Do Mormons consider Smith to be a Maryr

[dianaiad]

This is why I hate the way some of these discussions go. They end up being flame wars.

I have never seen a statement from the Catholic Church that approves killing a pre-born baby for any reason.

As a bit of a hobby, I study LDS history and find it very interesting. That said, I also would never believe in it, but I would love to see mutual respect and charity. I see Mormonism as one of the products of an age when there were all kinds unique belief systems popping up in the United States.

IMHO, Joseph Smith’s death within the context of a gunfight puts him outside consideration for being a martyr. If he sat in the cell while the mob enraged by the Expositor incident stormed the jail and then went peacefully to his end, I would say that would make him a martyr for the faith he thought correct. No one disputes that he was firing a weapon that eventually failed to operate. Firing a gun at someone is trying to kill that person.

I claim that he was a martyr because the reason he was killed was because of his religion. He didn’t go out with bombs attached to his person, and he didn’t start shooting until after the mob had begun shooting at what they thought were completely unarmed men. His brother (who, quite frankly, HAS to be called a martyr by even your strict definition of the word) was dead before he pulled the trigger the first time.

When the gun misfired, he dropped it and went to the window, and stood there while he was being shot at. We do not know what was in his mind at that time, but his action saved the lives of the other two men. By going to the window and exposing himself to the mob outside, he drew the attention away from the others, even as he ensured his own death.

Now those who hate him and his beliefs assume that he was attempting to escape–and that’s possible, but not likely; one doesn’t generally attempt to escape a situation by running INTO the gunfire. Their reason for assuming this is simply because they don’t like him or his beliefs.

the fact is, whatever he was thinking, he saved the lives of the other men by his actions…and those actions were taken without a gun in his hand, knowing he was giving his own life. That says ‘hero’ and ‘martyr’ to me.

Whatever anybody else thinks about the matter.

Shoot, as long as we don’t know what he was thinking, how about this for a scenario:

Joseph, having seen his brother killed and realizing that there was no escape for any of them if he simply allowed the men on the stairs unhampered entrance, thought very quickly, fired three shots into the mob on the stairs then ran to the window (these actions are well documented) for the purpose of getting everybody’s attention on HIM. He realized that if everybody was mad at, and concentrating on him, that they MIGHT leave the other two men alone. If he thought that, he was right, because that’s exactly what the mob did. Having killed Hyrum and Joseph, and played their little target practice games on a helpless man, they let the other two live.

Why couldn’t it have happened that way…a deliberate choice on the part of Joseph to make his death (unavoidable) work to save the lives of the others in the room? He had made similar choices in the past. That would make him, if not a martyr, certainly admirable in his last moments.

Of course, those who hate him and see nothing but ‘con man’ and ‘false prophet’ when they think of him will discount my interpretation, but their bias is pretty obvious.

As to that, so is mine…but here’s the deal; mine explains everything. Another interpretation has to exaggerate elements of what happened in order to work. (like describing the whole event as a ‘blazing gunfight’)

 

[Georgia]

I claim that he was a martyr because the reason he was killed was because of his religion. He didn’t go out with bombs attached to his person, and he didn’t start shooting until after the mob had begun shooting at what they thought were completely unarmed men. His brother (who, quite frankly, HAS to be called a martyr by even your strict definition of the word) was dead before he pulled the trigger the first time.

When the gun misfired, he dropped it and went to the window, and stood there while he was being shot at. We do not know what was in his mind at that time, but his action saved the lives of the other two men. By going to the window and exposing himself to the mob outside, he drew the attention away from the others, even as he ensured his own death.

Now those who hate him and his beliefs assume that he was attempting to escape–and that’s possible, but not likely; one doesn’t generally attempt to escape a situation by running INTO the gunfire. Their reason for assuming this is simply because they don’t like him or his beliefs.

the fact is, whatever he was thinking, he saved the lives of the other men by his actions…and those actions were taken without a gun in his hand, knowing he was giving his own life. That says ‘hero’ and ‘martyr’ to me.

Whatever anybody else thinks about the matter.

Shoot, as long as we don’t know what he was thinking, how about this for a scenario:

Joseph, having seen his brother killed and realizing that there was no escape for any of them if he simply allowed the men on the stairs unhampered entrance, thought very quickly, fired three shots into the mob on the stairs then ran to the window (these actions are well documented) for the purpose of getting everybody’s attention on HIM. He realized that if everybody was mad at, and concentrating on him, that they MIGHT leave the other two men alone. If he thought that, he was right, because that’s exactly what the mob did. Having killed Hyrum and Joseph, and played their little target practice games on a helpless man, they let the other two live.

Why couldn’t it have happened that way…a deliberate choice on the part of Joseph to make his death (unavoidable) work to save the lives of the others in the room? He had made similar choices in the past. That would make him, if not a martyr, certainly admirable in his last moments.

Of course, those who hate him and see nothing but ‘con man’ and ‘false prophet’ when they think of him will discount my interpretation, but their bias is pretty obvious.

As to that, so is mine…but here’s the deal; mine explains everything. Another interpretation has to exaggerate elements of what happened in order to work. (like describing the whole event as a ‘blazing gunfight’)

But wasn’t Smith giving the Masonic cry of distress at the window? If that is true, especially in the light of the exchange of gunfire before, would that not indicate he was doing something other than “being led like a lamb to slaughter?” We certainly will never know, but it could suggest that Smith was hoping to find help, a natural thing to do at the time of extreme peril.

If people think Smith was a false prophet, that does not indicate a bias other than that of not believing in Smith. It appears to me that there are only two options, one that Smith was led by God or that he was a false prophet. I see no other options. He could not be in between the two.

I find Smith to be far less than credible, but I hope we can all discuss this with a level of mutual respect. Disbelief in something does not make a person biased. It may mean a person has examined the matter and has found it unconvincing.

 

[dianaiad]

But wasn’t Smith giving the Masonic cry of distress at the window?

The only part of the Masonic cry for help was the “O Lord, My God” part. Of course, there was the part about putting one’s hands up 'Perpendicularly to the head, the elbows forming a square" which, by the way, is what one does when one is told to put one’s hands up when under arrest…

but yeah, it’s quite probable that this was an attempt to ask for help from the Masons. Joseph after all was one. I can’t see for the life of me how Joseph thought for one moment that any of the men shooting at him would actually honor that request for aid, though; men likely to pay attention to it wouldn’t have been shooting at him in the first place.

If that is true, especially in the light of the exchange of gunfire before, would that not indicate he was doing something other than “being led like a lamb to slaughter?” We certainly will never know, but it could suggest that Smith was hoping to find help, a natural thing to do at the time of extreme peril.

But not very logical. As I said, one generally doesn’t expect help from men who are not only shooting at you, but have, at the time you said something, actually killed your brother and put at least one bullet in YOU.

If people think Smith was a false prophet, that does not indicate a bias other than that of not believing in Smith. It appears to me that there are only two options, one that Smith was led by God or that he was a false prophet. I see no other options. He could not be in between the two.

Actually, I agree with that. You know, I think, which side of that argument I fall on.

I find Smith to be far less than credible, but I hope we can all discuss this with a level of mutual respect. Disbelief in something does not make a person biased. It may mean a person has examined the matter and has found it unconvincing.

That happens all the time, and is not a problem for me. What IS a problem for me is that those who disbelieve what Joseph said are therefore not willing to allow him any leeway for honor, courage or anything else…and if you look at his life, whether you believe that he was a prophet or not, you cannot accuse him of cowardice or being unwilling to stand for what he claimed to believe in.

 

[ralphinal]

Interesting.

I say that Joseph wasn’t attempting to kill anybody. (He didn’t kill anybody, as it turns out…) He was attempting to stop the mob from killing him and the other two men left alive in the room.

Now you, as a Catholic, should understand the difference here. After all, y’all believe that it is perfectly all right to kill a fetus if the primary purpose is not to kill the fetus or end a pregnancy, but rather to perform a medical procedure that would save the life of the mother, right? If the result of that procedure is the unavoidable death of the fetus, that’s unfortunate, but acceptable, as in…not ‘abortion?’

So…Joseph’s shooting at the men coming into the room who were shooting at HIM was simply an attempt to keep them from coming into the room. If death was an unavoidable byproduct, well…that’s unfortunate but acceptable, right?

Especially since, as it turns out, nobody died.

Except, of course, Joseph and his brother.

By the way, we know that nobody died because the men who claimed to have been shot by Joseph were the men who were tried for his murder; the evidence against them? The fact that they had been shot during the attack.

Let us simplify this.

Yes or no answers only…

Was JS armed with a weapon that could take a man’s life?

Did he discharge said weapon at those attacking him?

Did Jesus ever tell us that it was acceptable to use leathal force against those attacking us for our faith?

Now, do not misunderstand me. His actions were the normal HUMAN actions. He should not be condemned for them. However, normal human actions are not the actions of those who are truly following Christ

 

[dianaiad]

Let us simplify this.

Yes or no answers only…

Was JS armed with a weapon that could take a man’s life?

Did he discharge said weapon at those attacking him?

Did Jesus ever tell us that it was acceptable to use leathal force against those attacking us for our faith?

Now, do not misunderstand me. His actions were the normal HUMAN actions. He should not be condemned for them. However, normal human actions are not the actions of those who are truly following Christ

You mean like those of Peter, who denied Him three times, or of Paul, who did everything he could to wiggle out of his own conviction and execution?

The actions are not the problem; his intent was. Those who hate him assume that his actions were those of someone who was a coward attempting to escape. Those actions could as easily been those of a man who was giving his own life to save those of the men with him.

I prefer the latter explanation, as it fits everything that was done.

As in yes, he had a gun—but he didn’t shoot it until after it was obvious that doing so would not save his life—but MIGHT save the lives of others.

(shrug) we all must decide for ourselves which we think it was. The thing is, whether he intended it or not, his actions DID save the lives of the two remaining men. As well, I’m quite certain that God will place the blame for what happened that day upon the proper people.

 

[ralphinal]

You mean like those of Peter, who denied Him three times, or of Paul, who did everything he could to wiggle out of his own conviction and execution?

The actions are not the problem; his intent was. Those who hate him assume that his actions were those of someone who was a coward attempting to escape. Those actions could as easily been those of a man who was giving his own life to save those of the men with him.

I prefer the latter explanation, as it fits everything that was done.

As in yes, he had a gun—but he didn’t shoot it until after it was obvious that doing so would not save his life—but MIGHT save the lives of others.

(shrug) we all must decide for ourselves which we think it was. The thing is, whether he intended it or not, his actions DID save the lives of the two remaining men. As well, I’m quite certain that God will place the blame for what happened that day upon the proper people.

How did Peter act when it was his time to die? Or Paul? Can you answer that?

What did Jesus tell Peter in the Garden when he struck the servant’s ear?

Did you ever think that had JS not stirred trouble where ever he went by doing things like destroying the newspaper that spoke against him, none of them would have been in danger?

 

[Jerusha]

This subject again?? !!!

Read through here, and you will find plenty of Affidavits about what was going on, and the history of the saituation in Missouri. Thomas Sharp did an excellent job of proving “justified homicide” before and immediately after the killing. Dallin Oaks’ book presents only one side of the story.

Do a search using Thomas Sharp Warsaw Signal Mormon Broadhurst and read the Warsaw Signal articles for 1844. I can’t seem to get a live link.

I disagree with their action, since I don’t believe in the death penalty unless for genocide, but hatred for an event so long ago really doesn’t make any sense.

 

[majick275]

I claim that he was a martyr because the reason he was killed was because of his religion.

He didn’t go out with bombs attached to his person, and he didn’t start shooting until after the mob had begun shooting at what they thought were completely unarmed men. His brother (who, quite frankly, HAS to be called a martyr by even your strict definition of the word) was dead before he pulled the trigger the first time. i agree with these events but not your interpretation of them. NOT martyrdom

When the gun misfired, he dropped it and went to the window, and stood there while he was being shot at. We do not know what was in his mind at that time, but his action saved the lives of the other two men. By going to the window and exposing himself to the mob outside, he drew the attention away from the others, even as he ensured his own death.

you are overthinking this. he did nothing heroic either. he tried to avoid death, tried to escape…he was murdered

Now those who hate him and his beliefs assume that he was attempting to escape–and that’s possible, but not likely; one doesn’t generally attempt to escape a situation by running INTO the gunfire. Their reason for assuming this is simply because they don’t like him or his beliefs.

a desperate panicked individual does all kinds of illogical things

the fact is, whatever he was thinking, he saved the lives of the other men by his actions…and those actions were taken without a gun in his hand, knowing he was giving his own life. That says ‘hero’ and ‘martyr’ to me.

you assume a causal relationship that the facts don’t support. if the mob wanted to kill those other men they would have. this was luck

Whatever anybody else thinks about the matter.

Shoot, as long as we don’t know what he was thinking, how about this for a scenario:

Joseph, having seen his brother killed and realizing that there was no escape for any of them if he simply allowed the men on the stairs unhampered entrance, thought very quickly, fired three shots into the mob on the stairs then ran to the window (these actions are well documented) for the purpose of getting everybody’s attention on HIM. He realized that if everybody was mad at, and concentrating on him, that they MIGHT leave the other two men alone. If he thought that, he was right, because that’s exactly what the mob did. Having killed Hyrum and Joseph, and played their little target practice games on a helpless man, they let the other two live.

Why couldn’t it have happened that way…a deliberate choice on the part of Joseph to make his death (unavoidable) work to save the lives of the others in the room? He had made similar choices in the past. That would make him, if not a martyr, certainly admirable in his last moments.

we could what if all day and i’m sure your version would make a nice novel at BYU but it’s NOT factual

Of course, those who hate him and see nothing but ‘con man’ and ‘false prophet’ when they think of him will discount my interpretation, but their bias is pretty obvious.

as is yours…difference? we know for a fact about the money and property scams and the affairs of JS. you are speculating on his “noble” motives

As to that, so is mine…but here’s the deal; mine explains everything. Another interpretation has to exaggerate elements of what happened in order to work. (like describing the whole event as a ‘blazing gunfight’)

your does not. you focus on the mechanics of the shooting itself only taken completely out of context from what brought about this situation and who was involved.

 

[dianaiad]

How did Peter act when it was his time to die? Or Paul? Can you answer that?

What did Jesus tell Peter in the Garden when he struck the servant’s ear?

Did you ever think that had JS not stirred trouble where ever he went by doing things like destroying the newspaper that spoke against him, none of them would have been in danger?

Did you ever think that if Stephen had kept his temper and NOT called the Sanhedren “uncircumcised of heart” and other choice names that he might not have been mobbed and stoned?

Or if Jesus had NOT gone after the money changers in the Temple with a whip, that the powers that be would not have been quite so determined to get rid ofhim?

Or that if Paul hadn’t been quite so outspoken, his poly to use his Roman citizenship to avoid his own death might have worked?

The thing that absolutely astounds me is this assumption that dismantling the printing press (and offering to pay for it) justifies his murder. Even if the publisher of that paper had NOT just been caught in an assassination plot, and even if he were NOT actively advertising for people to come into Nauvoo and do violence to the Mormons living there, that seems a bit harsh, don’t you?

You are aware that even now the penalty for actively inciting violence in your publication includes shutting that publication down, right? A restraining order is the least of these, but if that is not helpful (and it generally isn’t against people who are actually plotting murder) then the next is to impose sanctions, from minor fines to confiscation of the property.

It might not have been wise, in hindsight, for Joseph and the Nauvoo city council to dismantle that press (even if they did offer to pay for it…which modern courts would not even attempt to do…today the press would be confiscated and the owner of it would have been fined to pay for the dismantling). However, they were well within their rights to do it.

Frankly, since to today incitement to violence is given the same penalty in a court of law as the violence itself, the city council reaction was rather mild.

 

[Bill_Pick]

Did you ever think that if Stephen had kept his temper and NOT called the Sanhedren “uncircumcised of heart” and other choice names that he might not have been mobbed and stoned?

Or if Jesus had NOT gone after the money changers in the Temple with a whip, that the powers that be would not have been quite so determined to get rid ofhim?

Or that if Paul hadn’t been quite so outspoken, his poly to use his Roman citizenship to avoid his own death might have worked?

The thing that absolutely astounds me is this assumption that dismantling the printing press (and offering to pay for it) justifies his murder. Even if the publisher of that paper had NOT just been caught in an assassination plot, and even if he were NOT actively advertising for people to come into Nauvoo and do violence to the Mormons living there, that seems a bit harsh, don’t you?

You are aware that even now the penalty for actively inciting violence in your publication includes shutting that publication down, right? A restraining order is the least of these, but if that is not helpful (and it generally isn’t against people who are actually plotting murder) then the next is to impose sanctions, from minor fines to confiscation of the property.

It might not have been wise, in hindsight, for Joseph and the Nauvoo city council to dismantle that press (even if they did offer to pay for it…which modern courts would not even attempt to do…today the press would be confiscated and the owner of it would have been fined to pay for the dismantling). However, they were well within their rights to do it.

Frankly, since to today incitement to violence is given the same penalty in a court of law as the violence itself, the city council reaction was rather mild.

Smith brought destruction upon himself when in revenge he ordered a printing press destroyed. It was owned by Mormons who opposed his teaching on polygamy and that there were many gods. Smith’s death was indeed murder and entirely wrong, but he was not a “martyr.”

 

[dianaiad]

Smith brought destruction upon himself when in revenge he ordered a printing press destroyed. It was owned by Mormons who opposed his teaching on polygamy and that there were many gods. Smith’s death was indeed murder and entirely wrong, but he was not a “martyr.”

You didn’t read the words you quoted, did you?

You might be interested in this, as to the legal standing of the Nauvoo city council in destroying that printing press: were you aware that in 1833 the LDS paper “The Morning and the Evening Star” in Missourri was 'razed to the ground" by a mob committee that was formed for the purpose of, and dedicated to, the driving out of the Mormons from that area. Not only was their printing press utterly destroyed, nobody offered to pay for it…and the mob gave the Mormons an ultimatum; they were not to publish anything else before they left. In fact, LDS printing presses were destroyed several times.

…the destruction of the Mormon printing presses were not even close to legal; I notice, however, that nobody here is worried about whether the MORMONS had freedom of the press. The Expositor destruction was legal. Unwise, but legal.

As well, it wasn’t only Mormon printing presses that were destroyed. At the time, mobs who violently disagreed with what was being published had a habit of destroying the presses, burning down the buildings (generally with the publishers inside…) and going into full blown riot mode. At least sixteen western presses were treated to the same sort of thing before and after the Expositor affair, though only one such incident was restricted to the destruction of the press itself, and only one such incident was followed by an offer to pay for the damage–and this is the only one that dealt with an anti-Mormon publication. (It was also intensely anti-Catholic, by the way…)

It was that incident, that was pretty much the only such incident that did not involve extreme property damage and personal injury/death, that resulted in the execution at the hands of the mob of the head of the city council that ordered it.

(shrug)

Whatever, you will believe as you wish.

 

[twopekinguys]

You didn’t read the words you quoted, did you?

You might be interested in this, as to the legal standing of the Nauvoo city council in destroying that printing press: were you aware that in 1833 the LDS paper “The Morning and the Evening Star” in Missourri was 'razed to the ground" by a mob committee that was formed for the purpose of, and dedicated to, the driving out of the Mormons from that area. Not only was their printing press utterly destroyed, nobody offered to pay for it…and the mob gave the Mormons an ultimatum; they were not to publish anything else before they left. In fact, LDS printing presses were destroyed several times.

…the destruction of the Mormon printing presses were not even close to legal; I notice, however, that nobody here is worried about whether the MORMONS had freedom of the press. The Expositor destruction was legal. Unwise, but legal.

As well, it wasn’t only Mormon printing presses that were destroyed. At the time, mobs who violently disagreed with what was being published had a habit of destroying the presses, burning down the buildings (generally with the publishers inside…) and going into full blown riot mode. At least sixteen western presses were treated to the same sort of thing before and after the Expositor affair, though only one such incident was restricted to the destruction of the press itself, and only one such incident was followed by an offer to pay for the damage–and this is the only one that dealt with an anti-Mormon publication. (It was also intensely anti-Catholic, by the way…)

It was that incident, that was pretty much the only such incident that did not involve extreme property damage and personal injury/death, that resulted in the execution at the hands of the mob of the head of the city council that ordered it.

(shrug)

Whatever, you will believe as you wish.

What is your reference for saying that destruction of one printing press was illegal, and the destruction of the the other was legal?

From what I can find, there was only one issue of the Expositor published. While I admit, I didn’t read the entire thing, I didn’t find anything that was decidedly “anti-Catholic”. Could you point me to what you saw as anti-Catholic?

Now I did read in the Expositor, “We have received from Nauvoo a Prospectus for a new paper, to be entitled the “Nauvoo Expositor.” It is intended to be the organ of the Reformed Mormon Church,”…so basically, isn’t this mormon on mormon violence?

Here is the link to the paper I looked at. Maybe you have something different.

solomonspalding.com/docs/exposit1.htm

 

[ralphinal]

Did you ever think that if Stephen had kept his temper and NOT called the Sanhedren “uncircumcised of heart” and other choice names that he might not have been mobbed and stoned?

Stephen was filled with the Holy Spirit when he did that. Was JS when he fired into the crowd?

Or if Jesus had NOT gone after the money changers in the Temple with a whip, that the powers that be would not have been quite so determined to get rid ofhim?

Or that if Paul hadn’t been quite so outspoken, his poly to use his Roman citizenship to avoid his own death might have worked?

Again, are you saying that firing a gun into the crowd is the same kind of actions as what Jesus and Paul did?

The thing that absolutely astounds me is this assumption that dismantling the printing press (and offering to pay for it) justifies his murder. Even if the publisher of that paper had NOT just been caught in an assassination plot, and even if he were NOT actively advertising for people to come into Nauvoo and do violence to the Mormons living there, that seems a bit harsh, don’t you?

Show me where I condoned the mob. I did not. They were not acting in a lawful or Christian way. It does not mean that JS was when he fired into the crowd.

You are aware that even now the penalty for actively inciting violence in your publication includes shutting that publication down, right? A restraining order is the least of these, but if that is not helpful (and it generally isn’t against people who are actually plotting murder) then the next is to impose sanctions, from minor fines to confiscation of the property.

Irrelevent. The issue at hand is if it was Christ-like for him to fire into the crowd. If it was, he may be a martyr. IF not, he is not.

It might not have been wise, in hindsight, for Joseph and the Nauvoo city council to dismantle that press (even if they did offer to pay for it…which modern courts would not even attempt to do…today the press would be confiscated and the owner of it would have been fined to pay for the dismantling). However, they were well within their rights to do it.

Again, you are dodging the issue.

Frankly, since to today incitement to violence is given the same penalty in a court of law as the violence itself, the city council reaction was rather mild.

Again, was JS acting according to the teachings of JEsus?

 

[dianaiad]

What is your reference for saying that destruction of one printing press was illegal, and the destruction of the the other was legal?

From what I can find, there was only one issue of the Expositor published. While I admit, I didn’t read the entire thing, I didn’t find anything that was decidedly “anti-Catholic”. Could you point me to what you saw as anti-Catholic?

Now I did read in the Expositor, “We have received from Nauvoo a Prospectus for a new paper, to be entitled the “Nauvoo Expositor.” It is intended to be the organ of the Reformed Mormon Church,”…so basically, isn’t this mormon on mormon violence?

Here is the link to the paper I looked at. Maybe you have something different.

solomonspalding.com/docs/exposit1.htm

The destruction of the Expositor was legal because it was ordered by the town council after having met and considered the problem, under the rule that it was a ‘public nuisance’ and an incitement to riot…which it was. That is, the dismantling of the printing press was legal, as was the destruction of the one edition of the paper. The actual destruction of the printing type, however, was not; that went over the line into destruction of personal property. It was that for which Joseph offered to make reparations.

As to the anti-Catholic part of it, if you have access to a searchable version of the text (easy…google ‘Nauvoo Expositor text’) do a ‘word find’ (that’s Control + F on the keyboard) for “popery.”

 

[dianaiad]

Stephen was filled with the Holy Spirit when he did that. Was JS when he fired into the crowd?

We don’t know, do we? The only witnesses were those who were shooting at HIM, and who were either a. already dead, b. filled with bullet holes and under the bed or trapped behind the door and not in a really good position to ask. The whole thing lasted about twenty minutes from the beginning of the attack to the fleeing of the mob. Stephen had a little bit longer to prepare and a few more sympathetic witnesses to attest to his state of mind.

Again, are you saying that firing a gun into the crowd is the same kind of actions as what Jesus and Paul did?

Jesus took after a whole bunch of people with a whip, turning over tables and being generally wroth with them over their mercenary practices in the Temple courtyard. Now His intent was to clear the area so that the Temple could be used as it should be used, but…He did use a whip and caused injury and property damage. We don’t know, of course, but I’ve seen a whip used, and I’ve seen what can happen when someone gets hit by the tip of one. It ain’t pretty.

Now, the Lord’s INTENT may not have been to hurt people, but since He did use a whip, the primary purpose for which is to cause pain and injury to whatever it is used on, the probable consequences for using it are pretty obvious.

As to Paul, I’m certain that if Joseph had a chance to use the legal methods that Paul had at hand, he would rather have used them.

Show me where I condoned the mob. I did not. They were not acting in a lawful or Christian way. It does not mean that JS was when he fired into the crowd.

Whether he was acting in a “Christian” way sort of depends upon your definition of “Christian.” Christ Himself sent His disciples out with swords–and one doesn’t wear one of those unless one is allowed to actually use it…in self defense, of course. As to 'lawful?" OF COURSE IT WAS LAWFUL!!! It is always lawful to defend yourself against attack, even if you are a prisoner, if the attackers are themselves breaking the law. The jailer did his best to help Joseph and the others in the room, by seeing to it that they WERE in ‘a room,’ and not the barred cell they were supposed to be in.

Irrelevent. The issue at hand is if it was Christ-like for him to fire into the crowd. If it was, he may be a martyr. IF not, he is not.

Well, Christ is the one who cleared the Temple with a whip. He could have attempted to do it with words, but He chose a different method.

Again, you are dodging the issue.

No, I’m not. I’m addressing it as clearly as I can. The dismantling of the printing press was legal because the laws and culture under which it was done allowed it. There was precedent, and it was done under other conditions several times later by others…and nobody got a case of the gasping oh dears over any of 'em. Why did they with Joseph? Because…Joseph was the leader of the Mormons and everybody hated Mormons. So even though his actions against Law’s printing press were legal (barely, I’ll admit, and he did go too far when he actually destroyed the type even if he did offer to pay for that), the action was considered heinous–not because the act was heinous, but because Joseph did it.

I am pointing out that if you can sit back and complacently say that Joseph brought his own death upon himself because of the Expositor affair, then one could, with exactly as much accuracy, say that Jesus brought His own crucifixion upon Himself because of the Temple incident.

…and by ‘exactly as much accuracy’ I hope that you understand that I mean 'absolutely none at all." Jesus was NOT crucified because of the Temple whipping, and Joseph Smith was NOT murdered because of the Expositor. In both cases, these incidents were part of the excuse. The REASON was religion…and if the reason was religion, then ‘martyr’ is the proper designation for the victim, no matter how much he may have attempted to evade or defend himself.

Now WE understand that Joseph Smith is not the Savior. We do not compare them. We do compare Joseph to other prophets, like Peter, Paul, Abraham, Luke, Isaac, John, and so on, but not to Jesus. All the prophets were men, fallible–and their faults are carefully illuminated in the scriptures, have you noticed that?

Again, was JS acting according to the teachings of JEsus?

"Greater love hath no man than he give his life for his friends.’

Whether he was thinking clearly enough to understand exactly what to do in order to save the lives of the other two men in the room or not is a question…but if he wasn’t deliberately doing everything he could to save them, then his instincts kicked in well, because his actions saved them. Discouraging further invasion at the door, then standing at the window and drawing fire saved the other two. Simply waiting for the men at the door to come in shooting would have guaranteed the deaths of all four.

You think what you will. I choose to believe that he knew what he was doing, and did the only things he could to save their lives.

 

[twopekinguys]

The destruction of the Expositor was legal because it was ordered by the town council after having met and considered the problem, under the rule that it was a ‘public nuisance’ and an incitement to riot…which it was. That is, the dismantling of the printing press was legal, as was the destruction of the one edition of the paper. The actual destruction of the printing type, however, was not; that went over the line into destruction of personal property. It was that for which Joseph offered to make reparations.

As to the anti-Catholic part of it, if you have access to a searchable version of the text (easy…google ‘Nauvoo Expositor text’) do a ‘word find’ (that’s Control + F on the keyboard) for “popery.”

Thanks for the reply.

I still have to question whether or not the destruction of the press was legal. We all know that City Councils, State Legislatures and even Federal legislatures have approved of things that were ultimately found to be illegal.

I did the word search you suggested on the link that I provided, and found 2 uses of the word “Popery”, and in context, it refers to the Dark ages, and in a backhanded way, it said the Dark Ages and what happened then wasn’t nearly as bad as what they were experiencing at that time. To me, that doesn’t necessarily mean they were anti-Catholic. But then again, I’m probably a little more thick skinned than alot of people.

What do you think of the statement on page 3 of the Expositor " It is intended to be the organ of the Reformed Mormon Church"? Doesn’t that really look like mormon on mormon violence?

 

[dianaiad]

Thanks for the reply.

I still have to question whether or not the destruction of the press was legal. We all know that City Councils, State Legislatures and even Federal legislatures have approved of things that were ultimately found to be illegal.

I did the word search you suggested on the link that I provided, and found 2 uses of the word “Popery”, and in context, it refers to the Dark ages, and in a backhanded way, it said the Dark Ages and what happened then wasn’t nearly as bad as what they were experiencing at that time. To me, that doesn’t necessarily mean they were anti-Catholic. But then again, I’m probably a little more thick skinned than alot of people.

What do you think of the statement on page 3 of the Expositor " It is intended to be the organ of the Reformed Mormon Church"? Doesn’t that really look like mormon on mormon violence?

That might be…but nobody in the mob that murdered Joseph was Mormon, either current or ‘ex.’

As well, there are no enemies quite as virulent as those who used to be friends.

 

[majick275]

That might be…but nobody in the mob that murdered Joseph was Mormon, either current or ‘ex.’

As well, there are no enemies quite as virulent as those who used to be friends.

yet the facts show otherwise

 

[dianaiad]

yet the facts show otherwise

Indeed?

Well, the mob consisted of (among the farmers, soldiers and other quieter professions) mayors, Baptist ministers, congressional representatives, state senators, a United States Attorney (their careers were much aided by their participation in the mob and their acquittal of murder thereby) and the ‘Carthage Grays’ who were actually supposed to have been protecting Joseph and the other three prisoners.

There wasn’t a Mormon among 'em, either current or ex. Sorry.

However, do feel free to hunt down the names of everybody in the mob and let us know their religious affiliation. You will find a great many Baptists, a Presbyterian or two, a few other fundamentalist types…I don’t believe that there were any Catholics…pro-slavery folks (Joseph was running for Pres. on an abolitionist ticket).

As to my other statement…that there are few enemies more virulent than former friends? I think that this is a truism.

Feel free to disagree, of course, but I don’t think that you are going to be able to support it with ‘facts,’ or even a bald assertion that there ARE such facts.

 

[majick275]

Indeed?

Well, the mob consisted of (among the farmers, soldiers and other quieter professions) mayors, Baptist ministers, congressional representatives, state senators, a United States Attorney (their careers were much aided by their participation in the mob and their acquittal of murder thereby) and the ‘Carthage Grays’ who were actually supposed to have been protecting Joseph and the other three prisoners.

There wasn’t a Mormon among 'em, either current or ex. Sorry.

However, do feel free to hunt down the names of everybody in the mob and let us know their religious affiliation. You will find a great many Baptists, a Presbyterian or two, a few other fundamentalist types…I don’t believe that there were any Catholics…pro-slavery folks (Joseph was running for Pres. on an abolitionist ticket).

As to my other statement…that there are few enemies more virulent than former friends? I think that this is a truism.

Feel free to disagree, of course, but I don’t think that you are going to be able to support it with ‘facts,’ or even a bald assertion that there ARE such facts.

this all boils down to JS conduct that was revealed in the expositor and his subsequent conduct in abusing his authority and having it destroyed. please cite your sources detailing the specific names and church memberships of the mob at carthage…i am interested in the methodology used to accurately identify all of those people…

We KNOW who published the expositor…we KNOW who JS opposition was in relation to the misdeeds of his printed in it. there is simply no hiding the fact that JS used his position in the LDS church to obtain temporal wealth and power and also more than few women…regardless of whether or not they were already married…or his wards. from the kirtland bank scandal on to the nauvoo expositor JS typifies despotic behavior and has for his most vocal and active enemies those whom he once counted as his closest advisors…because they could not stomach the depths of depravity to which he had sunk