Joseph Smith Died In A "shoot-out"

[HanClinto]

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

Nice try, but not quite. They actually used His claiming to be the Christ as blasphemy, and the final reason why they put Him to death:

Matthew 26:63-66

63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.

64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

65 Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.

66 What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.

--clint

[bluebell]

Not really.

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

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

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

This phrase is used once in the bible and it is in description of the Savior, who DID know that He was going to be killed.

How can you reconcile the use of the term in the bible with what you've said about about what the phrase is supposed to mean?

Right now-your definition of the phrase does not make any sense when compared to the definition in the bible (which definition JS would have been using).

[bluebell]

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

You do realize that they had ALREADY surrendered, right?

That's why they were in jail. How much more can one surrender than that?

[HanClinto]

You do realize that they had ALREADY surrendered, right?

That's why they were in jail. How much more can one surrender than that?

They had surrendered to the jailers, not to the mob.

--clint

[LifeOnaPlate]

Good! Jesus also rebuked that apostle for the action.

Matthew 26:51-54

Is this a serious question, or sarcasm?

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

--clint

Even if I agreed with you, how does this make Joseph Smith not a martyr?

[LifeOnaPlate]

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

Hyrum was shot in the face, the death mask alone would show you that, other than all eyewitness accounts.

[Avatar4321]

They had surrendered to the jailers, not to the mob.

--clint

There really wasnt any difference between the mob and the jailers

[KingZedekiah]

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

No Jesus was tried before Pontius Pilate for treason. The Jews said he claimed to be "King of the Jews". It had nothing to do with breaking Jewish law. The Lawyers of the Sanhedrin and followed him and documented his every word trying to find a reason to have him tried by the Romans. The Jews with a Roman Governor could not have tried Jesus and taken his life. The Jews didn't have that liberty under the Romans.

[LifeOnaPlate]

They had surrendered to the jailers, not to the mob.

--clint

Right, surrendering to the mob would have prevented the martyrdom, or earned him a title as martyr. Oh wait, dying at the hands of the mob already did that.

[mledbetter]

Nice try, but not quite. They actually used His claiming to be the Christ as blasphemy, and the final reason why they put Him to death:

Matthew 26:63-66

--clint

Quoting the Bible is nice, but if you go and actually read some history of the time you will recognize that what Jesus did in the Temple was a serious breach in Jewish law. Most historians agree that this event was what gave the Sanhedrin the excuse they needed to arrest him, and it's what most likely led the Romans to put him to death. The Romans were very touchy about people stirring up the Jewish passions.

Because of this, Jesus was certainly causing enough of a fuss to be considered a criminal according the Roman law, also. The Romans wouldn't have put Jesus to death for simply stating he was the Son of God. They needed a little bit more to go on before they were ready to do anything to make the Sanhedrin happy. These two groups generally didn't get along very well and the Romans were rarely in a rush to do them any favors.

[bluebell]

I respectfully stand my ground:

Jeremiah 11:19:

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

Jeremiah was not 'slaughtered' though, because the Lord revealed to him the plots of the people in question.

Regardless though-as it stands, your definition of the phrase is no more valid than mine is-both can be supported by scriptures with equal validity.

Since the ground you are standing on is basically, 'your definition of the phrase is wrong and mine is right' i would say that it's a pretty shaky place to be.

[bluebell]

They had surrendered to the jailers, not to the mob.

--clint

What do you think the mob would have done if JS had surrendered? Let all the witnesses to their illegal actions live after they had murdered JS?

[KingZedekiah]

Hyrum was shot in the face, the death mask alone would show you that, other than all eyewitness accounts.

As recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 135:1â??6, John Taylor, while serving as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, wrote: â??To seal the testimony of this book and the Book of Mormon, we announce the martyrdom of Joseph Smith the Prophet, and Hyrum Smith the Patriarch. They were shot in Carthage jail, on the 27th of June, 1844, about five oâ??clock p.m., by an armed mobâ??painted blackâ??of from 150 to 200 persons. Hyrum was shot first and fell calmly, exclaiming: I am a dead man!

[Buckeye]

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

The mob was after one thing only - Joseph. That is why when Joseph fell through the window, the mob on the stairs left the building to pursue him. They were not interested in Taylor and Richards.

Also, the mob was distinct from the jailers, who were there under the authority of the State of Illinois. The jailers did not participate. Realizing they were outnumbered (I think there were less than 10) and had no way to prevent the mob action, they simply stepped aside. Had there been more jailers (the protection promised by Governor Ford), the situation may have been different.

[mledbetter]

No Jesus was tried before Pontius Pilate for treason. The Jews said he claimed to be "King of the Jews". It had nothing to do with breaking Jewish law. The Lawyers of the Sanhedrin and followed him and documented his every word trying to find a reason to have him tried by the Romans. The Jews with a Roman Governor could not have tried Jesus and taken his life. The Jews didn't have that liberty under the Romans.

Yes, that was a major part of it, I agree, and used as the corroborating evidence against him. However, his act in the Temple is what most historians believe was the final breach that gave the Jews the evidence they needed to send Jesus to the Romans for death. Pilot couldn't care less if Jesus was declaring himself King of the Jews. Most likely, as far as he was concerned, Jesus was another religious nut of the time, which is probably why he gave the Jeww the option to release him or the criminal Barabas. It shows that 1) he wasn't in a hurry to make the Sanhedrin happy. 2) He didn't take their claims seriously. 3) He didn't really care if Jesus thought he was the Kind of the Jews.

This is what I've read of the history of the time. I don't really care about your quotes from the Bible.

[KingZedekiah]

Quoting the Bible is nice, but if you go and actually read some history of the time you will recognize that what Jesus did in the Temple was a serious breach in Jewish law. Most historians agree that this event was what gave the Sanhedrin the excuse they needed to arrest him, and it's what most likely led the Romans to put him to death. The Romans were very touchy about people stirring up the Jewish passions.

Because of this, Jesus was certainly causing enough of a fuss to be considered a criminal according the Roman law, also. The Romans wouldn't have put Jesus to death for simply stating he was the Son of God. They needed a little bit more to go on before they were ready to do anything to make the Sanhedrin happy. These two groups generally didn't get along very well and the Romans were rarely in a rush to do them any favors.

Could you point me to a reference about this theory? I've never heard that Jesus action in the Temple was the reason for his arrest, trial, and death. The Bible certainly doesn't bring that past action up in connection with his arrest, trial and death. Why would it take so long after the action for him to be arrested?

[KingZedekiah]

Yes, that was a major part of it, I agree, and used as the corroborating evidence against him. However, his act in the Temple is what most historians believe was the final breach that gave the Jews the evidence they needed to send Jesus to the Romans for death. Pilot couldn't care less if Jesus was declaring himself King of the Jews. Most likely, as far as he was concerned, Jesus was another religious nut of the time, which is probably why he gave the Jeww the option to release him or the criminal Barabas. It shows that 1) he wasn't in a hurry to make the Sanhedrin happy. 2) He didn't take their claims seriously. 3) He didn't really care if Jesus thought he was the Kind of the Jews.

This is what I've read of the history of the time. I don't really care about your quotes from the Bible.

Wouldn't the triumphant entry (Palm Sunday) into Jerusalem as a "King" riding a donkey with all the people hailing him be more damning than simple act of chasing money changers out of the temple courtyard?

[oats]

I can't wait for the day that the history becomes so distorted that it is claimed the mob killed Joseph in self defense, because he was shooting at them.

[LifeOnaPlate]

As recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 135:1â??6, John Taylor, while serving as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, wrote: â??To seal the testimony of this book and the Book of Mormon, we announce the martyrdom of Joseph Smith the Prophet, and Hyrum Smith the Patriarch. They were shot in Carthage jail, on the 27th of June, 1844, about five oâ??clock p.m., by an armed mobâ??painted blackâ??of from 150 to 200 persons. Hyrum was shot first and fell calmly, exclaiming: I am a dead man!

Exactly. This says nothing about being shot in the chest; he was shot in the nose. As John Taylor explained:

While in this position, the mob, who had come upstairs and tried to open the door, probably thought it was locked and fired a ball through the keyhole. At this Dr. Richards and Brother Hyrum leaped back from the door, with their faces towards it. Almost instantly another ball passed through the panel of the door, and struck Brother Hyrum on the left side of the nose, entering his face and head. At the same instant, another ball from outside entered his back, passing through his body and striking his watch. The ball came from the back, through the jail window, opposite the door, and must, from its range, have been fired from the Carthage Greys, who were placed there ostensibly for our protection, as the balls from the firearms, shot close by the jail, would have entered the ceiling, we being in the second story, and there never was a time after that when Hyrum could have received the latter wound. Immediately, when the ball struck him, he fell flat on his back, crying as he fell, "I am a dead man!" He never moved afterwards. (DHC, 7:99-108.)

[KingZedekiah]

Exactly. This says nothing about being shot in the chest; he was shot in the nose. As John Taylor explained:

Sounds like he was shot in the head AND the chest. Shot from the back going through his body and hitting his pocket watch is awfully close to the chest, IMO. Most any shot in the face a fairly close range and the ball entering the head would kill instantly. When would he have the opportunity to exclaim, "I am a dead man?"

[mledbetter]

Wouldn't the triumphant entry (Palm Sunday) into Jerusalem as a "King" riding a donkey with all the people hailing him be more damning than simple act of chasing money changers out of the temple courtyard?

Only if the Romans considered it a serious threat. Up until this point he was most likely viewed by the Roman authorities as being a thorn in the side of the Jewish Religious Hierarchy. You have to remember that the Romans didn't like the Jews and especially their Religious Hierarchy. They were certainly nervous about another seemingly insurrection, but they also enjoyed watching the Sanhedrin squirm. His second outburst in the Temple was the evidence the Sanhedrin needed to go to the Roman Authorities and say, "Here, now you see that he isn't just a threat to our religious hierarchy, but to our civil laws and general public order, as well." His first outburst certainly caused a great stir, but his popularity and Messiahship wasn't so well known this first time or the Sanhedrin didn't view him to be the threat that they now viewed him to be.

[Mudcat]

Only if the Romans considered it a serious threat. Up until this point he was most likely viewed by the Roman authorities as being a thorn in the side of the Jewish Religious Hierarchy. You have to remember that the Romans didn't like the Jews and especially their Religious Hierarchy. They were certainly nervous about another seemingly insurrection, but they also enjoyed watching the Sanhedrin squirm. His second outburst in the Temple was the evidence the Sanhedrin needed to go to the Roman Authorities and say, "Here, now you see that he isn't just a threat to our religious hierarchy, but to our civil laws and general public order, as well." His first outburst certainly caused a great stir, but his popularity and Messiahship wasn't so well known this first time or the Sanhedrin didn't view him to be the threat that they now viewed him to be.

wake me up when we get back on topic

[mledbetter]

wake me up when we get back on topic

Sure, here's me getting back on topic. According to the Romans and the Jews and their collective laws, Jesus was a convicted criminal. That negates any argument that Joseph wasn't a martyr because he was a convicted criminal.

[emeliza]

Sounds like he was shot in the head AND the chest. Shot from the back going through his body and hitting his pocket watch is awfully close to the chest, IMO. Most any shot in the face a fairly close range and the ball entering the head would kill instantly. When would he have the opportunity to exclaim, "I am a dead man?"

Are you actually stating you don't believe he was shot in the face?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Sounds like he was shot in the head AND the chest. Shot from the back going through his body and hitting his pocket watch is awfully close to the chest, IMO. Most any shot in the face a fairly close range and the ball entering the head would kill instantly. When would he have the opportunity to exclaim, "I am a dead man?"

He wasn't shot point blank with an Uzi, for Pete's sake, the ball passed from an old rifle through a solid wooden door, and to my knowledge didn't make it all the way through Hyrum's head. It is perfectly possible that he could make such an utterance.