Do Mormons consider Smith to be a Maryr

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bill_Pick
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Perhaps JS’s fatal mistake was propositioning Nancy Rigdon, the nineteen-year old daughter of Sidney Rigdon. Once he lost his support, it was all over. The anger of those who were opposed to polygamy, once it was exposed, could lead to only one end. Polygamy was enforced by JS and his friends.

We do not know the names of those who were participants in the vigilante action on Joseph Smith. Therefore, we cannot make any assumptions on their religious affiliation.

Three or four of the vigilantes were injured. Three were indicted, but fled the area. The fourth, mentioned by John Hay, had an alibi and many friends. None of those brought to trial were among those who were injured.

There was plenty of evidence that Joseph and his friends were involved in other criminal activities, both in Western Missouri, and in the Nauvoo area. Those activities included murder. That, however, does not justify the actions of the vigilantes. Nothing (except genocide) justifies murder.
 
Perhaps JS’s fatal mistake was propositioning Nancy Rigdon, the nineteen-year old daughter of Sidney Rigdon. Once he lost his support, it was all over. The anger of those who were opposed to polygamy, once it was exposed, could lead to only one end. Polygamy was enforced by JS and his friends.

We do not know the names of those who were participants in the vigilante action on Joseph Smith. Therefore, we cannot make any assumptions on their religious affiliation.

Three or four of the vigilantes were injured. Three were indicted, but fled the area. The fourth, mentioned by John Hay, had an alibi and many friends. None of those brought to trial were among those who were injured.

There was plenty of evidence that Joseph and his friends were involved in other criminal activities, both in Western Missouri, and in the Nauvoo area. Those activities included murder. That, however, does not justify the actions of the vigilantes. Nothing (except genocide) justifies murder.
i believe it is actually a tragedy that JS was murdered. had he lived i think his lies would have unraveled so badly that mormonism would have disintegrated in that generation. instead you had a catalytic event that allowed a much more capable leader (BY) to use this perceived “martyrdom” to isolate a people thus creating a new culture that has persisted for some time now in it’s false doctrines.
 
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
Sorry.

You are the one who claimed that there were Mormons in the mob. I say no, there weren’t…but since you are the one who claimed that there were, you get to prove it. So far, none of the identified members were Mormon. Certainly the ones who were put on trial (who represented the professions I listed) were not Mormon, and never had been.

As to the rhetoric in the Expositor…why do you believe everything you read in it? Why are you swallowing it hook, line and sinker, anyway?

Remember, Law had just been caught attempting to assassinate Joseph, Hyrum and several members of the city council; I’d say his credibility was not the highest.

Of course, I do know why you dismiss the small matter of attempted murder on the part of Law, accept everything he wrote in the Expositor as gospel truth and use the city council’s decision to dismantle the printing press as justification for the mob attack and murder of Joseph…

It’s because you don’t like the religion. Take religion OUT of the equation, and the actions would have an entirely different meaning for you. Or better still, if Joseph taught things you agreed with…

Is a major problem, this.
 
You have yet to provide a reference for this assassination attempt.
 
Yes I did. You just refuse to accept any reference by anybody who was LDS and stayed that way.
I see no reason to accept the view of people who had reasons to go after the character of a man who never did show violence, at any time. Especially when his accusers have included accusations that Law was at Carthage with the mob, but there is sound evidence he was not. JS on the other hand, was known for his character assassinations, real and threatened, of anyone who opposed him in any way. This includes William Law. You are clearly on board with this behavior yourself.
 
i believe it is actually a tragedy that JS was murdered. had he lived i think his lies would have unraveled so badly that mormonism would have disintegrated in that generation. instead you had a catalytic event that allowed a much more capable leader (BY) to use this perceived “martyrdom” to isolate a people thus creating a new culture that has persisted for some time now in it’s false doctrines.
Exactly. I think the Strangite and RLDS histories illustrate that clearly.
 
I see no reason to accept the view of people who had reasons to go after the character of a man who never did show violence, at any time. Especially when his accusers have included accusations that Law was at Carthage with the mob, but there is sound evidence he was not. JS on the other hand, was known for his character assassinations, real and threatened, of anyone who opposed him in any way. This includes William Law. You are clearly on board with this behavior yourself.
Rebecca, have I ever threatened you in any way, or even treated you with discourtesy? Yet you are constantly going straight to the ad hominem–and this one is a particularly nasty version.

You know that I have never accused Law of being physically with the mob. In fact, I was the one here on the board that TOLD you that; he was in Carthage earlier in the day, but not with the mob itself. There were a great many accusations flying around at the time of the murders, as there are around any crime newly committed. Some were pretty wild, some turned out to be accurate. There was some speculation at that time that Law was with the mob, but that was very soon dispelled, and you will not find anybody who claims that he was actually with the mob now, or indeed during Law’s lifetime. He was cleared of that very early on.

The fact is, however, William Law was overheard plotting to kill Joseph and Hyrum as he met with the group he formed, called “the Conspirators.”

The story behind the meetings during which these plots were hatched is entertaining…and when you get past the florid verbiage that the writers of that time were wont to use (so contagious is it that you can’t help using it to describe it!) that the facts of it are pretty clear. Law and his wife, who were upset about the polygamy thing…and the fact that Law was about to lose a whole bunch of money, called a bunch of people together who were equally upset at Joseph; they didn’t like what was happening and they wanted to change or stop it.

As was very usual in that time, the rhetoric surrounding the meetings of 'The Conspirators" was florid and extreme, full of blood oaths and extravagant accusations a declarations. Everybody there was mad at Joseph for some reason; some because of polygamy, some because Joseph was running for President and it was actually starting to look good for him (which, by the way, startled and unnerved Joseph, who figured that he was a classical third party thorn, not having any real chance at things…the LAST thing the man wanted to actually do was WIN that election!) Some for other reasons.

The point is, everybody at those meetings was out for blood, figuratively if not literally. According to the boys who reported these meetings, and accounting for their bias as frightened teenagers who thought they were playing spy and found out that it was a little too real for them, the plots were humming thick and fast. THEY described it as the wickedness of evil men…I read it as a bunch of people who were expressing frustration and anger, and whose extravagant threats were more for show than substance; they couldn’t get organized enough to figure out what they wanted to do, much less organize the doing of it, for at least three meetings.

When the boys were found out, because they wouldn’t sign a paper saying that they would devote their lives, money and honor to encompassing the death of Joseph, they were threatened, taken out of the meeting, (ostensibly to find a place to slit their throats quietly) but escaped when the place they were taken to turned out to be the local ‘lovers lane’ (occupied). So they were threatened with their lives and let go.

Now to me all that says two things: one, that Law and Co. were plotting Joseph’s demise, whether political, economical or physical. Two, that the threats were more metaphorical than literal, as is seen by the paper they were asked to sign and the way the boys were treated. There is no way that the men escorting the boys out of the meeting did NOT know that the riverbank was going to be full of young lovers at that time of the evening. In other words, they were given a good scare and told to go home before their daddies missed them. Of course, part of that scare was that if anybody ever heard about the meetings, that THEY were going to be targets.

I believe that this is why Joseph and the rest of the council did not arrest Law for this…because "the Conspirators’ broke up almost immediately after this; the steam had been blown off a bunch of inept idiots. I mean, really…“The Conspirators???” . On the other hand, Law was the founder and leader of the Conspirators, and he, unlike the rest of the group, kept going.

…and he himself admitted that he was in Carthage on the day of the attack. It has long been suspected, with fairly good reason, that he was a behind the scenes actor in it.

I have never heard, or seen, anybody accusing Law of being with the mob, because as you have mentioned, he was elsewhere at the time of the attack. He WAS, according to his own admission (his diary) in Carthage that morning having meetings with men who WERE in the mob. We don’t know what was said during those meetings, however, or what their purpose was.

In that diary he was rather like you and some others on this board…well, at least in one respect. He at least expressed outrage at Joseph’s murder (rather hypocritical of him given that he had plotted to kill the man himself less than three months earlier…) but then went on to say that as a minion of Satan who was attempting to give the world back to his master, he deserved what he got.

I haven’t seen much outrage expressed here, but certainly a great deal of smug “well, he brought it on himself and deserved it so that’s all right” makes its appearance on this forum.
 
So, JS MAY have been acting in a Spirit filled manner when he fired into a crowd? He may have been acting in the same was as Jesus when he cleared the temple?

Can I assume that those in the Meadows Slaughter were equally holy?
 
So, JS MAY have been acting in a Spirit filled manner when he fired into a crowd? He may have been acting in the same was as Jesus when he cleared the temple?

Can I assume that those in the Meadows Slaughter were equally holy?
Well, the only people who got dead that day in Carthage were Joseph and his brother, after all…and it’s difficult to figure out why that would be. If Joseph were intent on killing, he could have aimed better. It wouldn’t be hard—but the nature of the injuries (in the face, in the upraised elbow) indicate that Joseph did not aim for vital organs.

Consider; when he shot into the crowd, he was standing on one side of the door, which was wide open (it opened inwards, and Willard Richards was behind it, attempting to reach around it to defend himself with a cane. That meant that the attackers were right at the door, coming into the room (which was the jailer’s bedroom, not the cell they were supposed to be in).

I’ve been in that room. I stood where Hyrum died. The blood stain is still on the floor there. I turned around and looked at the door through which the men were coming. Joseph had an absolutely clear shot at those men, y’know. He was standing at the door, less than three feet (perhaps less) between him and the mob. What are the odds that the injuries were to the face, an upraised elbow and a shoulder given the proximity of the shooter to the attackers? Joseph had to be shooting UP. The problem, of course, is that from his position and given how close the mob was, even if he had been shooting straight up, he would probably have hit someone. The attackers were, after all, right on the man.

Ok. so your question was; could Joseph have been inspired by the spirit to shoot into the crowd? Well, yeah. a: he didn’t kill anybody and it had to have taken some really good shooting to AVOID that, from where he was. b. his actions saved the lives of Willard Richards and John Taylor. c. He and his brother were the only people whose lives were lost that day…

And d, to answer a question with a question…do you think it was possible for Jesus to have attacked the money changers in the Temple courtyard *without *the spirit?

'So yeah, the answer to your sarcastic question is…yes, Joseph could have been acting under the inspiration of God.

But…‘the same as’ Jesus in the Temple? Well, no. You see, Jesus was not under threat of His life at the time. He was angry and outraged at the desecration of the Temple that those men represented; He was acting in His capacity as the Son of God to administer chastisement to those doing the desecrating. However, He DID use means that could have severely injured, even killed, his targets. We don’t know if there were any such injuries, or how severe they were, but He certainly used the weapon.

So…if Jesus could use a weapon to chastise someone for being disrespectful in His temple, isn’t it then allowable for a man to save the lives of his friends by using a weapon–especially if the only life lost is his?
 
John 18:1-12

Luke 22:47-53
It is interesting. When you read the Islam threads, they see that Peter used a sword here and believe that because it is in the NT, it is teaching violence. For some reason, they are not able to put it in context. Mormons seem to have the same problem.
 
Well, the only people who got dead that day in Carthage were Joseph and his brother, after all…and it’s difficult to figure out why that would be. If Joseph were intent on killing, he could have aimed better. It wouldn’t be hard—but the nature of the injuries (in the face, in the upraised elbow) indicate that Joseph did not aim for vital organs.

Consider; when he shot into the crowd, he was standing on one side of the door, which was wide open (it opened inwards, and Willard Richards was behind it, attempting to reach around it to defend himself with a cane. That meant that the attackers were right at the door, coming into the room (which was the jailer’s bedroom, not the cell they were supposed to be in).

I’ve been in that room. I stood where Hyrum died. The blood stain is still on the floor there. I turned around and looked at the door through which the men were coming. Joseph had an absolutely clear shot at those men, y’know. He was standing at the door, less than three feet (perhaps less) between him and the mob. What are the odds that the injuries were to the face, an upraised elbow and a shoulder given the proximity of the shooter to the attackers? Joseph had to be shooting UP. The problem, of course, is that from his position and given how close the mob was, even if he had been shooting straight up, he would probably have hit someone. The attackers were, after all, right on the man.

Ok. so your question was; could Joseph have been inspired by the spirit to shoot into the crowd? Well, yeah. a: he didn’t kill anybody and it had to have taken some really good shooting to AVOID that, from where he was. b. his actions saved the lives of Willard Richards and John Taylor. c. He and his brother were the only people whose lives were lost that day…

And d, to answer a question with a question…do you think it was possible for Jesus to have attacked the money changers in the Temple courtyard *without *the spirit?

'So yeah, the answer to your sarcastic question is…yes, Joseph could have been acting under the inspiration of God.

But…‘the same as’ Jesus in the Temple? Well, no. You see, Jesus was not under threat of His life at the time. He was angry and outraged at the desecration of the Temple that those men represented; He was acting in His capacity as the Son of God to administer chastisement to those doing the desecrating. However, He DID use means that could have severely injured, even killed, his targets. We don’t know if there were any such injuries, or how severe they were, but He certainly used the weapon.

So…if Jesus could use a weapon to chastise someone for being disrespectful in His temple, isn’t it then allowable for a man to save the lives of his friends by using a weapon–especially if the only life lost is his?
Actually, he did kill one of the mob members. Although he did not die right away, he did die as a result of the the wound inflicted by JS on that day. Also, how can you say that shooting at the face is not aiming for vital organs?

“Two other men were known to get hit in the hall, one a man named Townsend from Fort Madison, Iowa Territory, who died nine months later from the arm wound that wouldn’t heal, and another named Mills, who was shot in the arm.”
  • Elder Reed Blake, 24 Hours to Martyrdom, p. 129
 
Actually, he did kill one of the mob members. Although he did not die right away, he did die as a result of the the wound inflicted by JS on that day. Also, how can you say that shooting at the face is not aiming for vital organs?
Since when is the face a ‘vital organ?’
“Two other men were known to get hit in the hall, one a man named Townsend from Fort Madison, Iowa Territory, who died nine months later from the arm wound that wouldn’t heal, and another named Mills, who was shot in the arm.”
  • Elder Reed Blake, 24 Hours to Martyrdom, p. 129
Ok, I have to do some research. I am, however, on the way to see my daughters and won’t be checking in here for a week, so we’ll just have to let this one calm down a bit. 😉

Now me, I’m willing to compromise on this one; I’ll let you waffle on acknowledging Joseph Smith as an official ‘martyr,’ if y’all will acknowledge that his murder was unjustified, unjust and heinous…and that he wouldn’t have been killed if it had not been for his religion; the folks who destroyed LDS printing presses, after all, were not only NOT murdered, but were actually praised.
 
Oh come on, shooting someone in the face is shooting someone in the head when is the head not concidered vital?
 
You do understand that he was using a small “pepperbox” gun, not a full power side-arm? In other words, he shot at a place where it could kill: the head

And where the people involved in the Meadows Massacre equally inspired?
 
Since when is the face a ‘vital organ?’

Ok, I have to do some research. I am, however, on the way to see my daughters and won’t be checking in here for a week, so we’ll just have to let this one calm down a bit. 😉

Now me, I’m willing to compromise on this one; I’ll let you waffle on acknowledging Joseph Smith as an official ‘martyr,’ if y’all will acknowledge that his murder was unjustified, unjust and heinous…and that he wouldn’t have been killed if it had not been for his religion; the folks who destroyed LDS printing presses, after all, were not only NOT murdered, but were actually praised.
I’m not going to address the vital organ thing, because it has been done. I will compromise only so far to say that JS death was uncalled for, unjust, and possibly heinus. I won’t compromise on it being solely his religion. I believe it was probably more that people looked at him as abusing his power, both through his religion, and politically as the mayor of Navouu.
 
I’m not going to address the vital organ thing, because it has been done. I will compromise only so far to say that JS death was uncalled for, unjust, and possibly heinus. I won’t compromise on it being solely his religion. I believe it was probably more that people looked at him as abusing his power, both through his religion, and politically as the mayor of Navouu.
I agree 100%
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top