Joseph Smith Died In A "shoot-out"

[HanClinto]

Was Peter in danger on this occasion? The scriptures don't say so. Why didn't the soldiers kill him after such an overtly violent act? What do think Christ would have done had they tried?

The scriptures don't implicitly say so, but from context it seems a reasonable conclusion that Peter felt he was in enough danger that he felt that he had to try to take a swipe at someone else's head in self defense.

They also felt that they were in enough danger that to a man, they fled the scene.

So no, the scriptures don't say so explicitly, but it seems clear from context.

[cdowis]

It is clear from this thread that the antimormons have succeeded in convincing some people that Joseph Smith instigated the mob attack, and brought upon himself his own death.

He got what he deserved.

[LifeOnaPlate]

You're leaving out the part where he kicked the hornet nest by emptying a revolver hopelessly into a charging mob.

Odd, he kicked a hornets nest, rather than swatting at hornets who had already killed his beloved brother.

[HanClinto]

Let's not be ridiculous.

Anyone with an agrarian background will attest that animals, when they have the sense that they are in danger, are anything but passive. The die is cast for the lamb going to the slaughter, but that doesn't mean the lamb is passive during the procedure.

The insistence of the critics on this thread that he did not go as a lamb to the slaughter betrays an abysmal lack of understanding of what exactly that means.

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.

If anything, Joseph's resistance devolves to the further condemnation of the mobbers who murdered him, as they had to try that much harder to carry out their evil deed.

I think I'd agree with this.

[alter idem]

I answered this earlier, when Bluebell asked the same question.

I replied:

I imagine if he had surrendered himself that he would have been killed as a lamb to the slaughter, either via lynching or firing squad. As far as his friends, I imagine things would have worked out similarly to the way it did, though if JS had been a little more preemptive in surrendering himself, his brother might not have been killed in the scuffle (if indeed the mob was only after Joseph).

I'm sorry but this is getting ridiculous. He did surrender! You just won't let up--you won't admit that your comment about "kicking a hornets nest" was completely wrong and now you are even trying to lay the blame for Hyrum's death on Joseph.

They were in custody--having voluntarily placed themselves there. They were murdered by a mob in a despicable manner. They deserved a fair trial and protection from lunatics while awaiting trial. They are not to blame for the mob's vicious actions. They shouldn't be criticized for trying to defend themselves against a bunch of murderers.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I answered this earlier, when Bluebell asked the same question.

I replied:

I fail to see how that is answer for JS kicking the nest wich you asserted. Just admit that you are wrong on that point and we can proceed.

It is clear from this thread that the antimormons have succeeded in convincing some people that Joseph Smith instigated the mob attack, and brought upon himself his own death.

He got what he deserved.

I guess CHirst did then too.

[HanClinto]

It is clear from this thread that the antimormons have succeeded in convincing some people that Joseph Smith instigated the mob attack, and brought upon himself his own death.

He got what he deserved.

Odd, he kicked a hornets nest, rather than swatting at hornets who had already killed his beloved brother.

Wow, it seems I indeed stirred up a hornets' nest of my own when I chose what's obviously a poor analogy.

If I can have a bit of grace, I think I'd like to clarify and say that what I intended to convey with my analogy was only in the context of showing the futility and desperation of Joseph's actions, something more akin to throwing rocks at a hornet's nest after they're already charging you, or perhaps spitting water in the face of an angry, charging bear. That's the context that I said the original quote in, I in no way am implying that Joseph stirred up the attack against himself. Sorry for the miscommunication, but if you doubt my honesty, please go back and read the post where the quote came from. That's all I meant.

[mledbetter]

The Bible is common ground between Mormons and Christians (as far as using it, not in interpretation obviously). However within every group you will get someone who thinks a bit differently than the 'norm'.

Heaven forbid. :-)

Considering who later controled what went into and became part of the bible, I have good reason NOT to trust it completely.

[Daniel Peterson]

If I can have a bit of grace, I think I'd like to clarify and say that what I intended to convey with my analogy was only in the context of showing the futility and desperation of Joseph's actions, something more akin to throwing rocks at a hornet's nest after they're already charging you, or perhaps spitting water in the face of an angry, charging bear.

The analogies don't work.

Firing bullets at on-coming would-be murderers has often appeared to have a deterrent effect, whereas throwing rocks at an empty hornet's nest (empty because the hornets are already coming at you) and spitting into the face of a charging bear would be self-evidently pointless.

[MormonMason]

...

I replied:

QUOTE(HanClinto @ Nov 30 2007, 04:35 PM)

I imagine if he had surrendered himself that he would have been killed as a lamb to the slaughter, either via lynching or firing squad. As far as his friends, I imagine things would have worked out similarly to the way it did, though if JS had been a little more preemptive in surrendering himself, his brother might not have been killed in the scuffle (if indeed the mob was only after Joseph).

This does not really answer the question. The scuffle started when they fired into the door and hit Hyrum. After that Joseph Smith began firing into the crowd with his arm outside the door. This held them back for a few seconds but when they began firing again and came back up the stairs, Joseph Smith gave the sign of distress and leapt from the window to the outside. This immediately had the effect of the mob going outside. Joseph Smith then sat there outside and let them shoot him to death. He died NOT from a gun battle but from being shot to death outside the jail in a defenseless state. He did not attempt to run. He did not fight back at that moment. He sat there and was shot to death, completely defenseless. He died as a martyr. End of story.

[HanClinto]

Thanks for the replies, all. Apologies if I'm too slow in replying -- I'm doing my best, but I think I'm going to have to go in a bit.

They were in custody--having voluntarily placed themselves there. They were murdered by a mob in a despicable manner. They deserved a fair trial and protection from lunatics while awaiting trial. They are not to blame for the mob's vicious actions. They shouldn't be criticized for trying to defend themselves against a bunch of murderers.

Just to lay out our common ground, I believe we're all agreed on the following:

A ) Joseph & Co. surrendered to the jailers.

B ) The jailers were not enough to defend Joseph & Co. from the mob, and so stood aside.

C ) The mob was a separate entity from the jailers.

D ) Joseph & Co. attempted to bar the door against the mob (clearly signifying that they were surrendered only to the jailers, and not to the mob).

I don't criticize anyone for defending themselves against attacks -- I think that's perfectly fine and reasonable for the average person to do. I'm only saying that Joseph Smith set higher expectations of himself when he drew parallels between the attitude of his death and of Jesus'.

It's been stated that Joseph fulfilled his prophecy only in the *way* that he went to the jail, but that when the mob approached, he was clear from the expectation that he put on himself. I see that, and I suppose if I were Mormon, that's probably the thing that I would have to believe in order to have rest in my mind. Looking just at the text though, and starting with the attitude and actions of Jesus in Gethsemane, the parallels just don't seem to line up enough for me to feel that Joseph acted how we should expect him to have.

[maklelan]

You're right -- I worded it insufficiently. He dropped the hammer on all 6 cylinders, but only 3 of them discharged properly.

I suppose just firing once and then dropping the gun would be permissible, but firing all the shots is downright barbaric.

If you care to know, I merely meant "hopeless" in the sense that he was acting in a last-ditch "Alamo" style Hail-Mary last-stand, rather than waving a white flag of surrender rather than barring the door and trying to hold them off as long as possible.

So the fact that he emptied his revolver is really meaningless and had no "kicking the hornet's nest" effect, since it was a last ditch effort to abate what was already inevitable. I see.

It may have been effective in slowing them down for a little bit -- I can't help feeling that it was equally or more effective in causing the mob to increase their volley of fire.

How restrained do you think these kinds of mobs are that they can hear a couple of shots whiz by and say, "OK, now I'm upset." They were an angry mob bent on murder. That doesn't leave much room for elevating the tension.

Re: instigation -- I recognize that Joseph probably didn't fire the first shot -- I'm not saying that he instigated it. I'm merely examining how things played out when the armed mobs came to capture and kill Jesus and Joseph.

But since the Bible paints a clear picture that Jesus' demeanor far exceeded that of any mere mortal, it is quite misleading to insist that Joseph's failure to respond on par with Jesus precludes his prophetic calling.

Paul never prophesied that he would be led like a lamb to the slaughter. Paul didn't draw these parallels to himself the same way that Joseph Smith drew parallels to Jesus. The closest that Paul said was that he would share in the sufferings of Christ.

So because he felt his life was drawing to a close in the same manner his actions must therefore exactly mimic Jesus'? One parallel automatically requires all parallels?

I respectfully submit that it's one thing to be abused in the same way, it's another to react in the same way.

It is indeed. Joseph was abused in the same way, but he did not react in the same way, which means your assertion that his comparison to Jesus fails because of his reaction to his impending death is inaccurate.

Is it just me, or is it getting heated in here?

I apologize. I'll try to calm down.

[Scott Lloyd]

The scriptures don't implicitly say so, but from context it seems a reasonable conclusion that Peter felt he was in enough danger that he felt that he had to try to take a swipe at someone else's head in self defense.

What I get from it was that Peter's action was in attempt to defend Christ, and was borne of anger at the betrayal and capture of the Master, not in defense of his own life.

They also felt that they were in enough danger that to a man, they fled the scene.

If that's the case, why did they wait around long enough to watch Christ heal the man's ear?

But that doesn't answer the question: If Peter had been seized and it was clear his life was about to end, would Christ have stood by and allowed it to happen?

[maklelan]

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.

Point taken, however it seems to me he went to the slaughter exactly as did Jesus, but once the slaughter commenced his comparison ended.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Viktor Frankl was a man acquainted with grief in times of desperation. His experiences in the concentration camps shine light on those who point the finger at the prophet Joseph Smith. Frankl noted that some kitchen workers did not distribute soup equally, but would favor friends in an attempt to help them survive. While we could point fingers at those workers, saying what they chose to do was wrong, it becomes us to realize we are not in the same circumstances and not fully capable of judging. Consider the following:

But it is not for me to pass judgment on those prisoners who put their own people above everyone else. Who can throw a stone at a man who favors his friends under circumstances when, sooner or later, it is a question of life or death? No man should judge unless he asks himself in absolute honesty whether in a similar situation he might not have done the same (Man's Search For Meaning, pg. 75).

In light of the prophet, he wasn't depriving anyone of soup, he was facing a murderous mob; he was acting on the spur of the moment surrounded by gunfire and precious friends, one already fallen to his death.

I don't criticize anyone for defending themselves against attacks -- I think that's perfectly fine and reasonable for the average person to do. I'm only saying that Joseph Smith set higher expectations of himself when he drew parallels between the attitude of his death and of Jesus'.

Are you saying Joseph Smith wasn't as perfect as Jesus? That one's a no-brainer.

All in favor of believing Joseph Smith's martyrdom must parallel Christ's by the show of hands, please. Anyone? Anyone?

[LoudmouthMormon]

I figure this bears repeating.

For those of you who don't believe Joseph Smith is a martyr in the truest sense of the word, do you also deny the title to these people in Fox's Book of Martyrs?

Polycarp tried to evade capture:

"Polycarp, the venerable bishop of Smyrna, hearing that persons were seeking for him, escaped, but was discovered by a child. After feasting the guards who apprehended him, he desired an hour in prayer, which being allowed, he prayed with such fervency, that his guards repented that they had been instrumental in taking him. He was, however, carried before the proconsul, condemned, and burnt in the market place."

Hermenigildus defended himself, and fled:

"Hermenigildus, a Gothic prince, was the eldest son of Leovigildus, a king of the Goths, in Spain. This prince, who was originally an Arian, became a convert to the orthodox faith, by means of his wife Ingonda. When the king heard that his son had changed his religious sentiments, he stripped him of the command at Seville, where he was governor, and threatened to put him to death unless he renounced the faith he had newly embraced. The prince, in order to prevent the execution of his father's menaces, began to put himself into a posture of defence; and many of the orthodox persuasion in Spain declared for him. The king, exasperated at this act of rebellion, began to punish all the orthodox Christians who could be seized by his troops, and thus a very severe persecution commenced: he likewise marched against his son at the head of a very powerful army. The prince took refuge in Seville, from which he fled, and was at length besieged and taken at Asieta. Loaded with chains, he was sent to Seville, and at the feast of Easter refusing to receive the Eucharist from an Arian bishop, the enraged king ordered his guards to cut the prince to pieces, which they punctually performed, April 13, A.D. 586."

Seven soldiers tried to escape:

"In the year of our Lord 251, the emperor Decius having erected a pagan temple at Ephesus, he commanded all who were in that city to sacrifice to the idols. This order was nobly refused by seven of his own soldiers, viz. Maximianus, Martianus, Joannes, Malchus, Dionysius, Seraion, and Constantinus. The emperor wishing to win these soldiers to renounce their faith by his entreaties and lenity, gave them a considerable respite until he returned from an expedition. During the emperor's absence, they escaped, and hid themselves in a cavern; which the emperor being informed of at his return, the mouth of the cave was closed up, and they all perished with hunger."

Fabian was martyred not because he professed Christ, but for other reasons:

"Fabian, the bishop of Rome, was the first person of eminence who felt the severity of this persecution. The deceased emperor, Philip, had, on account of his integrity, committed his treasure to the care of this good man. But Decius, not finding as much as his avarice made him expect, determined to wreak his vengeance on the good prelate. He was accordingly seized; and on January 20, A.D. 250, he suffered decapitation."

Nichomachus actually recanted his faith:

"Nichomachus, being brought before the proconsul as a Christian, was ordered to sacrifice to the pagan idols. Nichomachus replied, "I cannot pay that respect to devils, which is only due to the Almighty." This speech so much enraged the proconsul that Nichomachus was put to the rack. After enduring the torments for a time, he recanted; but scarcely had he given this proof of his frailty, than he fell into the greatest agonies, dropped down on the ground, and expired immediately."

Agatha was killed by the pretext that she was a Christian, but in reality because she refused the sexual advances of the Governor of Sicily:

"Agatha, a Sicilian lady, was not more remarkable for her personal and acquired endowments, than her piety; her beauty was such, that Quintian, governor of Sicily, became enamored of her, and made many attempts upon her chastity without success. In order to gratify his passions with the greater conveniency, he put the virtuous lady into the hands of Aphrodica, a very infamous and licentious woman. This wretch tried every artifice to win her to the desired prostitution; but found all her efforts were vain; for her chastity was impregnable, and she well knew that virtue alone could procure true happiness. Aphrodica acquainted Quintian with the inefficacy of her endeavors, who, enaged to be foiled in his designs, changed his lust into resentment. On her confessing that she was a Christian, he determined to gratify his revenge, as he could not his passion. Pursuant to his orders, she was scourged, burnt with red-hot irons, and torn with sharp hooks. Having borne these torments with admirable fortitude, she was next laid naked upon live coals, intermingled with glass, and then being carried back to prison, she there expired on February 5, 251."

Susanna was martyred because she didn't want to enter into arranged marriage:

"Susanna, the niece of Caius, bishop of Rome, was pressed by the emperor Diocletian to marry a noble pagan, who was nearly related to him. Refusing the honor intended her, she was beheaded by the emperor's order."

Didymus was martyred because he tried to save an innocent young lady from disgrace:

"Theodora, a beautiful young lady of Antioch, on refusing to sacrifice to the Roman idols, was condemned to the stews, that her virtue might be sacrificed to the brutality of lust. Didymus, a Christian, disguised himself in the habit of a Roman soldier, went to the house, informed Theodora who he was, and advised her to make her escape in his clothes. This being effected, and a man found in the brothel instead of a beautiful lady, Didymus was taken before the president, to whom confessing the truth, and owning that he was a Christian the sentence of death was immediately pronounced against him. Theodora, hearing that her deliverer was likely to suffer, came to the judge, threw herself at his feet, and begged that the sentence might fall on her as the guilty person; but, deaf to the cries of the innocent, and insensible to the calls of justice, the inflexible judge condemned both; when they were executed accordingly, being first beheaded, and their bodies afterward burnt."

An unnamed Christian was martyred because he destroyed a published edict:

"Diocletian and Galerius, who, not contented with burning the books, had the church levelled with the ground. This was followed by a severe edict, commanding the destruction of all other Christian churches and books; and an order soon succeeded, to render Christians of all denomination outlaws.

The publication of this edict occasioned an immediate martyrdom, for a bold Christian not only tore it down from the place to which it was affixed, but execrated the name of the emperor for his injustice. A provocation like this was sufficient to call down pagan vengeance upon his head; he was accordingly seized, severely tortured, and then burned alive."

[i wonder if he would still be considered a martyr if the Roman's had printing presses...]

In chapter IV, Fox's book of martyrs now tells stories of people persecuted by the Church of Rome. "We come now to a period when persecution, under the guise of Christianity, committed more enormities than ever disgraced the annals of paganism."

The Earl of Toulouse is considered a martyr, even though he fought back militarily, and even recanted:

"The brave earl defended Toulouse and other places with the most heroic bravery and various success against the pope's legates and Simon, earl of Montfort, a bigoted Catholic nobleman. Unable to subdue the earl of Toulouse openly, the king of France, and the queen mother, and three archbishops raised another formidable army, and had the art to persuade the earl of Toulouse to come to a conference, when he was treacherously seized upon, made a prisoner, forced to appear barefooted and bareheaded before his enemies, and compelled to subscribe an abject recantation. This was followed by a severe persecution against the Albigenses; and express orders that the laity should not be permitted to read the sacred Scriptures."

Fox's book records countless nameless Protestants as martyrs, being murdered by French soldiers, althouth they made no specific stand directly about their faith.

"This horrid butchery was not confined merely to the city of Paris. The like orders were issued from court to the governors of all the provinces in France; so that, in a week's time, about one hundred thousand Protestants were cut to pieces in different parts of the kingdom!"

Many martyrs tried to buy their freedom, but were killed anyway:

"Many who gave great sums of money for their ransom were immediately after slain; and several towns, which were under the king's promise of protection and safety, were cut off as soon as they delivered themselves up, on those promises, to his generals or captains."

"At Penna, after promising them safety, three hundred were inhumanly butchered; and five and forty at Albia, on the Lord's Day."

[MormonMason]

...

It's been stated that Joseph fulfilled his prophecy only in the *way* that he went to the jail, but that when the mob approached, he was clear from the expectation that he put on himself. I see that, and I suppose if I were Mormon, that's probably the thing that I would have to believe in order to have rest in my mind. Looking just at the text though, and starting with the attitude and actions of Jesus in Gethsemane, the parallels just don't seem to line up enough for me to feel that Joseph acted how we should expect him to have.

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.

[alter idem]

Thanks for the replies, all. Apologies if I'm too slow in replying -- I'm doing my best, but I think I'm going to have to go in a bit.

Just to lay out our common ground, I believe we're all agreed on the following:

A ) Joseph & Co. surrendered to the jailers.

B ) The jailers were not enough to defend Joseph & Co. from the mob, and so stood aside.

C ) The mob was a separate entity from the jailers.

D ) Joseph & Co. attempted to bar the door against the mob (clearly signifying that they were surrendered only to the jailers, and not to the mob).

I don't criticize anyone for defending themselves against attacks -- I think that's perfectly fine and reasonable for the average person to do. I'm only saying that Joseph Smith set higher expectations of himself when he drew parallels between the attitude of his death and of Jesus'.

It's been stated that Joseph fulfilled his prophecy only in the *way* that he went to the jail, but that when the mob approached, he was clear from the expectation that he put on himself. I see that, and I suppose if I were Mormon, that's probably the thing that I would have to believe in order to have rest in my mind. Looking just at the text though, and starting with the attitude and actions of Jesus in Gethsemane, the parallels just don't seem to line up enough for me to feel that Joseph acted how we should expect him to have.

I know you are trying to diffuse this, and appreciate your efforts...but I still take exception with some of what you are saying.

Joseph didn't just surrender to jailers--he surrendered to the law. He was under the protection of the law in that area and he was in custody for a couple of days before being killed. We know that many in the mob were members of the militia--they also were part of the law in the area. It's not like he had two entities to deal with. He was never in a position "surrender" to the mob--they weren't taking prisoners.

The only parallel Joseph made to his situation was in how he felt that if he allowed himself to be taken by the "law" then he would be killed--like a lamb to the slaughter. In this he was referring to how Jesus allowed himself to be taken by the "law" and he was killed. I think you're reading a lot more into this statement.

D ) Joseph & Co. attempted to bar the door against the mob (clearly signifying that they were surrendered only to the jailers, and not to the mob).

What are you saying? You think the mob wanted them to surrender? The mob wanted to kill them. They were not interested in any other outcome so this is ridiculous to even suggest.

[Daniel Peterson]

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?

In normal Western usage, suicide doesn't make one a martyr (although it does in some contemporary Near Eastern societies). The martyr has to be killed by someone else because of his or her religion.

This eliminates the 9/11 hijackers, Japanese kamikazi pilots, and Palestinian suicide bombers -- but it doesn't eliminate Joseph Smith.

P.S. -- Yme, I see that you're here. Would you mind responding to my questions on the Smithsonian and AAR/SBL threads? Thank you very much.

[HanClinto]

For those of you who don't believe Joseph Smith is a martyr in the truest sense of the word, do you also deny the title to these people in Fox's Book of Martyrs?

Just for clarification, I'm having a hard time keeping everyone straight. Who are you addressing this to, LM? If to me, I read your post the first time, and commented on it, and I thought it was a good post with nothing I noticed to disagree with.

It may be helpful to note that there are many martyrs in Fox's book that indeed went like lambs to the slaughter -- I mentioned her on another page, but Perpetua is one good example that comes to mind.

The analogies don't work.

Firing bullets at on-coming would-be murderers has often appeared to have a deterrent effect, whereas throwing rocks at an empty hornet's nest (empty because the hornets are already coming at you) and spitting into the face of a charging bear would be self-evidently pointless.

It takes a certain amount of force to subdue a crowd, and when insufficient force is applied, it can be more of an irritant to further trouble than being a partial deterrent. To cite history as an example (rather than speaking in empty generalizations), the first analogy that comes to mind is the Birmingham Race Riots, where pushing back in one small area stirred up more trouble from the general mass that was angry, but not as angry as it could be.

I suppose just firing once and then dropping the gun would be permissible, but firing all the shots is downright barbaric.

Neither one is lamb-like. If I expected him to have the demeanor of Jesus, I would ask if he had to fire the gun at all? Did he have to fight back? When he saw the approaching mob, could he not have walked out and surrendered to be killed away from his friends, rather than placing them in the line of fire by barricading the door with them?

So the fact that he emptied his revolver is really meaningless and had no "kicking the hornet's nest" effect, since it was a last ditch effort to abate what was already inevitable. I see.

I may be misunderstanding you, but if you're trying to honestly represent what I'm saying, that sounds pretty close.

How restrained do you think these kinds of mobs are that they can hear a couple of shots whiz by and say, "OK, now I'm upset." They were an angry mob bent on murder. That doesn't leave much room for elevating the tension.

I can see that. I don't know how many shots per second were being fired, or if shouts of "don't shoot! don't shoot!" could have been heard, or if the mob gave any advance notice of their arrival, or whatever. If Jesus prophetically knew of the mob coming at the point of his death, I guess I didn't feel I was expecting too much for Joseph to have similar Spirit promptings about the arrival of the mob for his prophesied death.

Though maybe I expect too much of the prophet.

But since the Bible paints a clear picture that Jesus' demeanor far exceeded that of any mere mortal, it is quite misleading to insist that Joseph's failure to respond on par with Jesus precludes his prophetic calling.

So because he felt his life was drawing to a close in the same manner his actions must therefore exactly mimic Jesus'? One parallel automatically requires all parallels?

No, only the parallel that Joseph made himself -- that being of his lamb-like demeanor.

I apologize. I'll try to calm down.

It's all good -- I hope I'm not stirring up too much trouble -- I'll try to take it easy too.

Okay, I know there's more to reply to, but I'm late for dinner.

Later!

--clint

[LifeOnaPlate]

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.

[Mudcat]

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.

Your right...but Im not making that argument.

The cloud over the martyrdom of JS, in my mind is this.

If JS fired those shots in vengance of his brother....I find it hard to call him a martyr. Its already been covered that he was well outgunned and it was a hopeless cause, his death was imminent. I don't beleive Christian martyrs (at least not in the example that Stephen set...or the death of any apostle recorded) fit the description of dying with revenge in their hearts, minds or actions.

However, if JS fired those shots to defend his friends and draw attention to himself to save others...then he is a martyr to his own beliefs. Im not saying he was a martyr....Im not saying he wasnt. Im saying his martyrdom is debatable. Had he not used the sidearm ...it would be a moot point (at least in my mind)...but he did use it(injured one and killed two)...so it isnt a moot point.

Since the intent of JS is open to interpretation...it will (as most debates)...be a debate without conclusion.

[Scott Lloyd]

Neither one is lamb-like. If I expected him to have the demeanor of Jesus, I would ask if he had to fire the gun at all? Did he have to fight back? When he saw the approaching mob, could he not have walked out and surrendered to be killed away from his friends, rather than placing them in the line of fire by barricading the door with them?

--clint

It's a far stretch to think they would have left the others alone.

The mobs in Illinois in the 1840s detested not just Joseph but other Church leaders as well. Far more likely they would have stormed the room and left no one to tell the tale.

And today's anti-Mormon critics would be accusing Joseph of cowardice for failing to defend his friends.

Or, more likely, with no eyewitnesses among Joseph's associates left alive, the enemies would have had free reign to falsify the facts at will to make it appear that the Prophet and his brethren were the villains. Then the task of today's anti-Mormons would have been far easier. Unfortunately for them, John Taylor and Willard Richards were left alive.

[Daniel Peterson]

It takes a certain amount of force to subdue a crowd, and when insufficient force is applied, it can be more of an irritant to further trouble than being a partial deterrent. To cite history as an example (rather than speaking in empty generalizations), the first analogy that comes to mind is the Birmingham Race Riots, where pushing back in one small area stirred up more trouble from the general mass that was angry, but not as angry as it could be.

In retrospect, it's clear that the efforts at self-defense by Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith, Willard Richards, and John Taylor were insufficient to save Joseph and Hyrum's lives -- although it's possible that the difficulty and delay imposed upon the mob by those efforts contributed to saving the lives of Richards and Taylor (who was, nonetheless, grievously wounded).

But, without the advantage of armchair meditation and hindsight, it was not at all unreasonable to think, particularly in the excitement of the moment, that firing a pistol through a doorway toward a narrow and very crowded flight of steps might, in fact, have led the mob to abandon its murderous designs. The inmates of the jail may well have felt -- they had been falsely told as much -- that there were troops nearby who would come to their aid. In that light, seeking to delay the advance of the mob was an entirely rational thing to do. (The mob, too, feared that opposing armed forces were near, and they fled for that reason. The time that the resistance of Joseph and the others bought may well, thus, have saved the lives of Willard Richards and John Taylor. Had the mob had more leisure, there is no reason to believe that any of the people in the jail would have been spared.)

I must say that I find this whole exercise rather distasteful. To sit comfortably in negative judgment of the tactics employed by someone during the last few seconds of his life who was facing a heavily armed and plainly murderous mob strikes me as simply too morally complacent and self-congratulatory for words.

Neither one is lamb-like. If I expected him to have the demeanor of Jesus, I would ask if he had to fire the gun at all? Did he have to fight back? When he saw the approaching mob, could he not have walked out and surrendered to be killed away from his friends, rather than placing them in the line of fire by barricading the door with them?

What reason did Joseph have to believe that the mob intended to spare the lives of John Taylor and Willard Richards (who hadn't even been charged with anything), let alone the life of his beloved brother Hyrum (who had been)?

As it turned out, when he decided that the mob could not be stopped by counterforce, Joseph apparently did walk to the window in an effort to draw fire away from Taylor and Richards.

but he did use it(injured one and killed two)

Sadly, this seems not to have been true.

[Scott Lloyd]

Your right...but Im not making that argument.

The cloud over the martyrdom of JS, in my mind is this.

If JS fired those shots in vengance of his brother....I find it hard to call him a martyr. Its already been covered that he was well outgunned and it was a hopeless cause, his death was imminent. I don't beleive Christian martyrs (at least not in the example that Stephen set...or the death of any apostle recorded) fit the description of dying with revenge in their hearts, minds or actions.

However, if JS fired those shots to defend his friends and draw attention to himself to save others...then he is a martyr to his own beliefs. Im not saying he was a martyr....Im not saying he wasnt. Im saying his martyrdom is debatable. Had he not used the sidearm ...it would be a moot point (at least in my mind)...but he did use it(injured one and killed two)...so it isnt a moot point.

Since the intent of JS is open to interpretation...it will (as most debates)...be a debate without conclusion.

His very presence in the jail already qualifies him as a martyr. He did not have to return to Nauvoo. He did not have to give himself up to the authorities in Carthage.

And he did not have to stand fast by his beliefs and teachings, knowing for years that it was for them that mobs and bigots were seeking his life.