Joseph Smith Died In A "shoot-out"

[Zakuska]

Hmmm...I see someone has stirred up the pack.

Well.....

Because JS wasn't defending the Saviour. Peter was.

Are we comparing JS to the Saviour, if so, you need to prove a solid case that Christ would have fired a revolver on a mob or armed men that were going to kill him.

If you're comparing JS to Peter....whats the point. They were both men.

Well first off... no one is comparing JS to the Savior. Thats a favorite Evangelical pass time. (Remember the Baggy brigade?)

Second Christ did use a wip on a mob of unarmed men.

[truebeliever]

Well first off... no one is comparing JS to the Savior. Thats a favorite Evangelical pass time. (Remember the Baggy brigade?)

Second Christ did use a wip on a mob of unarmed men.

Not during the time that he was being led to the slaughter.

And to imply that Jesus would have actually hit them...hmmm...don't think so

[Zakuska]

No his hench men took care of it for him.

PS... He did hit them...

John 2

13

[Mudcat]

Well first off... no one is comparing JS to the Savior. <snip>

Second Christ did use a wip on a mob of unarmed men.

First....thank you for clearing that up. Im glad no one puts JS, Peter, Paul or Mary on the same pedestal as Jesus.

Second...would you say that it was Christ's intent to kill anyone in the Temple. Are you privy to some report that I am unaware of, that he even struck a man.

John 2:15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;

By your statement in the second....Christ used a whip

You are contradicting the first.... no one is comparing JS to the Saviour.

If that was the case...then why are you using the Saviour's actions to justify those of Joseph Smith.

[Zakuska]

Again who is "justify" anything?

Im comparing the use of weapons in self defense, The savior used a whip, Peter used a sword that the Savior put in his hand. And who knows what methods Peter and Paul used on the unfortunate Ananaias couple who went into tithting settlement and came out in a body bag!

[Mudcat]

Again who is "justify" anything?

Im comparing the use of weapons in self defense, The savior used a whip, Peter used a sword that the Savior put in his hand. And who knows what methods Peter and Paul used on the unfortunate Ananaias couple who went into tithting settlement and came out in a body bag!

How do you see Jesus actions in the temple as self defense?

[consiglieri]

How do you see Jesus actions in the temple as self defense?

Good morning, Mudcat.

I agree with you that this has gotten a bit off topic, and that there is no need to try to compare Joseph Smith with Jesus Christ. Of course, if others wish to do so, that is there prerogative, and who am I to say nay?

On a related point, there is a small though unsubstantive irony in your position that Jesus would not harm a fly, and the quote from The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe that graces your signature.

If you quote it, I take it you agree with it.

How is it, precisely, that you feel Aslan is "not safe"?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[HanClinto]

I agree with you that this has gotten a bit off topic, and that there is no need to try to compare Joseph Smith with Jesus Christ. Of course, if others wish to do so, that is there prerogative, and who am I to say nay?

I'm not interested in comparing the murders of Joseph and Jesus any more than Joseph said I should. Should I perhaps take my question into a new thread then? Or is this question close enough to the original that you'd like the discussion to continue here?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Consig,

I thought the jail-keeper gave him the gun because he knew what was going to happen. Am I wrong?

PacMan

Cyrus Wheelock, a Latter-day Saint Saint, smuggled the weapon in.

[Mudcat]

Good morning, Mudcat.

I agree with you that this has gotten a bit off topic, and that there is no need to try to compare Joseph Smith with Jesus Christ. Of course, if others wish to do so, that is there prerogative, and who am I to say nay?

On a related point, there is a small though unsubstantive irony in your position that Jesus would not harm a fly, and the quote from The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe that graces your signature.

If you quote it, I take it you agree with it.

How is it, precisely, that you feel Aslan is "not safe"?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Good morning, Consiglieri

Re...Aslan not being safe. To not be safe...is be dangerous. His dangerousness (I dont know it that is a word) was realative to your position towards him (his goodness). To those that followed him, he was their strongest ally after all he gave his life for those that followed him. To those that followed the Witch, he was their most feared (and rightfully so) enemy. There was a point, before he died, where he let out a fierce roar that caused even the witch to cower in fear of him. However, just how dangerous he could be towards his enemies was much more heavily manifested upon his return than prior to his death.

If I implied Christ was harmless, I mispoke. He wasn't then. He isn't now. He challenged gangs of Pharisees (intellectually), started a religous revolt that still goes on today, rebuked Satan face to face, hurled demons out of men and cleared out the Temple with a handful of rope..to mention a few. These things...to me were his "roar".

The scripture doesn't say if he did or did not strike people in the Temple. I don't want to make assumptions either way. However, I would think the sheer sight of our Lord wielding a scourge, the anger on his face, the strength of his words... would in and of itself be such a magnificintly fearsome thing to witness. I believe the sheer sight of him in that way would cause men to run.

Have Great Day,

Mudcat

[Zakuska]

The only thing we have to fear is fear itsself.

--???

[Scott Lloyd]

HanClinto to Mormon Mason:

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.

I now see more clearly than ever the problem HanClinto has in grasping the martyrhood of Joseph Smith. It would appear HanClinto is willfully or neglectfully ignorant about the early history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Saints.

The mob-engendered strife in Missouri and Illinois was not a war between Mormons and everyone else. It was, rather, a general and sustained outpouring of oppression and persecution upon the Mormons. Quite simply, the mobbers hated the Mormons. They hated them for their New England mannerisms and ways. They hated the Mormons for being non-slaveholders. They hated them for their strict observance of the Sabbath and other commandments of God. They hated them for the Mormons' social, political and religious cohesiveness. They hated the Mormons for their industry and material success. Most of all the mobs hated the Mormons for their religious faith and unusual doctrines.

Like a vicious cancer, this hatred grew until the mobs would not be satisfied with anything less than the death of Joseph Smith and the dissolution of the Church and would stop at nothing to see those things carried out.

The die was long since cast when the mobbers with faces painted black to hide their identity stormed the jail at Carthage, overcame the token resistance from the militia guard and murdered in cold blood Joseph Smith and his brother.

As for HanClinto "accepting [our] viewpoint," I don't think any of us have entertained the fantasy that such a thing would happen. People who come on boards such as this one and argue that Joseph Smith was not truly a martyr because his behavior didn't conform in every particular to some arbitrarily selected set of criteria are not in a frame of mind to be persuaded otherwise. They are pre-conditioned to view Joseph in a bad light, and no amount of reasoning will change their minds.

The best one can hope for is that their arguments will be shown to be with merit and validity. I feel we have done that, as we have shown that Joseph fits the clearest definition of a martyr in that he refused to renounce his beliefs as a condition for being allowed to remain alive.

[Mudcat]

The best one can hope for is that their arguments will be shown to be with merit and validity. I feel we have done that, as we have shown that Joseph fits the clearest definition of a martyr in that he refused to renounce his beliefs as a condition for being allowed to remain alive.

Yeah..this thing seems to be winding down...

But...I had an interesting thought..while we've all been hashing it out.

Was JS's death a good thing for the LDS church? I mean was it actually timely?

I know that sounds a little crazy....but here is the premise.

Lets say he went on through the Rockies and didn't return at Emma's behest.

As much enmity as their was towards JS...would it have been likely that he would have been hunted down, in force. If he had been caught by heavily armed men in the mountains...it would be very likely that the situation could have become a massacre that would have eliminated not just the JS...but many others that were key in Mormon leadership.

Anyways....just a thought

What do ya think?

[RubyHunter]

No reasonable person would look at one man shooting back at two hundred people shooting at him, and accuse him of "striking out in an act of vengance" [sic.] The accusation is ridiculous and desperate. To anyone who does not hate the doomed man, his actions are clearly self-defense and nothing else.

Your real beef in all this is that you are an anti-Mormon, and can't stand the thought that a religion you despise should have authentic Christian martyrs for its cause.

The fact is that nothing Joseph did in Carthage Jail that day was anything other than reasonable and just. And the fact that the proto-CARMites who murdered him and his brother--and against whom he defended himself and his friends--were your kind of "Christians" does nothing to diminish the morality of his actions.

Regards,

Pahoran

I'm not quite to the end of this thread, but I wanted to interupt where I was at and say this to you Pahoran...

THANK YOU!

I couldn't agree with you more.

In fact, im thinking part of that is going into my sig.

[Scott Lloyd]

Yeah..this thing seems to be winding down...

But...I had an interesting thought..while we've all been hashing it out.

Was JS's death a good thing for the LDS church? I mean was it actually timely?

I know that sounds a little crazy....but here is the premise.

Lets say he went on through the Rockies and didn't return at Emma's behest.

As much enmity as their was towards JS...would it have been likely that he would have been hunted down, in force. If he had been caught by heavily armed men in the mountains...it would be very likely that the situation could have become a massacre that would have eliminated not just the JS...but many others that were key in Mormon leadership.

Anyways....just a thought

What do ya think?

Hmm. Hard to say.

I started to say that Brigam Young and the Saints would soon have joined him in a trek to the Rocky Mountains, as plans were already being formulated for that in any case, and the enemies, relieved to have the Mormons out of their hair, would have left them alone.

But then I remember that they were determined to finish the Nauvoo Temple before they left, even though they knew they would immediately abandon it. It's quite obvious they believed that, to sustain them in the exodus, they needed the spiritual fortitude that would come from being endowed in the temple.

[HanClinto]

It would appear HanClinto is willfully or neglectfully ignorant about the early history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Saints.

I don't deny any amount of ignorance I may have. I've said it before, and I can only wearily state it again that I appreciate any grace you can give me, as I've only recently really dug in to learn about Mormonism. It's like you refuse to consider the possibility that I might be who I say I am. Go ahead, Google my name. It's not hard to find my sourceforge page, my personal homepage, other boards I admin, or even my Wikipedia contributions. Heck, I'm pretty sure you could find my full real name and my home address with only a few clicks. Why do you refuse to accept the possibility that I might be who I say I am, and that I really am new to this whole thing? Amazon shopping lists aren't public, but if they were, you could Google that too and see that I've spent about a hundred dollars in the past couple of months buying Mormon books to read, both Pro and Anti LDS. We recently returned a stack of books to the library, which included non-Mo biographies like No Man Knows My History, but also pro-Mo like Rough Stone Rolling. I've only been at this for a few months, so no, I haven't read them all, but I'm doing my best. Why can't anyone cut me a little slack for being new here? As I've said before, I'm new to this, I'm learning, and I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong when shown. Why isn't that good enough for you, and why must you accuse me of intellectual character issues without even considering that I might be "ignorant" for a reason other than "neglect" or flat-out "willful" blindness?

They hated them for their strict observance of the Sabbath and other commandments of God.

More strict than the Puritans of that and of the preceding years? It's not like Mormons were the only strict sabbaterians or teetotalers of the age and area, and certainly not the first. Whether you're doing so intentionally or not, you're painting a picture as if the Mormons were the only people of the day who cared about doing things like strictly observing the Sabbath. I'm not very well read on the subject, the niggling thing that's making me question your starkly-contrasted painting is my readings in the Laura Ingalls autobiography. I'm remembering a humorous story in Farmer Boy regarding Almanzo's father riding on a sled on Sunday when they weren't supposed to, and how they were caught in a fiasco involving a squealing pig -- the picture of sabbaterianism in that biography is presented as if it was a common practice and perspective in those days, at least in what I vaguely remember was New York state. The rest of the Little House books seem to show that Puritan ideals certainly came with the pioneers as they migrated, before and after the Civil War. I'm not very well read on the subject of the spread of Puritan ideals in and through early America, but I can't help feeling like you're painting a somewhat dramatized picture of their piety vs. the entire rest of America.

The best one can hope for is that their arguments will be shown to be with merit and validity.

Great -- you and I totally line up on this point as to what apologetics should accomplish.

I feel we have done that, as we have shown that Joseph fits the clearest definition of a martyr in that he refused to renounce his beliefs as a condition for being allowed to remain alive.

...and here I can't help feeling like I lost you again. Why do you keep setting up this straw man? I'm trying to stay cool and collected, but I'm getting somewhat exasperated here. I've corrected misunderstandings about this issue to people in this thread no less than 4 times (1, 2, 3, 4) that I'm not taking any issue with the martyr term. I believe I stated quite clearly:

I may not realize all of the implications, but for the record, I don't have any more of a problem calling Joseph Smith a martyr than I do of calling Husayn or Ghandi martyrs as well.

So why do you (and others) keep bringing this up? It's like I'm talking to a brick wall. If I can say in very clear words multiple times that I'm fine with calling JS a martyr, yet people repeatedly accuse me of dogmatically advocating the exact opposite, I begin to wonder if there is any hope of communication on this board at all, or I'm just wasting my effort?

I'm doing my best to try to respectfully and accurately summarize the different pro-Mo viewpoints... and in response I'm accused of being closed minded, and I'm mocked for supposedly not thinking about the issues raised.

Something to think about, is it not? Of will you not think about it at all and continue to insist what you do for your own amusement?

In this simple statement, MM is jeering and asking if I will continue to be unthinking and trying to close my eyes and ears simply for my own amusement, when I've spent a considerable chunk of text and thought into honestly trying to clarify and catalog what others are saying so that I could see where they were coming from and keep all of the different viewpoints straight.

I feel like I'm putting out more than my share of effort to understand where "you all" are coming from, but if I have to make the same correction about the "martyr" term 5 times in the same thread, what am I supposed to think? I can only assume that, indeed as has been said before, that my non-Mo opinion does not matter, and, going further, that I am unneeded/unwanted baggage here. Although I'm an amateur, I've done my best to be kind, respectful, rational, polite, and in full compliance with the rules of the board. I'm certainly non-Mo, but I'm a far stretch from a rabid anti-Mo that you all are so overly defensive against. So why the suspicion and hostility? I wasn't wasting words when I honestly asked:

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!

There's been another round of replies to my last big post, so I'll probably at least try to give replies when requested, but it may suffice to say that I'm simply growing weary of this. I came here to augment the discussion that I've been having with my local LDS missionaries (visiting with us almost weekly for the past 3 months or so), but I'm not sure this is the place to get straight answers either.

Perhaps I'm still not clear on what "apologetics" means in this context.

--clint

Edit: With regards to the ad hominems, maybe I just need to get used to it and grow some thicker skin. "to his own master he standeth or falleth"

[Scott Lloyd]

More strict than the Puritans of that and of the preceding years? It's not like Mormons were the only strict sabbaterians or teetotalers of the age and area, and certainly not the first. Whether you're doing so intentionally or not, you're painting a picture as if the Mormons were the only people of the day who cared about doing things like strictly observing the Sabbath. I'm not very well read on the subject, the niggling thing that's making me question your starkly-contrasted painting is my readings in the Laura Ingalls autobiography. I'm remembering a humorous story in Farmer Boy regarding Almanzo's father riding on a sled on Sunday when they weren't supposed to, and how they were caught in a fiasco involving a squealing pig -- the picture of sabbaterianism in that biography is presented as if it was a common practice and perspective in those days, at least in what I vaguely remember was New York state. The rest of the Little House books seem to show that Puritan ideals certainly came with the pioneers as they migrated, before and after the Civil War. I'm not very well read on the subject of the spread of Puritan ideals in and through early America, but I can't help feeling like you're painting a somewhat dramatized picture of their piety vs. the entire rest of America.

Instead of relying on idealized novels, perhaps you should read some history. I recommend Kenneth Winn. He is a non-Mormon author/historian and the current Missouri State archivist. Read what he has to say about the cultural clash between western Missouri's "old settlers" and the Mormons in the 1830s. Western Illinois was not a whole lot different, as it was just across the Mississippi River from Missouri, and both were at what was then the edge of frontier America.

[HanClinto]

Instead of relying on idealized novels

I'm talking about the autobiography, not the fictional TV show. Regardless, thanks for the recommendation.

I don't doubt that there was a cultural clash, I'm just saying you seem to make it sound like Puritan sabbaterianism didn't exist.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm talking about the autobiography, not the fictional TV show.

My understanding is that the "Little House" books were a novelized rendition of Laura Ingalls' girlhood, much as Tom Sawyer was a fictional treatment based on Samuel Clemens' boyhood in Hannibal, Mo.

Novels are, by nature, idealized for entertainment value, even when based on true stories.

I don't doubt that there was a cultural clash, I'm just saying you seem to make it sound like Puritan sabbaterianism didn't exist.

On the contrary: I said Mormons were largely New Englanders, didn't I?

[HanClinto]

My understanding is that the "Little House" books were a novelized rendition of Laura Ingalls' girlhood, much as Tom Sawyer was a fictional treatment based on Samuel Clemens' boyhood in Hannibal, Mo.

Novels are, by nature, idealized for entertainment value, even when based on true stories.

Okay, I can see that. I guess I was operating that even though the Little House books had a decent bit of historical fiction in them, that they were still reasonably representative of the culture in which people of that era and area lived. I'm not sure I'd want to juxtapose them so closely so as to reduce them to the fictional level of Tom Sawyer, but I think I see what you're saying.

On the contrary: I said Mormons were largely New Englanders, didn't I?

Yes, though perhaps this quote from the end of page 4 in the introduction of Kenneth Winn's Exiles in a land of liberty might help.

For various reasons, scholars, who can agree upon little else, have magnified Mormonism's exceptionalism -- sometimes to emphasize its specialness as a religion, at other times to characterize it as an oddity of antebellum social disorder. Many of these historians reason that Mormonism, with its novel doctrines and dissent from mainstream religions, must have represented an idealogical counterculture subversive to a larger society. If not, why did it attract such brutal violence?

Sadly, page 5 is not part of Google Books, and it's not available in Amazon's "Search Inside" feature, so I haven't yet seen Kenneth's answer to his own question. Perhaps this "magnification of Mormonism's exceptionalism" is what I'm bucking against so much as a historical neophyte, but I'll try to consider it.

Thanks!

--clint

[LifeOnaPlate]

Sadly, page 5 is not part of Google Books, and it's not available in Amazon's "Search Inside" feature, so I haven't yet seen Kenneth's answer to his own question. Perhaps this "magnification of Mormonism's exceptionalism" is what I'm bucking against so much as a historical neophyte, but I'll try to consider it.

One of the things Joseph Smith did was a certain revision regarding traditional dualism; that God is wholly "other," and the affairs of men were in a completely different realm; the sacred vs. the profane. JS blurred these boundaries, and taught a religion that included very temporal ideals along with spiritual doctrines. This is important to keep in mind because it lends a lot to the reasoning behind Mormonisms opposition.

[HanClinto]

One of the things Joseph Smith did was a certain revision regarding traditional dualism; that God is wholly "other," and the affairs of men were in a completely different realm; the sacred vs. the profane. JS blurred these boundaries, and taught a religion that included very temporal ideals along with spiritual doctrines. This is important to keep in mind because it lends a lot to the reasoning behind Mormonisms opposition.

Good point. Just a small comment to build on what you're saying (not a rebuttal) -- to say that the King Follet Discourse merely "blurs" the traditionally-held boundaries seems bordering on severe understatement. Joseph indeed was right when he said orthodox Christianity would "account it blasphemy" to say even a small number of the doctrines that Joseph piles on in that sermon, on top of him saying that all the other theologians are unlearned, unsaved fools. Yes, I can see how that could bring quite a bit of opposition.

Indeed, it was sermons like the King Follet Discourse that gave me quite a bit of shock as to what it is that Mormonism historically (and currently?) teaches, whereas before I had only been exposed to Orson Scott Card's watered-down Mormonism, where he doesn't seem to believe in the PoGP or the traditional views of Eternal Progression (sidenote: I was amazed that such high-profile views are approved of in the LDS without incurring discipline). That's one reason why I'm focusing so much on people's personal apologetic beliefs on here, because I'm trying to get inside the current Mormon mindset. I can read historical sermons and doctrinal statements, but it's another thing entirely to try to understand what it means to be an eyes-open Mormon in today's culture.

Thanks for the help! If people are interested in talking more about this (I know I am), perhaps it would be best to start a new thread?

--clint

Edit P.S. to Scott: Looking back over this page, I think I see more of what I took issue with in your statement in post #287. You stated that the mobs hated the Mormons for a number of things that I would have thought were common in that area. You said that they were hated for being New Englanders -- they certainly weren't the only New Englanders moving west at that time. You said they were hated for being sabbaterians -- that's what I originally bucked against -- from what little I know of history, I thought it safe to say that Puritanism was widespread at that time and in that region. You said they were hated for being successful -- I can't imagine they were the only rich or productive people in the area. It was frustrating for me to read your list of reasons, because it felt like you were saying that the Mormons were hated for being fairly normal people. I recognize that the Mormons were indeed hated, but I can't help feeling that things like the King Follet Discourse would do more to engender hostilities than simply wanting to rest on Sunday. It felt like you left out some very key parts, while amplifying some minor ones, and that's why I bucked. Though perhaps I'm mistaken about all of this, and I just need to go read more Kenneth Winn.

[Scott Lloyd]

Edit P.S. to Scott: Looking back over this page, I think I see more of what I took issue with in your statement in post #287. You stated that the mobs hated the Mormons for a number of things that I would have thought were common in that area.

I think the list of factors I gave is pretty much undisputed among professional historians, Winn among others.

You said that they were hated for being New Englanders -- they certainly weren't the only New Englanders moving west at that time.

No, but we're talking about a specific region of the frontier, i.e. northwestern Missouri and later western Illinois. Settlers came largely from the South. The slavery issue was a major factor, though the Mormons were at pains not to appear to be imposing abolitionism upon their neighbors. In northwestern Missouri, the "old settlers" tended to be less educated, less literate, more disposed to what were traditionally regarded as vices, such as gambling, drinking and brawling. After the Mormons were driven out, the Missourians in later years continued a tradition of violence in border wars with Kansas residents over slavery and abolitionism.

You said they were hated for being sabbaterians -- that's what I originally bucked against -- from what little I know of history, I thought it safe to say that Puritanism was widespread at that time and in that region. You said they were hated for being successful -- I can't imagine they were the only rich or productive people in the area. It was frustrating for me to read your list of reasons, because it felt like you were saying that the Mormons were hated for being fairly normal people.

That's pretty much the case, which makes the offenses of the mobs all the more egregious.

I recognize that the Mormons were indeed hated, but I can't help feeling that things like the King Follet Discourse would do more to engender hostilities than simply wanting to rest on Sunday. It felt like you left out some very key parts, while amplifying some minor ones, and that's why I bucked. Though perhaps I'm mistaken about all of this, and I just need to go read more Kenneth Winn.

I said they were hated mostly for their religious beliefs.

Please tell me you're not implying that unusual theological views are a justifiable excuse for the burning, looting, plundering, rapes, murders, assaults, dispossession of property and wholesale deprivation of human and Constitutional rights to which the Mormons were subjected in northern Missouri and western Illinois in the 1830s and 40s.

[Pahoran]

I recognize that the Mormons were indeed hated, but I can't help feeling that things like the King Follet Discourse would do more to engender hostilities than simply wanting to rest on Sunday. It felt like you left out some very key parts, while amplifying some minor ones, and that's why I bucked. Though perhaps I'm mistaken about all of this, and I just need to go read more Kenneth Winn.

It would have been remarkably prescient for the Missourians to have hated the Saints for the KFD, which was delivered years later in Nauvoo.

(Still bigoted, of course, but prescient with it.)

Regards,

Pahoran

[Zakuska]

How do you see Jesus actions in the temple as self defense?

More like ... self-offense.