Joseph Smith...martyr Or Not?

[Okrahomer]

Yeah, you definitely read too much into it.   I was limiting my comments to Christian Origins.  

 

I apologize.

[Abulafia]

I apologize.

No worries.

[Abulafia]

Double post

Edited February 14, 2014 by Abulafia

[thesometimesaint]

Isn't this exactly what Peter did on Jesus' arrest (so we are told)?  Yet Jesus told Peter to put away his sword.  I'm not saying that Joseph needed to imitate Jesus or even the stories of Jesus.  But the fact, justified or not, that he fought with a gun, muddies the waters somewhat in terms of comparisons with the Christian narrative of martyrdom in the earliest texts.  

Actually Jesus told Peter to bring his sword.  Would it have made any difference if Peter had brought an Ozzie? Those early Christians hid in tunnels and caves. They fought back as well as they could. They just lost those battles.

[3DOP]

Valentinus, both you and 3DOP appear to be misreading me.  So I guess I am not making myself clear enough.  

It isn't a matter (with regard to 3DOP's point) of dividing up the early martyrs into Gnostics or Catholics, that is a very simplistic way of looking at the evidence, and the early communities were far more diverse than that.

What you are suggesting is that there 'was' an earliest apostolic tradition'.  There wasn't in my opinion.  It was diverse right from the beginning, probably even before Jesus' crucifixion (if the account of Apollos is anything to go by).  What I am referring to is the followers of the Baptist, of Jesus, all mixed up with different versions of Judaism as they were influenced by Babylonian Jews, the Greeks, and by varying schools of thought (such as those of the Pharisees, Therapeutae, and the Essenes in particular).  

 

Abulafia, hi. I hope you are well.

 

I am not denying that there were divisions. I am only suggesting that among those divisions, there was one that put a premium on the authority of the bishops as successors of the Apostles. That is the division to which I am attached. The division of which I am speaking recognized each others priestly and episcopal orders and cooperated in other matters of ecclesiastical discipline. Additionally, this particular division kept track of its own faithful who had fallen heroically for refusing to deny Christ. Other divisions clearly opposed this division. Its okay if you want to suggest that there are plenty of other divisions and you like them better. One can easily trace the records that show the unity that centered around the division that stressed the necessity of adhering to the "Apostolic churches". Allowance must be made for the beliefs and the martyrs of this division too.

 

I am not familiar with the survival of the divisions you mention beyond the days of Christ. None of the martyrs claimed by my division were attached excessively to John the Baptist, Pharisees, Therapeutae, or Essenes. That would have been a no-no. If the authorities of the Roman Empire were persecuting theses divisions and branches of Judeo-Christianity, I am not familiar with any records of their martyrs. How long are you saying these divisions thrived? The persecutions lasted for almost 300 years. Maybe the Romans killed all of them and nobody was left to care? I don't know. In any case, with regards to the records of the martyrs that have been preserved, they come from my division, and my division didn't honor and venerate those not of their faith household. Surely, you don't think my division was naming churches after, and keeping catalogues of the deaths of people who didn't even accept the same faith? I mention the naming of churches because the best evidence other than an oral tradition we have for the martyrdom of St. Valentine is that there was definitely a chapel in Rome which was dedicated to his honor. Think about it. If Valentine was not of our division, it would be like naming a Catholic church after Martin Luther or Joseph Smith. Nobody names their churches after people they have disagreements with on matters of faith.

 

It is reasonable for non-Catholics to prefer other divisions over mine. Mine is the one that survived and preserved its own records through two and and a half centuries of persecution. It is not reasonable for non-Catholics if they are trying to say that among all the divisions, mine is the one that didn't exist.

 

Thanks for your consideration. Regards,

 

3DOP

Edited February 14, 2014 by 3DOP

[Abulafia]

Actually Jesus told Peter to bring his sword.  Would it have made any difference if Peter had brought an Ozzie? Those early Christians hid in tunnels and caves. They fought back as well as they could. They just lost those battles.

 

Call for references on that please.  Each Gospel has slightly varying accounts of the arrest,and only Luke 22 speaks of the swords.  It may be metaphorical (Revelations uses sword as a metaphor on numerous occasions in order to outline the strength of the 'word of God'), I tend to think that it was included as fulfillment of OT prophecy.  I don't have the specific OT scripture to hand.  What it does do, however, is contradict many other narratives that speak of Jesus' antipathy towards physical violence.

Think about it.  Did John the Baptist (whom Jesus chose to be baptized by) advocate violence?  Was he killed for violence?   

[Abulafia]

Abulafia, hi. I hope you are well.

 

I am not denying that there were divisions. I am only suggesting that among those divisions, there was one that put a premium on the authority of the bishops as successors of the Apostles. That is the division to which I am attached. The division of which I am speaking recognized each others priestly and episcopal orders and cooperated in other matters of ecclesiastical discipline. Additionally, this particular division kept track of its own faithful who had fallen heroically for refusing to deny Christ. Other divisions clearly opposed this division. Its okay if you want to suggest that there are plenty of other divisions and you like them better. One can easily trace the records that show the unity that centered around the division that stressed the necessity of adhering to the "Apostolic churches". Allowance must be made for the beliefs and the martyrs of this division too.

 

I am not familiar with the survival of the divisions you mention beyond the days of Christ. None of the martyrs claimed by my division were attached excessively to John the Baptist, Pharisees, Therapeutae, or Essenes. That would have been a no-no. If the authorities of the Roman Empire were persecuting theses divisions and branches of Judeo-Christianity, I am not familiar with any records of their martyrs. How long are you saying these divisions thrived? The persecutions lasted for almost 300 years. Maybe the Romans killed all of them and nobody was left to care? I don't know. In any case, with regards to the records of the martyrs that have been preserved, they come from my division, and my division didn't honor and venerate those not of their faith household. Surely, you don't think my division was naming churches after, and keeping catalogues of the deaths of people who didn't even accept the same faith? I mention the naming of churches because the best evidence other than an oral tradition we have for the martyrdom of St. Valentine is that there was definitely a chapel in Rome which was dedicated to his honor. Think about it. If Valentine was not of our division, it would be like naming a Catholic church after Martin Luther or Joseph Smith. Nobody names their churches after people they have disagreements with on matters of faith.

 

It is reasonable for non-Catholics to prefer other divisions over mine. Mine is the one that survived and preserved its own records through two and and a half centuries of persecution. It is not reasonable for non-Catholics if they are trying to say that among all the divisions, mine is the one that didn't exist.

 

Thanks for your consideration. Regards,

 

3DOP

Hi 3DOP,

I think it is more complex than that.  Can I recommend a book called 'The Origins of Christianity' by Nodet and Taylor.  It is fantastic for giving the Jewish background to the rise of Christianity, and its diversity in its earliest stages.

Eusebius quotes Hegesippus (Hist.eccl. 3.20.1-6)  who reports 'that the grandsons of Jude, brother of the Lord, had been arrested as descendants of David on the order of Domitian, who feared the coming of a Messiah from the East'

 

'Brought before the emperor, they showed that they were simple folk who worked with their hands and had only a small amount of landed property; they were released as posing no danger, and returned to   "govern the Churches" '  (from p 235)

I quote that to show that the Jerusalem Jesus followers were numerous (not just James) and it seems members of Jesus family were respected for their connection to Jesus and had positions of leadership akin to overseers or 'bishops'.

One theory is that James (the Lords brother) was a Nazorean (of the line of David), as was Jesus and probably John the Baptist.   It may be,  that a group of Babylonian Jews, who held on to their linkage by lineage to David and the Messianic prophecies were positioned on their return to their ancestral lands, in places that 'they' called Nazareth.  Netzer meaning of the family of David (please someone correct me if I am wrong).  

James, despite being the Lords brother, may have had different ideas about what it was to be a Jesus follower.  In fact if the Galatians account is anything to go by, he certainly did.  Yet he is regarded as a Pillar, with Peter the indecisive middleman, not quite sure which camp he is in (as Paul is keen to point out).

None of this speaks of unity in the earliest stages.  It does appear that at some stage as a result of the rise of 'normative' Judaism (as we would understand it today) a split from Judaism proper took place, both because Jews rejected Messianic drives, not only from Jesus but from others also, including Bar Kokba who actually persecuted them (the Christians), but also because Christianity was becoming so different as a branch of Judaism.   By the time the Berkhat Minim is written Christians are not a separate sect distinct from Judaism but a heretical sect within it.  

Jewish Christians of various types appeared to have rejected Bar Kokba's violent attempts at regaining Davidic Kingship as a Messiah.   They already had their Messiah, and Jesus was a Messiah that taught of a Kingdom within rather than violent overthrow without.   (Bar Kokba may even be a descendent of the Davidic line from which Jesus and his family were a part)

I write this to indicate that even those we regard as Jewish Christians from Jerusalem, were diverse, with different beliefs and different outlooks who at some point disappear from the historical record only to appear again in the 2nd century when it appears they unite with the Gentile and more Hellenistic Jesus followers.

Edited February 15, 2014 by Abulafia

[why me]

Call for references on that please.  Each Gospel has slightly varying accounts of the arrest,and only Luke 22 speaks of the swords.  It may be metaphorical (Revelations uses sword as a metaphor on numerous occasions in order to outline the strength of the 'word of God'),

 

Which would fit  along nicely with Joseph Smith and his being threatened with a sword by an angel. Jesus must have known that Peter had a sword. It is not so easy to hide.

[theplains]

What does this say about someone who does not dispute that Joseph Smith was a martyr?

 

Was Joseph killed in the Carthage Jail because of his faith in Jesus Christ or was

there another reason? Apart from the Mormons, were angry mobs going around

and killing other Christians at that time?  Of the angry mob that stormed the jail,

were they Mormons themselves who disagreed with the polygamous practices of

Joseph Smith?

 

Thanks,

Jim

[InCognitus]

 Buzzard, I am not arguing that Joseph is not a martyr, and that the church does not have the right to recognise him as such.   I am trying (very hard) to explain why some British Mormons are shocked when they learn that Joseph had a gun and used it.   It really doesn't fit the model of a 'lamb to the slaughter' in the way it was envisioned in Isaiah 53.  That's all.   You don't have to approve of people being disappointed, or even approve of them being shocked, I'm just trying to explain why some are.

 

I think our understanding of the phrase “lamb to the slaughter” is influenced heavily by the context of Isaiah 53:7, where we are given some indication that the one going to the slaughter did not resist.  But that idea doesn’t seem to be inherent in the phrase itself, because the same expression is also used in Jeremiah 51:40 in a very violent context.  In that chapter Jeremiah gives a description of the judgments and destruction that would come upon Babylon in retribution for what they did to Israel. He prophesies that a whole army of "mighty men", using bows and arrows to defend themselves, will be brought "down like lambs to the slaughter". 

 

That said, I think the point has been made here several times that Joseph used the phrase at the time when he willingly turned himself in to the authorities knowing that doing so would ultimately lead to his death. I think his submission at that time fits the way the phrase is envisioned in Isaiah 53.

[why me]

Was Joseph killed in the Carthage Jail because of his faith in Jesus Christ or was

there another reason? Apart from the Mormons, were angry mobs going around

and killing other Christians at that time?  Of the angry mob that stormed the jail,

were they Mormons themselves who disagreed with the polygamous practices of

Joseph Smith?

 

Thanks,

Jim

I think that it is good to remember that the mobs were probably coming from christian families where they would go to church on sunday with wives and kids. I suppose that the bigger question is: where were the protestant pastors in all this? Did they condone what their flock were doing? And what about the wives of the mob? What did they think about what their husbands were doing?

 

I am sure that there were some exmormons among the mob. But this mob was not just a mob but to my understanding they were also members of a militia.

[Abulafia]

I think our understanding of the phrase “lamb to the slaughter” is influenced heavily by the context of Isaiah 53:7, where we are given some indication that the one going to the slaughter did not resist.  But that idea doesn’t seem to be inherent in the phrase itself, because the same expression is also used in Jeremiah 51:40 in a very violent context.  In that chapter Jeremiah gives a description of the judgments and destruction that would come upon Babylon in retribution for what they did to Israel. He prophesies that a whole army of "mighty men", using bows and arrows to defend themselves, will be brought "down like lambs to the slaughter". 

 

That said, I think the point has been made here several times that Joseph used the phrase at the time when he willingly turned himself in to the authorities knowing that doing so would ultimately lead to his death. I think his submission at that time fits the way the phrase is envisioned in Isaiah 53.

I completely take all your points. My response would be focused on the way in which the Gospel writers used passages of OT scripture to frame the death of Jesus. Jesus is (according to them) the lamb. It is the way that they interpret Isaiah 53 which is the point.

What is so fascinating about Joseph is the way he used both the OT and the NT to develop his ethics. Polygamy is OT rather than NT. Shooting back, Danites, and the Nauvoo Legion are indicative of an *eye for an eye* rather than *turn the other cheek*

When I reactivated myself in the 70s, I did so to follow Jesus, not Moses! I don't speak for all British converts, but many believe they are joining a christian organisation and are perhaps perplexed when they find that Mormonism is a syncretism of OT and NT in its history.

[why me]

What is so fascinating about Joseph is the way he used both the OT and the NT to develop his ethics. Polygamy is OT rather than NT. Shooting back, Danites, and the Nauvoo Legion are indicative of an *eye for an eye* rather than *turn the other cheek*

When I reactivated myself in the 70s, I did so to follow Jesus, not Moses! I don't speak for all British converts, but many believe they are joining a christian organisation and are perhaps perplexed when they find that Mormonism is a syncretism of OT and NT in its history.

I suppose that the saints did have a choice. To blindly be wiped out by people who did not want them to exist or defend themselves. The saints chose to defend themselves. I see nothing wrong with that. It is only natural to defend one's home, spouse and child. We are speaking about the frontier and frontier mentality. I suppose that the indians should have not resisted.

 

And maybe the colonialists should have submitted to british rule and not resisted too. I see nowhere in the bible that says one should die by turning the other cheek.

[Abulafia]

I suppose that the saints did have a choice. To blindly be wiped out by people who did not want them to exist or defend themselves. The saints chose to defend themselves. I see nothing wrong with that. It is only natural to defend one's home, spouse and child. We are speaking about the frontier and frontier mentality. I suppose that the indians should have not resisted.

 

And maybe the colonialists should have submitted to british rule and not resisted too. I see nowhere in the bible that says one should die by turning the other cheek.

To set the Saints as the innocent victims in all cases and circumstances is to ignore the complexity of the historical data.

Think about it Whyme, Christianity began, or is portrayed by the gospel writers, as beginning on the sacrificial act of one man, who chose not to fight back. Many followed his example of peaceful resistance to a Roman Rule that could be far more bloody and violent than anything the early mormon communities encountered. Not to lessen the unjustness of certain barbaric acts committed on both sides, but the Romans could outdo them all in terms of barbarity.

[Abulafia]

I'm still waiting on the cfr from Sometimes Saint regarding violence in the earliest Christian Communities.

[why me]

To set the Saints as the innocent victims in all cases and circumstances is to ignore the complexity of the historical data.

Think about it Whyme, Christianity began, or is portrayed by the gospel writers, as beginning on the sacrificial act of one man, who chose not to fight back. Many followed his example of peaceful resistance to a Roman Rule that could be far more bloody and violent than anything the early mormon communities encountered. Not to lessen the unjustness of certain barbaric acts committed on both sides, but the Romans could outdo them all in terms of barbarity.

For the jews to make a stand against the romans would have been insane. Also, the romans more or less allowed the jews a certain independence because they also did not want the hassle of fighting them. The mormons were a small group of people who migrated into someone else's space and they paid a price for it. If the mormons did not fight back they would have been destroyed just like the indians were destroyed. Eventually, utah became a mormon reservation. Frontier America was not very open minded nor was it sophisticated. For the mormons, being looked upon as strange people who just happened to believe in a strange religion did not help their cause. In the east, catholics also experienced persecution but not on the scale of the mormons. The jews also experienced persecution when they migrated to the United States but not on the scale of the mormons. Protestantism was not exactly a welcoming faith when it came to difference.

[Damien the Leper]

Joseph Smith should not be viewed in light of Isaiah 53 and the suffering servant. That is a reference to Jesus as Messiah and no one else.

[Abulafia]

Joseph Smith should not be viewed in light of Isaiah 53 and the suffering servant. That is a reference to Jesus as Messiah and no one else.

Agreed. That seems to be the way that the Gospel writers interpreted Isaiah 53.

[thesometimesaint]

Was Joseph killed in the Carthage Jail because of his faith in Jesus Christ or was

there another reason? Apart from the Mormons, were angry mobs going around

and killing other Christians at that time?  Of the angry mob that stormed the jail,

were they Mormons themselves who disagreed with the polygamous practices of

Joseph Smith?

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

SEE Extermination Order.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Executive_Order_44

 

Some were former LDS. Most were not.

 

http://illinois.outfitters.com/illinois/hancock/history_carthage.html

 

Joseph Smith, founder of Mormon Church, and his brother Hyrum Smith were shot today in the old Carthage jail.

The Mormon Church was headquartered in Nauvoo in 1839. When Mormon leaders destroyed an anti-Mormon newspaper in Nauvoo, the Smiths were jailed at Carthage to await trial. Illinois Governor Thomas Ford ordered the Carthage Grays militia unit to guard the jail from an anti-Mormon mob. The mob overpowered the guard (some believe the guard joined the mob), entered the jail, shot the Smiths, and wounded another Mormon, John Taylor.

Edited February 16, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[theplains]

SEE Extermination Order.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Executive_Order_44

 

Some were former LDS. Most were not.

 

http://illinois.outfitters.com/illinois/hancock/history_carthage.html

 

Joseph Smith, founder of Mormon Church, and his brother Hyrum Smith were shot today in the old Carthage jail.

The Mormon Church was headquartered in Nauvoo in 1839. When Mormon leaders destroyed an anti-Mormon newspaper in Nauvoo, the Smiths were jailed at Carthage to await trial. Illinois Governor Thomas Ford ordered the Carthage Grays militia unit to guard the jail from an anti-Mormon mob. The mob overpowered the guard (some believe the guard joined the mob), entered the jail, shot the Smiths, and wounded another Mormon, John Taylor.

 

According to what is mentioned in Wikipedia , "The Expositor was founded by several seceders from Nauvoo

church and was critical of Smith and LDS leadership. They espoused a belief in Mormonism, but criticized

Smith for doctrines like plural marriage, and exaltation".

 

These were Mormons who were anti-Joseph Smith.  Why Me (in post 111) was of the impression that the mob

were actually members of the Protestant denomination.

 

Thanks,

Jim

Edited February 16, 2014 by theplains

[theplains]

I think that it is good to remember that the mobs were probably coming from christian families where they would go to church on sunday with wives and kids. I suppose that the bigger question is: where were the protestant pastors in all this? Did they condone what their flock were doing? And what about the wives of the mob? What did they think about what their husbands were doing?

 

I am sure that there were some exmormons among the mob. But this mob was not just a mob but to my understanding they were also members of a militia.

 

See post 120.  It does not appear it was a Protestant mob but rather a Mormon

one.  You can still be a Mormon and disagree with Joseph Smith. The Community

of Christ is a good example of this.

 

I suspect that maybe the Mormon wives were consenting partially because Joseph

Smith and the other Mormons were taking their young 'Mormon' daughters in plural 

marriage. I highly doubt that the LDS elders were going after single Protestant

Christian women or women of other faiths to marry polygamously so Protestant male

fathers (or Catholic/Muslim/Hindu fathers for that matter) would not be involved in this

mob activity.  They weren't the ones behind the Nauvoo Expositor article condemning

Smith.  This was kind of like an internal Mormon civil war in my opinion.

 

Thanks,

Jim

[thesometimesaint]

 

According to what is mentioned in Wikipedia , "The Expositor was founded by several seceders from Nauvoo

church and was critical of Smith and LDS leadership. They espoused a belief in Mormonism, but criticized

Smith for doctrines like plural marriage, and exaltation".

 

These were Mormons who were anti-Joseph Smith.  Why Me (in post 111) was of the impression that the mob

were actually members of the Protestant denomination.

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

Not to equate the two but Jesus had his Judas.

 

No question that some were former members. I've never argued otherwise. However the Carthage Gray's never had more than a few former LDS.

 

You'll have to ask "Why me" for his rationale.

[InCognitus]

 

According to what is mentioned in Wikipedia , "The Expositor was founded by several seceders from Nauvoo

church and was critical of Smith and LDS leadership. They espoused a belief in Mormonism, but criticized

Smith for doctrines like plural marriage, and exaltation".

 

These were Mormons who were anti-Joseph Smith.  Why Me (in post 111) was of the impression that the mob

were actually members of the Protestant denomination.

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

 

The Wikipedia quote is talking about the men who founded The Expositor, not the men who comprised the mob that killed Joseph Smith.  The mob was a mixed bunch, and it appears that most were non-Mormons.  I've been trying to compile a list of men who are known to have participated in the mob based on court records and historical accounts.  Here is what I have come up with so far: 

 

Levi Williams - farmer, cooper, and sometime Baptist minister (aggressive anti-Mormon)

Mark Aldrich - founder of Warsaw and a rich land developer

Jacob C. Davis (Jacob Cunningham Davis) - political senator turned anti-Mormon

William N. Grover - captain in the Warsaw militia

Thomas C. Sharp - editor of the Warsaw Signal (an anti-Mormon leader)

John C. Elliot

Allen

Robert D. Foster - Excommunicated 18 April 1844 for adultery and apostasy, assisted in writing and printing of Nauvoo Expositor

William Law - Excommunicated April 18. 1844 for apostasy,  one of the promoters and owners of Nauvoo Expositor

Wilson Law

Charles Foster

Francis M. Higbee

Chauncey L. Higbee

Joseph H. Jackson

Sylvester Emmons

Charles Hay - surgeon of the Carthage militia

John Wills - shot in the arm

William Voorhees - shot in the shoulder

William Gallagher - shot in the face 

 

I haven't checked on the religious background on all of these men (some of them have very little information available).  But it would certainly be wrong to classify them as all disaffected Mormons or ex-Mormons.

[Abulafia]

The Wikipedia quote is talking about the men who founded The Expositor, not the men who comprised the mob that killed Joseph Smith.  The mob was a mixed bunch, and it appears that most were non-Mormons.  I've been trying to compile a list of men who are known to have participated in the mob based on court records and historical accounts.  Here is what I have come up with so far: 

 

Levi Williams - farmer, cooper, and sometime Baptist minister (aggressive anti-Mormon)

Mark Aldrich - founder of Warsaw and a rich land developer

Jacob C. Davis (Jacob Cunningham Davis) - political senator turned anti-Mormon

William N. Grover - captain in the Warsaw militia

Thomas C. Sharp - editor of the Warsaw Signal (an anti-Mormon leader)

John C. Elliot

Allen

Robert D. Foster - Excommunicated 18 April 1844 for adultery and apostasy, assisted in writing and printing of Nauvoo Expositor

William Law - Excommunicated April 18. 1844 for apostasy,  one of the promoters and owners of Nauvoo Expositor

Wilson Law

Charles Foster

Francis M. Higbee

Chauncey L. Higbee

Joseph H. Jackson

Sylvester Emmons

Charles Hay - surgeon of the Carthage militia

John Wills - shot in the arm

William Voorhees - shot in the shoulder

William Gallagher - shot in the face 

 

I haven't checked on the religious background on all of these men (some of them have very little information available).  But it would certainly be wrong to classify them as all disaffected Mormons or ex-Mormons.

Your information is sorely lacking. Check out this account, one of the best on the net I have seen. You will note that a number of men you have included, were not actually part of the mob that murdered Joseph, including William Law, who wanted, honourable man that he was, the Law to take its course and was horrified (and afraid for his life) when mob mentality ruled.

[Abulafia]

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/carthage/carthageaccount.html