Remembering The Martyrdom

[Jeanne]

No, it wasn't.  

 

Have you actually read it?

Basically it was just telling the truth of polygamy.  I read it years ago..but not recently. If I am wrong on the content then the same statement applies.  The expositor ...law or no law should have been more truthful of course.  But all of this should/could have been without the destruction of the expositor and with good conscience.  To me..it is like burning books..there are more constructive ways to communicate and/or retaliate if it is for the good.

Edited June 30, 2015 by Jeanne

[CA Steve]

How people saw things back then..law or no law..where is conscience and tolerance?  It is hard to think that even back then that there was another way to express anger than to destroy.  The expositor was just printing the truth about things..Fear, I believe, was the biggest motivator of the destruction.  If there is a conscience of right and wrong..especially as a Prophet..laws were not necessary.

I wonder if the recent Church essays on polygamy had been published by the Expositor instead of what was published, if the Nauvoo council would have still ordered its destruction?

[Jeanne]

I wonder if the recent Church essays on polygamy had been published by the Expositor instead of what was published, if the Nauvoo council would have still ordered its destruction?

Me too! 

[cinepro]

No, it wasn't.  

 

Have you actually read it?

 

It's been discussed before:

 

The Expositor: Libelous of the Deepest Dye

 

For those who are interested, the minutes of the City Council meeting where the Expositor was discussed can be found here:

 

http://byustudies.byu.edu/hc/6/22.html

 

The text of the Expositor is here:

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Primary_sources/Nauvoo_Expositor_Full_Text

[cinepro]

It is relevant because it shows that vicious hatred for Joseph and the Mormons and a spirit of mobocracy was the condition at hand, not indignation over alleged violation of press freedom.

 

Is this what you mean by "the spirit of mobocracy"?

 

 

 

The question is asked, will you bring a mob upon us? In answer to that, we assure all concerned, that we will be among the first to put down anything like an illegal force being used against any man or set of men. If any one has become amenable to the law, we wish to have him tried impartially by the laws of his country. We are among the number who believe that there is virtue and integrity enough in the administrators of the law, to bring every offender to justice, and to protect the innocent. If it is necessary to make a show of force, to execute legal process, it will create no sympathy in that case to cry out, we are mobbed.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Primary_sources/Nauvoo_Expositor_Full_Text

Edited June 30, 2015 by cinepro

[Scott Lloyd]

Is this what you mean by "the spirit of mobocracy"?

Plausible deniability.

You claim to oppose mob action even as you behave in a manner that might bring it on. Then, when it happens, you can claim to be on record as opposing it.

You can't trust the word of a malevolent liar. You can rely on him, however, to say or write things, true or false, that serve his agenda.

Edited July 1, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Joshua Valentine]

Joseph Smith did a number things that would be viewed as immoral in any other person. So he gained enemies. Their actions against him are thus revenge and unethical hatred. That Joseph claimed he did these ethically questionable things by the command of God does not make their revenge, hatred, and murder suddenly a martyrdom, does it?

Simply because a person claims "God made me" neither makes his actions right nor his punishment or murder a martyrdom.

Perhaps to clarify, Joseph being killed for doing bad things doesn't become a martyrdom just because those immoral acts were claimed by him to be his religion.

As for the claim that the mob was made of "Christians", this seems to: 1) ignore that they must have been bad Christians if they were Christians really at all, and 2) that Joseph had a long history of creating his enemies from his own followers. Perhaps, more accurately, they should be called "jack Christians", or self-identified Christians, and ex-Mormons.

[stemelbow]

Joseph Smith did a number things that would be viewed as immoral in any other person. So he gained enemies. Their actions against him are thus revenge and unethical hatred. That Joseph claimed he did these ethically questionable things by the command of God does not make their revenge, hatred, and murder suddenly a martyrdom, does it?

Simply because a person claims "God made me" neither makes his actions right nor his punishment or murder a martyrdom.

Perhaps to clarify, Joseph being killed for doing bad things doesn't become a martyrdom just because those immoral acts were claimed by him to be his religion.

As for the claim that the mob was made of "Christians", this seems to: 1) ignore that they must have been bad Christians if they were Christians really at all, and 2) that Joseph had a long history of creating his enemies from his own followers. Perhaps, more accurately, they should be called "jack Christians", or self-identified Christians, and ex-Mormons.

Everyone who has lived has done immoral acts. On these grounds the term martyr has no meaning at all. Seems like an odd issue to take a stand on--what term to use in describing something.

[cinepro]

Plausible deniability.

You claim to oppose mob action even as you behave in a manner that might bring it on. Then, when it happens, you can claim to be on record as opposing it.

You can't trust the word of a malevolent liar. You can rely on him, however, to say or write things, true or false, that serve his agenda.

Sorry, but I don't agree with your assessment of William Law as a "malevolent liar", and I'm not sure LDS historians do either.

For example, in the BYU Studies "William Law: Nauvoo Dissenter", Law's objections to Joseph Smith are outlined by the following five points:

 

According to his own statements (made just prior to and after his excommunication) William Law turned against the Mormon prophet because of

Williams perception that:

1) Joseph was totally ungovernable and defiant and was determined to obey or disobey the law of the land at his convenience (i.e., a claim to higher law);

2) Joseph united church and state, both as mayor of Nauvoo (in the passage of city ordinances and the use of police power) and as an influential religious leader by manipulating or seeking to manipulate politicians for private purposes (i.e., breakdown of the rule of law)

3) Joseph had allowed the established judicial order of church government to be trampled under foot;

4) Joseph had attempted to control the temporal (financial) interests of the Mormon people by ecclesiastical authority; and

 

5) More importantly Joseph had corrupted the church by introducing "false and damnable" doctrines such as a plurality of Gods, a plurality of wives, and the doctrine of unconditional sealing up unto eternal life (i.e., Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet).

Despite a growing antagonism, William had restrained his feelings and dissembled his opposition as best he could. He was hoping things would change for the better. Although at first Law found himself occupying a middle ground between rational conviction and emotional uncertainty, he became progressively more confident that Joseph Smith was in transgression. It was not until perhaps April or May 1844 that he organized his thinking in such a way as to systematically attack his enemy. Even then he was not assailing the validity of the Restoration. The vehemence with which William Law denounced the Prophet in 1844 was not due to disbelief in Mormon polity, but to his conviction that the Mormon leader had plunged into apostate practices. It was Joseph Smith's influence that law sought to destroy.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

The question that had plagued William Law was how far to push his denunciation of polygamy. Seeing no hope of a reconciliation, William resolved to save the Church from error by exposing the leviathan to the Nauvoo populace. He seized upon his "damning evidence," and in late May and early June 1844 he legally charged Joseph Smith with adultery and publicized the nature of the Prophet's polygamous teachings and practices in the pages of the Nauvoo Expositor. But William Law badly misjudged the mentality of the Mormon people. He had not recognized their corporate solidarity or the tremendous love and support extended to Joseph Smith as the Lord's mouthpiece. Much to his dismay, his open attack on the church leader further alienated him and labeled him as a bitter enemy of the restoration.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Law's private diary shows that he was not at Carthage when the Smiths were murdered. But while he characterized the murders as an "outrage," yet he believed the horrid deaths were actually the result of a "blasphemed God" who had taken vengeance. William wrote in July 1844 that the murders were "very shocking" to his feelings,

yet as they Joseph and Hyrum brought it upon themselves and I used

my influence to prevent any outrage even from the commencement of

the excitement, believing that the Civil Law had power to expose iniquity,

and punish the wicked. I say consequently I look on calmly and

while the wicked slay the wicked I believe I can see the hand of a

blasphemed God stretched out in judgement, the cries of innocence

and virtue have ascended up before the throne of God, and he has

taken sudden vengeance.

https://byustudies.byu.edu/showtitle.aspx?title=5507

 

If you read the Expositor, it seems to echo those five points pretty clearly. And there is no indication that Law ever encouraged mob violence or advocated the murders of Joseph and Hyrum.

 

I would also point out that it is sadly ironic that the Church has all but abandoned the three doctrinal points outlined by Law in item #5: plurality of gods, polygamy and the "doctrine of unconditional sealing up unto eternal life" (i.e. the Second Anointing).

Edited July 1, 2015 by cinepro

[Russell C McGregor]

Appreciate the consession.  This particular fact notwithstanding, I'm going to guess you'll keep arguing for use of "martyr" in the context of Joseph Smith.

;0)  

 

--Erik

I don't recall making a "concession." And no, I'm not going to "keep arguing for use of 'martyr' in the context of Joseph Smith." I'm just going to keep calling him a martyr, because that's what he was.

Which isn't a point that needs arguing.

[Scott Lloyd]

Joseph Smith did a number things that would be viewed as immoral in any other person. So he gained enemies. Their actions against him are thus revenge and unethical hatred. That Joseph claimed he did these ethically questionable things by the command of God does not make their revenge, hatred, and murder suddenly a martyrdom, does it?

Simply because a person claims "God made me" neither makes his actions right nor his punishment or murder a martyrdom.

Perhaps to clarify, Joseph being killed for doing bad things doesn't become a martyrdom just because those immoral acts were claimed by him to be his religion.

As for the claim that the mob was made of "Christians", this seems to: 1) ignore that they must have been bad Christians if they were Christians really at all, and 2) that Joseph had a long history of creating his enemies from his own followers. Perhaps, more accurately, they should be called "jack Christians", or self-identified Christians, and ex-Mormons.

So what you seem to be saying here is that a person can't be a martyr unless you, Joshua Valentine, personally agree with the principles for which he died.

 

That's a pretty quirky definition. One that is not supported by any normative dictionary I know of.

[Joshua Valentine]

I seem to be having severe device compatibility issues. Please forgive the formatting errors.

 

Stemelbow,

 

Nowhere in my comment did I claim that "martyr" should be defined as execution for one's wrongdoing. Although your reading of my comment was incorrect in this regard, it does seem to show that you recognize a difference between murder for wrongdoing and murder for one's religion. My point was that Joseph was more likely murdered for his wrongs to others than for his religious affiliation. And simply because he might have claimed his actions were his religion does not necessarily make his murder a martyrdom. What I continue to say to Scott Lloyd may also be pertinent to you, too, stemelbow.

 

Scott Lloyd,

 

I find your reply to my comment a tad hostile, and mysteriously so. However, again, nowhere in my comment do I make a claim about my opinion of his actions and then use that opinion as the criteria for defining martyrdom. Rather, I simply pointed out that the men who killed him did so out of revenge for perceived wrongs done to them or their families or friends. I then asked the question, far from asserting a claim about my agreeing or disagreeing with anything, if Joseph, or LDS today, claiming those offenses were part of his religion is really enough to turn their vengeance into his martyrdom.

 

Now, I know I'm exploring some nuance here that runs into some perspectives, but I think it is worth a bit of entertaining. If Joseph really did do things that would be considered wrong if done by anyone else and he were killed for them, then like anyone else it should jut be considered murder for revenge. If Joseph did nothing wrong, then the only motives for murder would seem to be pathology, jealousy, or bigotry. But if Joseph really did immoral actions against others, would his death suddenly go from murder for revenge to martyrdom simply because he claimed those immoral actions were his religion?

 

One's response to this inquiry depends on whether you believe Joseph did anything wrong against people, and possibly the people involved in his murder. If you believe he did nothing wrong, then martyrdom seems the inevitable conclusion (although jealousy and pathology and even intoxication could still be culprits). If you can even entertain the possibility that Joseph did make enemies out of his own followers by doing immoral acts against them, then there is at least the possibility that those actions make his murder an act of revenge. If his wrongdoing was, in fact, not part of his religion, then vengeance seems obvious. If his wrongdoing was, in fact, part of his religion, then this nuance of what is perceived as wrongdoing even if part of a religion or what is claimed to be religion even if it is wrongdoing and how they relate to vengeance versus martyrdom really becomes interesting.

 

Although I do not see it myself still, if my writing was unclear, I apologize for the miscommunication, stemelbow and Scott Lloyd. Thanks for the replies!

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott Lloyd,

 

I find your reply to my comment a tad hostile, and mysteriously so. However, again, nowhere in my comment do I make a claim about my opinion of his actions and then use that opinion as the criteria for defining martyrdom. Rather, I simply pointed out that the men who killed him did so out of revenge for perceived wrongs done to them or their families or friends. I then asked the question, far from asserting a claim about my agreeing or disagreeing with anything, if Joseph, or LDS today, claiming those offenses were part of his religion is really enough to turn their vengeance into his martyrdom.

 

Now, I know I'm exploring some nuance here that runs into some perspectives, but I think it is worth a bit of entertaining. If Joseph really did do things that would be considered wrong if done by anyone else and he were killed for them, then like anyone else it should jut be considered murder for revenge. If Joseph did nothing wrong, then the only motives for murder would seem to be pathology, jealousy, or bigotry. But if Joseph really did immoral actions against others, would his death suddenly go from murder for revenge to martyrdom simply because he claimed those immoral actions were his religion?

 

One's response to this inquiry depends on whether you believe Joseph did anything wrong against people, and possibly the people involved in his murder. If you believe he did nothing wrong, then martyrdom seems the inevitable conclusion (although jealousy and pathology and even intoxication could still be culprits). If you can even entertain the possibility that Joseph did make enemies out of his own followers by doing immoral acts against them, then there is at least the possibility that those actions make his murder an act of revenge. If his wrongdoing was, in fact, not part of his religion, then vengeance seems obvious. If his wrongdoing was, in fact, part of his religion, then this nuance of what is perceived as wrongdoing even if part of a religion or what is claimed to be religion even if it is wrongdoing and how they relate to vengeance versus martyrdom really becomes interesting.

 

Although I do not see it myself still, if my writing was unclear, I apologize for the miscommunication, stemelbow and Scott Lloyd. Thanks for the replies!

I find your denial of the designation of martyr for Joseph Smith to be a tad hostile. What's your background? Do you have a religious-based antipathy for the Prophet Joseph Smith?

 

Every hate-filled mobocrat or despot who ever martyred a person did so out of revenge, because he thought the person being martyred did wrong. You claim a person is not a martyr just because the person who did the killing claimed it was justified. A martyr is a martyr.

Edited July 2, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

I seem to be having severe device compatibility issues. Please forgive the formatting errors.

 

Stemelbow,

 

Nowhere in my comment did I claim that "martyr" should be defined as execution for one's wrongdoing. Although your reading of my comment was incorrect in this regard, it does seem to show that you recognize a difference between murder for wrongdoing and murder for one's religion. My point was that Joseph was more likely murdered for his wrongs to others than for his religious affiliation. And simply because he might have claimed his actions were his religion does not necessarily make his murder a martyrdom. What I continue to say to Scott Lloyd may also be pertinent to you, too, stemelbow.

Thanks for the reply, Joshua.

I may have miscommunicated my intended point here. I am saying just because someone does something immoral that others don't like does not mean that that person, when killed, can't be considered a martyr. Your reasoning seemed to suggest that because wrongdoing was done by Joseph that means the killers killed because of his wrongdoing and not because of his religious affiliation. You simply can't prove your allegation. There's really no way to argue, at this point, from where I sit, that the killers would have killed him if he didn't start a new religion. The starting of it is critical to what got him where he was when he was killed--hostility directed at him and all.

In the end, your point seems to condemn any named martyr because as it is, all have done bad things and any person could have decided to kill him/her for the wrong things he/she did.

[cinepro]

I seem to be having severe device compatibility issues. Please forgive the formatting errors.

 

Stemelbow,

 

Nowhere in my comment did I claim that "martyr" should be defined as execution for one's wrongdoing. Although your reading of my comment was incorrect in this regard, it does seem to show that you recognize a difference between murder for wrongdoing and murder for one's religion. My point was that Joseph was more likely murdered for his wrongs to others than for his religious affiliation. And simply because he might have claimed his actions were his religion does not necessarily make his murder a martyrdom. What I continue to say to Scott Lloyd may also be pertinent to you, too, stemelbow.

 

Scott Lloyd,

 

I find your reply to my comment a tad hostile, and mysteriously so. However, again, nowhere in my comment do I make a claim about my opinion of his actions and then use that opinion as the criteria for defining martyrdom. Rather, I simply pointed out that the men who killed him did so out of revenge for perceived wrongs done to them or their families or friends. I then asked the question, far from asserting a claim about my agreeing or disagreeing with anything, if Joseph, or LDS today, claiming those offenses were part of his religion is really enough to turn their vengeance into his martyrdom.

 

Now, I know I'm exploring some nuance here that runs into some perspectives, but I think it is worth a bit of entertaining. If Joseph really did do things that would be considered wrong if done by anyone else and he were killed for them, then like anyone else it should jut be considered murder for revenge. If Joseph did nothing wrong, then the only motives for murder would seem to be pathology, jealousy, or bigotry. But if Joseph really did immoral actions against others, would his death suddenly go from murder for revenge to martyrdom simply because he claimed those immoral actions were his religion?

 

One's response to this inquiry depends on whether you believe Joseph did anything wrong against people, and possibly the people involved in his murder. If you believe he did nothing wrong, then martyrdom seems the inevitable conclusion (although jealousy and pathology and even intoxication could still be culprits). If you can even entertain the possibility that Joseph did make enemies out of his own followers by doing immoral acts against them, then there is at least the possibility that those actions make his murder an act of revenge. If his wrongdoing was, in fact, not part of his religion, then vengeance seems obvious. If his wrongdoing was, in fact, part of his religion, then this nuance of what is perceived as wrongdoing even if part of a religion or what is claimed to be religion even if it is wrongdoing and how they relate to vengeance versus martyrdom really becomes interesting.

 

Although I do not see it myself still, if my writing was unclear, I apologize for the miscommunication, stemelbow and Scott Lloyd. Thanks for the replies!

 

Joshua, you seem to have a pretty good understanding of what motivated the mob (are we allowed to call them a "mob"?) to kill Joseph and Hyrum Smith.  Can you explain it to the rest of us, just so we're all on the same page?

[Joshua Valentine]

Thanks for the reply, Joshua.I may have miscommunicated my intended point here. I am saying just because someone does something immoral that others don't like does not mean that that person, when killed, can't be considered a martyr. Your reasoning seemed to suggest that because wrongdoing was done by Joseph that means the killers killed because of his wrongdoing and not because of his religious affiliation. You simply can't prove your allegation. There's really no way to argue, at this point, from where I sit, that the killers would have killed him if he didn't start a new religion. The starting of it is critical to what got him where he was when he was killed--hostility directed at him and all.In the end, your point seems to condemn any named martyr because as it is, all have done bad things and any person could have decided to kill him/her for the wrong things he/she did.

Ah, I do understand your point better now, stemelbow. And I agree. So your point is perhaps the other side of the same coin. Really I'm just exploring this relationship between the position of the parties involved and the qualification of the killing as martyrdom or simply vengeance. I am certainly not entertaining the idea that any wrongdoing disqualifies a person from being a martyr. All have sinned, so it can't be that hard of a criteria. But on the other side, that is - just as we can't disqualify all martyrs because they have done wrong (especially, whether their wrongs motivated the killers or not), perhaps we cannot disqualify all vengeance killings if the victim claimed their wrongdoings were their religion.

Again, if you believe Joseph Smith did immoral thingsand possibly to the same people who killed him, then the murder was at least vengeance, but not necessarily death for religion, aka martyrdom. So, if you don't think he wronged these killers or if you think his wrongs are somehow made not-wrong because he claimed they were his religion, then martyrdom would be the conclusion. So there are a lot of factors here - history (what he did or did not do and to whom) and the observer's opinion (whether or not a victim of vengeance murder can become a martyr simply by claiming his actions were his religion.

I am simply pointing out what goes into a person's determination if Joseph was a legit martyr or not. By exploring the requirements and challenges in any position we can better choose and own our chosen position and the discarded positions unchosen.

[Nevo]

I think you're all wrong

 

To say that Joseph Smith was killed for his religion may have some truth to it, but it is a gross oversimplification. Joseph Smith wasn't killed simply for being a Mormon. Neither was the mob motivated primarily by "vengeance." Hardly anyone in the mob could claim to have been personally wronged or victimized by Joseph Smith—most had never met him.

 

 

[stemelbow]

I think you're all wrong

 

To say that Joseph Smith was killed for his religion may have some truth to it, but it is a gross oversimplification. Joseph Smith wasn't killed simply for being a Mormon. Neither was the mob motivated primarily by "vengeance." Hardly anyone in the mob could claim to have been personally wronged or victimized by Joseph Smith—most had never met him.

What was the mobs primary motivation if not vengeance? Retribution?

[Nevo]

What was the mobs primary motivation if not vengeance? Retribution?

 

I think the mob's primary motivation was fear—fear of the Saints' and especially Joseph Smith's growing power and influence—but envy and bigotry undoubtedly also figured into it. Political, economic, social, and religious factors all played a role. Alex Beam has a good discussion of how the Mormons went from being welcomed with open arms to being completely friendless within three years of settling in Nauvoo in his book, American Crucifixion (the chapter is aptly titled "Everybody Hates the Mormons").

Edited July 2, 2015 by Nevo

[Joshua Valentine]

Nevo,

If their motivation was fear of Joseph's secular powers then was he really a martyr?

[Joshua Valentine]

Nevo,

I do appreciate your broader more realistic view. We got caught up in "vengeance" vs. "martyr", but obviously political and economic concerns were a motivation.

To describe it as a martyrdom ignores Joseph's secular actions and to call it a vengeance killing may ignore prejudiced motives that might really have been present. I did not mean vengeance to be the only alternative to martyrdom, nor either to be the sole factors. Life is too complicated for such simplistic explanations. So, I am glad to be called wrong, given my comments.

I wished only to challenge the overly simplistic "martyr" claim. It all depends on who was involved in the murder -personally wronged members or ex-members or never-members, or indirectly wronged or threatened persons, or murderous bigots. Perhaps who inflamed or led the group would factor importantly into what kind of murder this was. In any case, to simply say Joseph was martyred is simplistic at best and self-serving at worst.

[Nevo]

I wished only to challenge the overly simplistic "martyr" claim. It all depends on who was involved in the murder -personally wronged members or ex-members or never-members, or indirectly wronged or threatened persons, or murderous bigots. Perhaps who inflamed or led the group would factor importantly into what kind of murder this was. In any case, to simply say Joseph was martyred is simplistic at best and self-serving at worst.

 

I don't have any strong objection to the "martyr" label. I can understand why people who don't revere Joseph Smith as a prophet might not agree with it, who think Joseph's own conduct contributed directly to his demise, but I'm not bothered by it any more than I'm bothered by Walt Whitman referring to Lincoln as Democracy's "first great Martyr Chief." Maybe the label isn't strictly accurate but neither are many (most?) eulogies. I'm inclined to cut mourners a bit of slack in how they memorialize those they love.

[longview]

Anyone have any interest in considering Governor Ford's (of Illinois) secret "cooperation" or "alliance" with the mobbers?

[Kenngo1969]

Anyone have any interest in considering Governor Ford's (of Illinois) secret "cooperation" or "alliance" with the mobbers?

Can you suggest any sources we should consult?  Thanks in advance.

[Kenngo1969]

I think you're all wrong

 

To say that Joseph Smith was killed for his religion may have some truth to it, but it is a gross oversimplification. Joseph Smith wasn't killed simply for being a Mormon. Neither was the mob motivated primarily by "vengeance." Hardly anyone in the mob could claim to have been personally wronged or victimized by Joseph Smith—most had never met him.

"Being a Mormon" defined Joseph in ways that it likely has defined no other member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: those ways may have been both large and small, both direct and indirect, integral and tangential, but without his Mormonism, Joseph likely would have remained an obscure farmer of little account.  Many of the reasons you might posit for Joseph being killed, even if they didn't directly relate to his founding of the Church of Jesus Christ, surely had something to do with that role.  And as for members of the mob not having direct animus toward Joseph, I would suggest that even if many of the mobbers' motivations stemmed from the prospect that, "Heck, I don't know Joe Smith, but my friend Thomas Sharp says he's a perfect scoundrel, and that's good enough for me," that's bad enough.

Edited July 3, 2015 by Kenngo1969