Joseph'S Removal.

[David T]

Sorry. If God says He took Joseph so Joseph could be honored, and to seal the witness of the Doctrine and Covenants and the Book of Mormon, I'm perfectly willing to take Him at His word.

I honor President Gordon Hinckley, and find his ministry powerful, amazing, and groundbreaking. He was honored by many outside of the Church as well, even among those who heavily disagreed with him on many matters. I'm grateful he was able to continue that service into his nineties, and that he didn't have to be murdered for me to view him, or his sermons that way.

It really doesn't make sense to me that God would need to violently kill somebody ("Take him") just as a symbol.

It makes sense that he allows wickedness to occur, and that we can learn good things in the aftermath of wickedness. But I don't feel that requires the wicked to be viewed as good and pro-active on God's part in and of itself.

We have learned powerful things about God's love in the aftermath of my wife's cancer and hysterectomy. but God didn't give my wife cancer.

Edited March 28, 2012 by David T

[Nominee]

Does it matter? Can someone just die? I do not think this topic serve any useful purpose. No one here has the authority to even offer speculations.

I agree with you about speculation.

The leaders of the Church have long warned against speculation.

Brigham Young said, “If the Lord ever revealed anything to me, he has shown me that the Elders of Israel must let speculation alone and attend to the duties of their calling.” (Journal of Discourses, 8:179.)

However, I think everything matters! Because of the life and death of Joseph Smith, the Prophet, I have the fullness of the gospel, the restored church of Christ, and everything I could ever need to secure my eternal salvation and place in heaven with my Heavenly Parents and brother, Jesus Christ.

Regardless of how his death may have come about or who exactly had a hand in it or why, it has led us to where we are in the church today and I couldn't be anymore grateful or think of any better result.

I find it difficult to look around today and understand how anyone could ask what came of his early death. It seems to me, obvious.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I think it comes down to a philosophical question of how much power God has. If it's in God's power to stop a mob from murdering an innocent man and yet He doesn't, then His lack of intervention is not morally justified. In the western world, where Alexandrian absolutes have seeped into traditional Christianity, God is often seen as omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. The problem is that the first two terms are simply not found in scripture (and are often flatly contradicted) and the third is ambiguous, since "all powerful" can be understood to mean "holding as much power as can be held, yet still limited in some respects."

Based on the premise that God is omnibenevolent, theologians can try to retroactively assert that because He is also omniscient and omnipresent and omnipotent enough to be capable of stopping murders at any time, that all deaths must therefore be part of some Larger Purpose, some Greater Good. But the LDS concept of God diverges sharply from this view, stripping away the accretions of later philosophy from the historical perspective, firmly positing a God who is limited in body, in time, and in power.

Since this view of a limited anthropomorphic deity contrasts so sharply with so much of the western world's premises about what it even means to be a God, it's understandable (if deeply unfortunate) that traditional philosophies meant to defend the disembodied omnipotent God will be imported into the LDS understanding of deity. The problem is that such traditional defenses are inappropriately appropriated, because they are simply irreconcilable with Restored truths about God's body and therefore power. Traditional Christianity has never been able to solve the Problem of Evil in a satisfactory way, which is where the retroactive justifications come in.

We don't need them. God cannot create the individual Intelligence nor the elements which Intelligences are tabernacled within (D&C 93:33). He is not the author of evil, and He is simply not powerful enough to cause evil not to exist. He has all the power that can be had, but there is opposition in all things. What God does is create islands of light in the darkness, upholding the works of Justice.

God did not preordain Joseph's death. God cannot be blamed for the fact that murderers are free to exercise their agency; God, the physical, anthropomorphic, exalted Man, who cannot be in two places at once, had not gone down into the room where Joseph was murdered. But God was up in a physically-real Heaven in the sky to welcome Joseph home.

[Deborah]

God did not preordain Joseph's death. God cannot be blamed for the fact that murderers are free to exercise their agency; God, the physical, anthropomorphic, exalted Man, who cannot be in two places at once, had not gone down into the room where Joseph was murdered. But God was up in a physically-real Heaven in the sky to welcome Joseph home.

No, but God can foreordain his death. There were plenty of incidents in Joseph's life where it appears there was divine intervention. I don't think anyone is "blaming" the fact that murderers exercise their agency. They are only pointing out that it was not unexpected and because Joseph had completed all he was sent to do there was no reason for him to have to remain.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Besides having a long life loving his family and friends?

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

There is a single reference to foreordination in scripture, and it is in reference to Christ's foreordination to be the Redeemer. Generally when one "foreordains" another person's death, we call them a "murderer."

[Nominee]

...Joseph had completed all he was sent to do there was no reason for him to have to remain.

Welllll, I don't know 'bout this. I bet Lucy Mack Smith, Emma Hale Smith, some fatherless chitlens and maybe a few others would disagree.

Edited March 28, 2012 by Nominee

[KevinG]

God respects the agency of all His children. It does not matter if their designs were evil or good.

If Joseph had died of infection in his leg as a small child God would have raised up another Prophet and His plans would have succeeded.

[Nominee]

God respects the agency of all His children. It does not matter if their designs were evil or good.

That's what I said but your avatar is cuter.

[Deborah]

Regarding foreordination:

http://www.lds.org/s...nation?lang=eng

[cinepro]

Besides having a long life loving his family and friends?

And translating the Book of Joseph?

[Deborah]

As I said I wonder if Joseph was ready to go. Truman Madsen talks about Joseph feeling like a burden had been lifted once he had delivered all the keys and finished with all the instruction to the most fairthful leaders, both men and women. It is interesting that in this last Grand Council Emma was not included nor was Sidney Rigdon nor a few others one would suppose would be there.

One can speculate about what a difference it would have made had Joseph remained and I don't think in the long run it would have made much difference but in the short run did. After all the plan to go West was Joseph's plan. I do think however, the persecution would have continued with greater intent had Joseph not died. The saints had a little respite until the temple could be completed and the preparations put in place for the move west. Furthermore as GG said Brigham Young appears to be the leader needed at that time. I've always been impressed how the right prophet seems to be called at the right time.

Edited March 28, 2012 by Deborah

[Jeff K.]

Bleh. God does that which is good; making a plan in which your faithful servant is murdered by a mob to further some hidden agenda is not good. Joseph's death was a tragedy, not some divine decree orchestrated by Father in Heaven.

So the crucifiction of Christ was "not" good? A surprise to God perhaps?

[cinepro]

It is interesting that in this last Grand Council Emma was not included nor was Sidney Rigdon nor a few others one would suppose would be there.

Were the "others" also opposed to polygamy?

[Jeff K.]

There is a single reference to foreordination in scripture, and it is in reference to Christ's foreordination to be the Redeemer. Generally when one "foreordains" another person's death, we call them a "murderer."

You should read the Book of Abraham sometime.

[tana]

Sorry. If God says He took Joseph so Joseph could be honored, and to seal the witness of the Doctrine and Covenants and the Book of Mormon, I'm perfectly willing to take Him at His word.

But I don't get the connection as to why if someone dies it seals/proves the truth of their professions. Unless....but this is raising the martyrdom debate....the person went to his death willingly to prove to others his belief in his ideals....but still, that only proves he believes it.

[David T]

So the crucifiction of Christ was "not" good? A surprise to God perhaps?

"The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which shall not be forgiven in the world nor out of the world, is in that ye... assent unto my death," - D&C 132:27

Atonement is a good thing. A man getting tortured and murdered in the name of political expediency is not. I do not assent to the murder of Jesus. I do not believe the government-authorized execution was doing something noble, or good. I do believe the Atonement involved Jesus' entire life and ministry, and ended and culminated in the transcedence of death. I am grateful for his life and message, and power. I am grateful for his persistence and diligence. I am not grateful or pleased that he was murdered.

Which I guess, Its more accurate to my personal feelings to say "I'm grateful Jesus was willing to be killed for me," than "I'm grateful Jesus died for me."

Edited March 28, 2012 by David T

[blueadept]

So the crucifiction of Christ was "not" good? A surprise to God perhaps?

It's been interesting in seeing LDS respond to Joseph's martyrdom and how it compares to the viewpoint of the rest of Christianity (especially as viewed by the ECFs).

Enlightening.

Edited March 28, 2012 by blueadept

[KevinG]

It's been interesting in seeing LDS respond to Joseph's martyrdom and how it compares to the viewpoint of the rest of Christianity (especially as viewed by the ECFs).

Enlightening.

Please say more... I'm seriously interested in seeing this from your POV and that statement has me intrigued. I suspect I have a huge blind spot as to how others see martyrdom.

For me martyrdom is the ultimate testimony a soul can leave in this life for their beliefs. We know that evil will always oppose and it is no surprise that Joseph was a target for those who sought to kill the LDS church with him. However I don't think the plans of God foreordained him to die at that time or would have been thwarted if he had died at another.

I don't subscribe to the notion that Joseph was removed by God for any reason other than the forces of evil pocked the time and place and Joseph went willingly to face his fate, comforted by the peace of knowing he had been on God's errand.

How does this contrast or complement the EV or Catholic view of martyrdom in your observation?

[Cobalt-70]

Actually, some of his statements in Nauvoo indicated that he knew his time was coming. Not in a place where I could research them now, but he said that the 12 had all the keys to the kingdom, the saving ordinances of the temple were rolled out, and essentially all the pieces were in place, and that from here on out, his continued life was up to the Lord.

He said stuff like that as early as 1834. After he organized the Presiding High Council of Kirtland (but before organizing the Quorum of the Twelve), he said something like he was confident his work was done and that it would carry on in his absence. So the fact that he said something like that does not mean he was predicting his own imminent death in 1834, any more than similar statements later would be a prediction of his death.

By the way, as far as I know, Smith never said that the Twelve had all the keys to the kingdom. In 1844, he did say that he rolled off the duty to build the Kingdom of God onto the shoulders of the Council of Fifty (of which the Twelve were members). Moreover, the Twelve didn't actually have all the keys of the kingdom prior to Smith's death. As I noted in another thread, the Twelve could not ordain or appoint anyone to a stake office or calling. (That was the job of the Presiding High Council.) Only the First Presidency and the Presiding Patriarch had church-wide authority.

[Cobalt-70]

See Doc&Cov 135. "To seal their testimony with their blood", as I recall.

When Joseph said he was going like a lamb to slaughter, and that it would be said of him that he was murdered in cold blood leads me to believe that he was well aware of the fact that his life was about to be taken. If, he said, my life is of no value to my friends, it is of none to me shares that theme. There were earlier allusions, too, but these, made within days of Jun 27, 1844, are the most telling.

When Smith crossed the river and submitted to arrest by Illinois authorities, he was certainly at least worried that he might not live much longer. But I don't think there is anything to indicate that he knew he would die. He hoped to survive, up to the end. In a letter the day he died, he sent a letter to Emma telling her not to worry because the Governor of Illinois would protect him. He also likely sent a letter ordering the Nauvoo Legion to protect him as well.

Edited March 28, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Nominee]

It's been interesting in seeing LDS respond to Joseph's martyrdom and how it compares to the viewpoint of the rest of Christianity (especially as viewed by the ECFs).

Enlightening.

Please, elaborate. I would love to hear and ponder. Genuinely.

[CV75]

to what end did it serve?

Everybody has to go sometime... and the end that is served cannot be stopped (D&C 121:32, 33).

[Stargazer]

Bleh. God does that which is good; making a plan in which your faithful servant is murdered by a mob to further some hidden agenda is not good. Joseph's death was a tragedy, not some divine decree orchestrated by Father in Heaven.

Much like Jesus's death, right? No purpose to it, because there IS no purpose or something like that?

I would think that it would be better to die for some purpose than to die just because. The sacrifices made by all those who risked and then gave their lives to save their fellow humans from accidents, incidents, and evil aims are all JUST tragedies are they, with no other redeeming virtue?

A most short-sighted view.

[Cobalt-70]

I'm not trying to debate the definition of 'Martyrdom'.... Just curious as to what leaders of the church have conjectured as to why God would remove Joseph at that time.....to what end did it serve?

Here's what Brigham Young said:

"If Joseph Smith, jun., the Prophet,

had followed the Spirit of revelation in him he never would have gone to Carthage

....Many of the first Elders of this church have a different understanding; they are under the impression that he went there according to his own choice. Joseph intended to go West; he designed to raise a company to come to the very country we now occupy. He said, 'I can see life and liberty and salvation in that course, but if I return to give myself up, it is death and darkness to the full; I am like a lamb led to the slaughter,' and never for one moment did he [smith] say that he had one particle of light in him after he started back from Montrose to give himself up in Nauvoo. This he did through the persuasion of others. I want you to understand that." (Special Council, Mar. 21, 1858, Brigham Young Papers, Church Archives.)

http://signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=11183