get very far on that one -- it will likely be largely dependent on whether or not you're predisposed to believing that Joseph Smith was a prophet or not.

The only reason why I have been placing such "unreasonable" demands on the prophet is because he claimed to be exactly that -- a prophet, seer and revelator. As a seeker of Truth, it's my responsibility to examine things with both eyes open, and that's all I'm trying to do. Which brings us to Daniel Peterson's post:

It is, in my view, simply disgusting for you and others on this thread to insinuate that, well, Joseph really brought it on himself, that he may have been lusting in an unchristlike way after vengeance, that he doesn't really deserve the title of martyr, that it would be pure speculation to suppose that he might have been seeking to defend his brother and his innocent friends, that he could have done this better, that he should have done that, that it would be mere speculation to imagine that Joseph had any redeeming qualities on that day.

Anti-Mormons murdered Joseph and Hyrum. Period.

It's repulsive, now, to see some critics seek to murder their reputation, even as regards that day. It would be fitting and proper for you to express your abhorrence of that act of double homicide and attempted double homicide and then to fall silent. As it is, instead, you seek to denigrate the behavior of its victims.

Please believe me, I'm attempting to deal with this situation calmly, rationally, and with respect. I'm not attempting to sling mud or "murder" the reputation of Joseph Smith. I'm merely looking at the facts at hand, trying to apply a consistent hermeneutic to the similar prophecies of Joseph Smith and of Jesus, and rationally examine the situation.

I think defending friends and family is a good thing?

It is indeed! Defending family and friends is fine, but not at the expense of breaking prophecy.

So just to clarify, here's a rough stab at summing up the question I'm trying to examine:

In what way did the death of Joseph Smith fulfill the Christ-paralleled prophecy of D&C 135, regarding Smith going "like a lamb to the slaughter"

As far as people willing to meet that question head-on (of how Joseph fulfilled the expectation he put on himself), the only one I've seen do it thus far has been MormonMason, who, since my last reply, has repeatedly asked me to address his comments.

And you keep ignoring what also has been said about the way in which he actually died. He did not die in a gun battle. After the three shots it was over. Joseph Smith, knowing it would save the others, went to the window and jumped. He sat outside, quiet and defenseless, and was shot to death where he sat. What he did before in the jail is irrelevant. At both his personal surrender to authorities and at the time of his actual death, he was calm and quiet, and unarmed. He died as a martyr. End of story.

And, none of the above changes the fact that Joseph Smith was NOT killed in a "shoot-out" as claimed by the quote in the original post. He jumped the window and afterward was shot to death, unarmed, without a fight, while sitting there quietly. He died a martyr in the fullest sense. Evangelicals seem to like to ignore these facts.

But, none of this changes the fact that Joseph Smith did not die during a "shoot-out." That ended after his shots were spent. He jumped out the window. Then, he died outside, being shot to death while he was sitting there quietly, unarmed. That makes him a martyr in the fullest sense and that is how he died--quietly and unarmed. And, he did it for his beliefs. That especially makes him a martyr in the fullest sense.

The evidence that is there from several outside and out of the range of full vision of those inside the jail is that Joseph Smith's life was ended outside on the ground, perjuries in some of the courtroom testimony notwithstanding. In either case, Joseph and Hyrum Smith died as a martyr just as some of those in Foxe's Book of the Martyrs did. He was a martyr. End of story.

Sorry, I don't mean to "keep ignoring" your comments, but I haven't been on the boards much over the weekend.

So to sum up your case, it sounds like you're based on the premise that:

A ) Some of the people who testified about Joseph's death committed perjury (I don't know as much about this as you do, I'm just bringing this up because you did), and that Joseph did in fact not die at the window as is sometimes believed based on their false testimony.

And your synopsis of events would go like:

B ) After briefly discouraging the doorway attack, JS discarded his weapon, went to the window, gave the Masonic sign of distress, it failed, he was wounded, captured, and thereby made helpless.

C ) After his capture, he was propped up on the ground, and then executed via firing squad

Which brings us to your conclusion:

D ) Because Joseph Smith was unarmed, injured, and otherwise helpless at the time of his murder, that he was killed as a lamb, and in this way he fulfilled the prophecy of D&C 135.

I hope that sums it up well?

I think I see what you're saying here, and it's a bit tough for me. The issues that I see with it are:

A ) It is critically dependent on the veracity of the accounts that say Joseph Smith died at the window.

B ) It sounds as if the capture-and-execution of anyone fleeing or fighting would qualify them as being killed as a lamb to the slaughter (such as Saddam Hussein, or Ted Bundy).

The only other apologist response I've heard regarding D&C 135 has been that Joseph Smith fulfilled the prophecy on the way to his death, but that once he arrived at the jail, he was free from the Christ-like expectations he put on himself, and so was free to take a pistol and use it with force. With both eyes open, I feel this one falls down in hermeneutics, and it makes the intent of two parallel prophecies have fundamentally different thrusts and conclusions.

Does that about sum it up? Was there an apologist response that I missed?

One potential apologist response that I've alluded to myself is that perhaps I'm expecting too much of the prophet. Even though Joseph Smith made a prophecy that likened his death to Christ's, he can't be expected to fulfill them in a way even remotely similar to Christ, because he was completely human, and he wasn't as in control or as informed about his death as Christ was, and so couldn't be expected to completely fulfill the prophecy in the way that we might expect.

So to sum up the various apologist responses to answer my question, the options are:

A (MormonMason's "captured death == lamb")

B (lamblike on journey, not in death)

C (My suggested "too human to fulfill completely")

D (other)

I'm curious to know how many (and which) apologists on here favor each option.

Thanks!

--clint

P.S. I hope I'm not too out of line trying to do (admittedly amateur) rational apologetics discussion on here? If there's a better board or mailing list for doing Mormon apologetics, I'd be interested in knowing the link. Thanks!

[urroner]

So just to clarify, here's a rough stab at summing up the question I'm trying to examine:

In what way did the death of Joseph Smith fulfill the Christ-paralleled prophecy of D&C 135, regarding Smith going "like a lamb to the slaughter"

Have you ever seen a lamb being led to the slaughter? I have, I use to work in a slaughter house in Utah. The lamb goes peacefully, but once the lamb realizes that its life in endangered, it fights like the ****ens. "Like a lamb to the slaughter" doesn't mean that some resistance will not be incurred along the way.

Joseph Smith went to Carthage Jail peacefully like a lamb to the slaughter would, but he put up a fight when he realized his life was endangered, just like a lamb would.

[cdowis]

(D) The word "lamb" indicates innocence.

This innocent man, a prophet of the Lord, was killed in cold blood by a howling mob bent on his destruction. He was not protected by the state, and the mob itself gave him no opportunity to escape or otherwise protect himself. They waited until he was locked up with no means of escape.

Your personal opinion of this matter is of little interest to me. Self-defense does not nullify his innocence.

[HanClinto]

Have you ever seen a lamb being led to the slaughter? I have, I use to work in a slaughter house in Utah. The lamb goes peacefully, but once the lamb realizes that its life in endangered, it fights like the ****ens. "Like a lamb to the slaughter" doesn't mean that some resistance will not be incurred along the way.

Joseph Smith went to Carthage Jail peacefully like a lamb to the slaughter would, but he put up a fight when he realized his life was endangered, just like a lamb would.

Ah, thanks -- I forgot about this one. Scott Lloyd presented this one back on page 8, to which I replied:

And to this, I respectfully submit that Joseph's prophecy drew closer parallels to Christ than to livestock. When he made the prophecy, he used the same wording in a similar situation as Christ's. Please understand -- Joseph drew the parallel that said he should act like Christ -- I'm just pointing it out.

So Urroner, could I summarize that as:

E (Smith's prophecy referenced livestock more than Christ)

?

[consiglieri]

I personally have no problem with the fact that Joseph Smith did not go out without trying to defend himself and/or his friends from the armed mob on the stairway outside the door.

I am not really hearing anybody on this board take issue with it particularly.

The issue now seems to be an assumption that if Jesus Christ were in that situation, he would have not used the revolver in his possession (or would not have taken the revolver in the first place).

This is purely speculative, of course. I tend to think that if Jesus were an early 19th century American in Joseph Smith's shoes, he may well have acted similarly.

Granted that in the gospels that made it into the Bible, Jesus never retaliated physically against any of his enemies--just against an otherwise innocent fig tree that didn't have any figs when Jesus was hungry; and for this Jesus killed the tree. Although not in the Bible, it appears that many early Christians had no problem accepting the many instances of physical (albeit divine) retaliation Jesus did to his enemies as recorded in the Infancy Gospels.

But even if we assume that Jesus Christ would not have defended himself or his followers from an armed mob, I still don't have a problem with what Joseph Smith did.

Contrary to popular opinion, Mormons do not view Joseph Smith on an equal plane with the Savior, nor do we believe there is any salvific effect in Joseph Smith's death.

It is only in and through the blood of Jesus Christ that we are saved.

Jesus Christ. Not Joseph Smith.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[HanClinto]

(D) The word "lamb" indicates innocence.

Thanks for the answer! I didn't even think about this answer, but I can see how it would make sense. The biggest question I would have for someone holding this view was if that's the extent to which the prophecy applied in Christ's case as well? It seems as though it meant much more than just innocence in the instance of Christ, and so to hold your option D, we would need to divorce the parallels more than I'm hermeneutically comfortable with.

Your personal opinion of this matter is of little interest to me.

That's sad that respect and interest would be a one-way street. I guess this is the sort of thing where I was wondering if I was out of line trying to do discussion on here.

[HanClinto]

The issue now seems to be an assumption that if Jesus Christ were in that situation, he would have not used the revolver in his possession (or would not have taken the revolver in the first place).

Well, it's more than just using the revolver. Would Jesus have taken the revolver? He may have -- he told Peter to bring a sword. Would Jesus have used the weapon? From the gospel accounts we have, it seems that he rebuked Peter for doing so, so if we trust the gospel accounts on this point, it seems that he wouldn't. Would Jesus have called for help (the Masonic distress call that MormonMason has alluded to several times)? It seems that he made it clear that he could have called for help from at least 12 legions of angels should he desire it, but he instead he let himself be led away.

So it's a bit deeper than the simple firing of the pistols, and while there weren't Masonic lodges back then (so we can't have perfect parallels), it is a handful of data points that we can look at and consider beyond mere speculation.

But even if we assume that Jesus Christ would not have defended himself or his followers from an armed mob, I still don't have a problem with what Joseph Smith did.

Contrary to popular opinion, Mormons do not view Joseph Smith on an equal plane with the Savior, nor do we believe there is any salvific effect in Joseph Smith's death.

I hope I'm clear on this point -- I'm not looking for any parallels between Joseph and Jesus other than those that Joseph drew himself in D&C 135. I'm just trying to examine what those parallels were meant to be, and how they're played out, and (to apologetically satisfy the non-Mo perspective) if they're consistent.

Thanks for your kind and thoughtful reply!

[Zakuska]

Well, it's more than just using the revolver. Would Jesus have taken the revolver? He may have -- he told Peter to bring a sword. Would Jesus have used the weapon? From the gospel accounts we have, it seems that he rebuked Peter for doing so, so if we trust the gospel accounts on this point, it seems that he wouldn't. Would Jesus have called for help (the Masonic distress call that MormonMason has alluded to several times)? It seems that he made it clear that he could have called for help from at least 12 legions of angels should he desire it, but he instead he let himself be led away.

I don't think we can come to that conclusion...

First he told Peter to bring it. Then when Peter asked him what he wanted him to do with it... he remained silent... (Or at least the text does). What body language was involved there... that lead Peter to believe he should use it?

The words Christ uses... depending on which translation you consult... doesn't necessarily equate to a rebuke. It was just enough to fuffill the prophecy. "Counted among the transgressors".

[Scott Lloyd]

Ah, thanks -- I forgot about this one. Scott Lloyd presented this one back on page 8, to which I replied:

So Urroner, could I summarize that as:

E (Smith's prophecy referenced livestock more than Christ)

?

It is your own unfounded supposition that Joseph, by invoking the well-known Biblical phrase "like a lamb to the slaughter," intended to compare himself in every particular to Christ. The expression could be viewed, in a general sense, to apply to all prophets, apostles and righteous followers of Christ through the ages who have endured persecution and suffered death for the gospel's sake. Paul, for example, did not accept death passively but appears to have exhausted every legal avenue in resisting it. Yet Paul, like Joseph Smith, was a martyr because he refused to renounce his convictions as a condition for being allowed to live.

It is true that "like a lamb to the slaughter" is applied in a Messianic prophecy in Isaiah. But in Jeremiah 11:19, the phrase seems to apply to a prophet of God who is the victim of persecution and deceit, such as was Joseph Smith. To wit:

But I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter; and I knew not that they had devised devices against me, saying, Let us destroy the tree with the fruit thereof, and let us cut him off from the land of the living, that his name may be no more remembered.

Your snide comment about livestock notwithstanding, you are clearly stretching the simile beyond its clear application, that being one who is at the mercy of oppressors and thus whose prospects for survival are utterly hopeless. This applies to Christ, surely, but it also applies to his servants through the ages who have suffered death for the sake of the gospel, in whatever circumstances they found themselves.

[cdowis]

Thanks for the answer! I didn't even think about this answer, but I can see how it would make sense. The biggest question I would have for someone holding this view was if that's the extent to which the prophecy applied in Christ's case as well? It seems as though it meant much more than just innocence in the instance of Christ, and so to hold your option D, we would need to divorce the parallels more than I'm hermeneutically comfortable with.

There is no comparison, at any level, between the death of the Messiah, his atoning sacrifice, and the martyrdom of JS, one of many of His messengers.

There is no parallel at all. This is pure sophistry.

[Scott Lloyd]

There is no comparison, at any level, between the death of the Messiah, his atoning sacrifice, and the martyrdom of JS, one of many of His messengers.

There is no parallel at all. This is pure sophistry.

Sophistry that ignores an alternate application of the "lamb to the slaughter" imagery, such as in Jeremiah 11:19 (see my previous post).

In fact, unlike the passage in Isaiah, the Jeremiah passage fits Joseph Smith to a T. It is uncanny how well it fits!

Once again, here it is:

But I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter; and I knew not that they had devised devices against me, saying, Let us destroy the tree with the fruit thereof, and let us cut him off from the land of the living, that his name may be no more remembered.

[Mudcat]

I don't think we can come to that conclusion...

First he told Peter to bring it. Then when Peter asked him what he wanted him to do with it... he remained silent... (Or at least the text does). What body language was involved there... that lead Peter to believe he should use it?

The words Christ uses... depending on which translation you consult... doesn't necessarily equate to a rebuke. It was just enough to fuffill the prophecy. "Counted among the transgressors".

I think the reason the apostles were armed was not so that Peter could cut a guys ear off.

If that was the case...then Christ wouldn't have healed the wounded man.

It is much more likely that presence of those armaments were a deterent to the opposing force, so that Christ would not be seized prematurely...how many OT prophecies would not have been fullfilled by Jesus had he been taken at that point?

Peter took liberty with the weapon...and it was never implied in Scripture that Christ wanted him to use it.

However, perhaps EV's do unfairly hold JS to the standard of Christ (I am an EV that has done so) on his use of the revolver (and for the record I don't believe Christ would have fired randomly into a mob of armed men with a revolver). JS was just a man after all (like you or me)...not the only begotten Son of God. To hold him to such a comparison would be like a sinful man casting the first stone at another.

[Scott Lloyd]

JS was just a man after all (like you or me)...not the only begotten Son of God. To hold him to such a comparison would be like a sinful man casting the first stone at another.

Correction: Joseph was a far better man than any of his critics, Evangelical or otherwise.

And an apt comparison would be to liken him to the prophets and apostles through the ages who have suffered persecution and death for the sake of the gospel.

[MormonMason]

Yes, some of the witnesses at the trial perjured themselves. Did you expect otherwise? Several eyewitnesses who were there but not at the trial also either saw him sit up before the mob shot again or saw him sitting up and assumed he had done it himself when the mob fired again. Seeing the window of the jail it is highly unlikely that Joseph Smith merely fell out of the window when he allegedly died. He was witnessed to dangle out of the window for a few seconds during a pause in the firing when the mob was busy running back outside at the cry that he had jumped the window. Some but not all eyewitnesses then recounted that the shooting began again once he was outside. Those of the mob who were indicted and who were there for trial perjured themselves in claiming that he was already dead and fell out the window, and that there were no more shots fired. Either way, he was not involved in a gun-fight when he died. He was defenseless and unarmed when he was shot to death outside the window. Whether he was killed while hanging on the windowsill or after he was propped up and shot again after jumping or falling to the ground, he was unarmed and did not fight back, being killed outside of the jail. Either way we have it, he still died as a martyr. End of story.

[HanClinto]

Thanks for the replies, Zakuska, Scott, cdowis, Mudcat, and MM.

I don't think we can come to that conclusion...

First he told Peter to bring it. Then when Peter asked him what he wanted him to do with it... he remained silent... (Or at least the text does). What body language was involved there... that lead Peter to believe he should use it?

The words Christ uses... depending on which translation you consult... doesn't necessarily equate to a rebuke. It was just enough to fuffill the prophecy. "Counted among the transgressors".

Good points Zakuska -- I think you may have a better handle on this than I do, and I'm inclined to agree with you on this point. Thanks for the correction!

It is your own unfounded supposition that Joseph, by invoking the well-known Biblical phrase "like a lamb to the slaughter," intended to compare himself in every particular to Christ.

Please understand me, I in no way am implying "every particular" -- I don't believe I ever said that.

Perhaps a more fundamental question that would help you and I line up is to first establish "In what ways is Isaiah fulfilled in Christ's actions?"

If there is a connection between D&C 135 and Isaiah 53 (as the footnotes, not only me, suggest), then I'm then asking which similarities (if any) could we expect to find in the fulfillments. That is all. I'm in no way expecting *every* particular -- for you to say that is kindof strawman-ish.

It is true that "like a lamb to the slaughter" is applied in a Messianic prophecy in Isaiah. But in Jeremiah 11:19, the phrase seems to apply to a prophet of God who is the victim of persecution and deceit, such as was Joseph Smith. To wit:

Your snide comment about livestock notwithstanding, you are clearly stretching the simile beyond its clear application, that being one who is at the mercy of oppressors and thus whose prospects for survival are utterly hopeless. This applies to Christ, surely, but it also applies to his servants through the ages who have suffered death for the sake of the gospel, in whatever circumstances they found themselves.

I used the "livestock" word to clarify what you all were saying, because the "lamb" word is heavily laden with imagery. It is not meant as a snide personal insult, it is meant to be accurately descriptive. I'm sorry you feel that I'm attacking you -- I can assure you, that despite repeated provokings by Mormons in this crowd, I'm doing my best to remain cool, collected, and respectful. If you feel I have insulted you, then please let me know how, and I will either explain or apologize.

Back to the discussion, am I doing you a disservice to sum up your view as saying:

There are no direct parallels between Isaiah 53 and D&C 135, but instead the parallel is to be drawn from D&C 135 to Jeremiah 11. As such, it only draws similarities between Jeremiah's ignorance of plots and the mob plot against Joseph Smith, and does not make any statements about his demeanor or actions.

...is that accurate?

I can see value in a line of thinking like that. In the text itself, I see closer parallels to Isaiah than to Jeremiah, though I could perhaps be swayed to rest in this answer were I a TBM. Thanks for the insight into your thinking -- it is appreciated.

Assuming that there are intended connections between Isaiah and D&C 135, we'll agree that Joseph did not mean to compare himself in every particular to Christ. I'm just asking "in which particulars did he intend the prophetic parallels to be understood?"

You seem to be saying that your answer would be "None", in which case the questions I ask to cdowis would apply to you as well.

There is no comparison, at any level, between the death of the Messiah, his atoning sacrifice, and the martyrdom of JS, one of many of His messengers.

There is no parallel at all. This is pure sophistry.

No parallel? Please don't take this as an insultingly-simple question, but I'm curious then to know if you consider the D&C footnotes to be overly presumptuous when 2 of the 3 crossreferences refer to Christ? It's not meant as a rhetorical question -- I'm just curious to know if that's what you think about the scriptural link between the two murders. It seems so obvious to me with a plain reading, I didn't quite follow how you managed to so easily dismiss my question as sophistry. Yes, the deaths accomplished different things, but I fail to see how that makes a difference -- I'm not looking at the meaning of the death. I'm merely looking at the prophecies surrounding each of the murders, and trying to identify and examine the parallels that seem to plainly exist (the theories as to which form they take seem to be widely varied).

However, perhaps EV's do unfairly hold JS to the standard of Christ... <snip> ...JS was just a man after all (like you or me)...not the only begotten Son of God. To hold him to such a comparison would be like a sinful man casting the first stone at another.

Thanks for your answer, Mudcat. Is this then a vote for option C? (that there are parallels, but that JS was never expected to fulfill them all due to him being a normal human)

Yes, some of the witnesses at the trial perjured themselves. Did you expect otherwise?

Thanks for the reply, MormonMason. I don't know that I would "expect" otherwise -- to consider them lying is certainly not surprising, and I don't doubt the plausibility of such a thing happening. However, even to convicted murderers, I don't accuse people of felonies willy-nilly. Yes, they were already murderers, and inclined to crime, so we need to take such a willingness into account, but I'm just trying to be aware of the things we need to assume in order to hold each of the views I'm trying to catalog.

Either way, he was not involved in a gun-fight when he died. He was defenseless and unarmed when he was shot to death outside the window. Whether he was killed while hanging on the windowsill or after he was propped up and shot again after jumping or falling to the ground, he was unarmed and did not fight back, being killed outside of the jail. Either way we have it, he still died as a martyr. End of story.

Again, I feel compelled to state that I'm not arguing the martyr term.

As far as it being "end of story", I'd appreciate you commenting on the other points I raised regarding your conclusion. No offense, but you make it sound like anyone who fights, flees, is captured, and executed can be said to be killed as a defenseless "lamb to the slaughter" because their ammo is spent and they are injured past running.

That's still one of the biggest issues I have with accepting your viewpoint.

Thanks all for the discussion! I appreciate you helping me understand where you're all coming from, and how different Mormons think about this subject.

--clint

[Scott Lloyd]

Back to the discussion, am I doing you a disservice to sum up your view as saying:

There are no direct parallels between Isaiah 53 and D&C 135, but instead the parallel is to be drawn from D&C 135 to Jeremiah 11. As such, it only draws similarities between Jeremiah's ignorance of plots and the mob plot against Joseph Smith, and does not make any statements about his demeanor or actions.

...is that accurate?

I can see value in a line of thinking like that. In the text itself, I see closer parallels to Isaiah than to Jeremiah, though I could perhaps be swayed to rest in this answer were I a TBM. Thanks for the insight into your thinking -- it is appreciated.

Maybe it is your use of the cliche term "TBM," but I perceive a patronizing tone in your reply. But in the interest of furthering the discussion, I will lay that aside for now.

Here are additional instances in the Bible where the expression "lamb to the slaughter" (or some variation thereof) is used with a non-Messianic application:

Psalm 44:22 (cross reference with Romans 8:36):

Yea, for thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are counted as sheep for the slaughter.

Proverbs 7:22:

He goeth after her straightway, as an ox goeth to the slaughter, or as a fool to the correction of the stocks.

The point, of course, is that the presence of these passages undermines your contention that Joseph, in applying the "lamb to the slaughter" expression to himself was necessarily comparing himself to Christ to the extent that one must hold him to the standard of facing death in the precise manner that Christ did.

Assuming that there are intended connections between Isaiah and D&C 135, we'll agree that Joseph did not mean to compare himself in every particular to Christ. I'm just asking "in which particulars did he intend the prophetic parallels to be understood?"

You seem to be saying that your answer would be "None", in which case the questions I ask to cdowis would apply to you as well.

No parallel? Please don't take this as an insultingly-simple question, but I'm curious then to know if you consider the D&C footnotes to be overly presumptuous when 2 of the 3 crossreferences refer to Christ? It's not meant as a rhetorical question -- I'm just curious to know if that's what you think about the scriptural link between the two murders. It seems so obvious to me with a plain reading, I didn't quite follow how you managed to so easily dismiss my question as sophistry. Yes, the deaths accomplished different things, but I fail to see how that makes a difference -- I'm not looking at the meaning of the death. I'm merely looking at the prophecies surrounding each of the murders, and trying to identify and examine the parallels that seem to plainly exist (the theories as to which form they take seem to be widely varied).

As for the compilers of the footnotes in the current LDS editions of the scriptures, they are not here for me to question, so I cannot tell you their thinking as to this particular footnote.

With that said, I would acknowledge that there are similarities between the circumstances of Christ's and Josephs respective deaths. You apparently failed to catch it, but I have already alluded to similarities; let me now spell it out:

Both Christ and Joseph were compelled to suffer persecution and death for the sake of the truth. Both submitted to their legal captors, Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane and Joseph to the authorities at Carthage. Like an animal in a slaughterhouse, each was utterly devoid of any earthly chance for survival. And each refused to renounce his convictions as a condition for being allowed to remain alive, and in that, each became a martyr for the truth. Those characteristics they share with gospel martyrs through the ages.

Thus, it is not inappropriate for a footnote in D&C 135 to cross-reference to the Isaiah passage. I've never maintained that it is. I only say it is inappropriate for you to insist that Joseph, having invoked the "lamb to the slaughter" imagery, must necessarily be expected to have faced death in precisely the same way that Jesus did. With all due respect, I have to say that is an absurd assumption.

Take another look at Proverbs 44:22, quoted above. Wouldn't you say that has rather universal application to all gospel martyrs, not just Jesus, whether or not they accepted death passively, as you insist Joseph should have done?

[Mudcat]

Thanks for your answer, Mudcat. Is this then a vote for option C? (that there are parallels, but that JS was never expected to fulfill them all due to him being a normal human)

--clint

HanClinto,

At the risk of offending many (and I probably will) I do not believe that JS was a prophet. Therefore, I have no expectation of the fulfillment of his "lamb to the slaughter" prophecy. The argument is rellavant only if he is a prophet.

For the record...prophets were people to....after all didn't Moses murder in anger and didn't he break God's law (The Tablets) in anger. I don't hold prophets (in their actions) to the standard of Christ either. However, I have alway believed in their prophecies and writtings, they were the mouth of God...so that would put their "prophetic" words on the same plane as words for Christ himself. So, I suppose their is a prophetic double standard I've held, between their actions and when God has spoken through them.

[captain-jack]

HanClinto,

At the risk of offending many (and I probably will) I do not believe that JS was a prophet. Therefore, I have no expectation of the fulfillment of his "lamb to the slaughter" prophecy. The argument is rellavant only if he is a prophet.

For the record...prophets were people to....after all didn't Moses murder in anger and didn't he break God's law (The Tablets) in anger. I don't hold prophets (in their actions) to the standard of Christ either. However, I have alway believed in their prophecies and writtings, they were the mouth of God...so that would put their "prophetic" words on the same plane as words for Christ himself. So, I suppose their is a prophetic double standard I've held, between their actions and when God has spoken through them.

I have to agree with that, Prophets are human and subject to being sinners. Even the Apostles of Christ would lash out in anger and violence against others, and deny Him.

[Pahoran]

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.

That's completely false, and you fabricated it out of whole cloth.

The lamb is indeed most likely ignorant of its fate, which then explains why it goes along "as peacefully as a lamb."

The real import of "like a lamb to the slaughter" is that the lamb simply doesn't stand a chance; the outcome is a foregone conclusion. Thus, in time of war, a small force of armed and trained soldiers may be ordered to hold a defensive position against an overwhelming enemy force, and their commander may subsequently be accused of sending them "like lambs to the slaughter" or offering them up as "sacrificial lambs;" this happened a number of times during the American Civil War, and this verbiage was used of such actions by people who were contemporaries of Joseph Smith. This despite the fact that the forlorn hope certainly fought, and many times gave a good account of themselves.

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.

Yes it does.

No wonder "jaybear" has become a metaphor for what you do. How much more brazenly counterfactual could you get?

Regards,

Pahoran