Remembering The Martyrdom

[longview]

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

Carthage Conspiracy: The Trial of the Accused Assassins of Joseph SmithOct 1975

by Dallin H Oaks and Marvin S Hill

Hardcover

$7.66used & new(44 offers)

 

I have not yet read it but is on my to do list . . .

[Scott Lloyd]

"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.

I very much agree with this. Joseph was a package deal and most everybody recognized it.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm reading repeatedly here about Joseph being killed in retaliation for supposed wrongs he committed against people. But I can't recall any such wrongs. If there were any, they were surely not serious enough to justify his being murdered.

[Scott Lloyd]

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").

If one rationalizes the action of the mobs in their murder of Joseph and Hyrum on the basis of fear, then the actions of the perpetrators of the Mountain Meadows Massacre must be rationalized on the same basis.

 

But it occurs to me that most any mob is motivated to one degree or another by fear -- generally irrational fear. That doesn't make mob action in any way excusable.

Edited July 3, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Joshua Valentine]

I'm reading repeatedly here about Joseph being killed in retaliation for supposed wrongs he committed against people. But I can't recall any such wrongs. If there were any, they were surely not serious enough to justify his being murdered.

  

If one rationalizes the action of the mobs in their murder of Joseph and Hyrum on the basis of fear, then the actions of the perpetrators of the Mountain Meadows Massacre must be rationalized on the same basis.

 

But it occurs to me that most any mob is motivated to one degree or another by fear -- generally irrational fear. That doesn't make mob action in any way excusable.

Scott Lloyd,

I want to assure you that none of my comments were meant to indicate that there was any kind of justification or excuse for the actions of the group that stormed the jail or the men who attempted to kill or the men who did kill Joseph and Hyrum. I don't believe anyone else here has either. Their actions were unauthorized, illegal, and immoral. I, for one, was just challenging the simple description of martyr and considering possible factors (Joseph's actions) and motivations (vengeance and, as Nevo reminded, political-economic), that might require a more complex and robust understanding and description of the murder.

[Scott Lloyd]

  

Scott Lloyd,

I want to assure you that none of my comments were meant to indicate that there was any kind of justification or excuse for the actions of the group that stormed the jail or the men who attempted to kill or the men who did kill Joseph and Hyrum. I don't believe anyone else here has either. Their actions were unauthorized, illegal, and immoral. I, for one, was just challenging the simple description of martyr and considering possible factors (Joseph's actions) and motivations (vengeance and, as Nevo reminded, political-economic), that might require a more complex and robust understanding and description of the murder.

I don't concede that individual gripes against Joseph -- be they socio-political, economic, whatever -- can be generally tied up in overall opposition and hatred of him for who and what he was is a less-than-"robust understanding.

 

And I notice you have ignored my question about your personal background and attitude toward Joseph, whether it amounts to religiously based antipathy. I am disposed to draw a between-the-lines conclusion from your continued failure to respond to that.

[Kenngo1969]

"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.

 

 

I very much agree with this. Joseph was a package deal and most everybody recognized it.

Thank you.  I really appreciate it, and would never want to make you think otherwise.  The problem is that your post agreeing with my post now has more rep points than my post, with which you agree.  What's up with that?!

 

 

P.S.: Angels don't generally have conversations such as this one with obscure, poor farm boys of little account (Joseph Smith-History 1:33):

 

 

33 He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Moroni; that God had a work for me to do; and that my name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people.

 

Edited July 3, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Calm]

I have balanced things out.

Can't guarantee it will stay that way though.

Edited July 3, 2015 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

Thank you. I really appreciate it, and would never want to make you think otherwise. The problem is that your post agreeing with my post now has more rep points than my post, with which you agree. What's up with that?!

P.S.: Angels don't generally have conversations such as this one with obscure, poor farm boys of little account (Joseph Smith-History 1:33):

Well now, I did add a tiny bit of original content.

[Kenngo1969]

I have balanced things out.

Can't guarantee it will stay that way though.

Thanks.

 

Well now, I did add a tiny bit of original content.

Well, OK: I guess I'll have to defer to you, since you're The Professional Wordsmith Extraordinaire , and I'm ... well, whatever it is that I am!

[Joshua Valentine]

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.

Lloyd, this comment of yours was obviously hostile given that 1) your representation of my position was completely unsupported by my actual statement, 2) emphasizing your (groundless) point by accusing me by name, and 3) sarcasm of your witticism at the end.

In my original comment I simply gave additional perspective that offered a differentoption besides martyr. And I asked questions for discussion. Nowhere did I claim a personal criteria or definition, or imply my opinion determined anything. This was all made up by you, without provocation.

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!

Here, I showed how your hostility came through your seemingly deliberate and vilifying misrepresentation of my comment.

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.

You found my non-agreement with you hostile? Really?

Lloyd, you seemingly deliberately misrepresent my comment, then claim I'm hostile for not agreeing with you. Then you want to know my background and ask if I have a "deep-seated dislike or aversion"to Joseph Smith based on religion, aka you asked me if I'm a bigot, and you expected me to answer? Really?

Maybe you were just asking what "team" I'm on. But still!

Scott Lloyd,

I want to assure you that none of my comments were meant to indicate that there was any kind of justification or excuse for the actions of the group that stormed the jail or the men who attempted to kill or the men who did kill Joseph and Hyrum. I don't believe anyone else here has either. Their actions were unauthorized, illegal, and immoral. I, for one, was just challenging the simple description of martyr and considering possible factors (Joseph's actions) and motivations (vengeance and, as Nevo reminded, political-economic), that might require a more complex and robust understanding and description of the murder.

Scott Lloyd, I tried to offer an olive branch here. And how do you respond?

I don't concede that individual gripes against Joseph -- be they socio-political, economic, whatever -- can be generally tied up in overall opposition and hatred of him for who and what he was is a less-than-"robust understanding.

 

And I notice you have ignored my question about your personal background and attitude toward Joseph, whether it amounts to religiously based antipathy. I am disposed to draw a between-the-lines conclusion from your continued failure to respond to that.

I am unsure what exactly you are saying in the first sentence. But it sounds like it could make for good discussion. Instead...

You ask for my background and "attitude"toward Joseph Smith and whether I have an aversion to or dislike him because of religious differences. I've explained why I was loath to reply to such.

Yet, you are "disposed"to assume my background, attitude toward Joseph, and my religion based dislikes from my silence? Really?

I look to your reply (hoping for a good resolution to our first exchange), and then I will return to the topic of thread (I promise Admins.).