Joseph Smith - a look at the man

[iwonder]

Oh, a six shooter, not a pea shooter. Thank you. Pea shooters may blind, but they rarely kill. this is the point. One must be sure that one is stating truth, not hyperbole, not exaggeration. Hyperbole and exaggeration do not convince, they only convict, as they are outside of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit says only what it means and no more and no less.
The reason I have trouble with Mormonism is simply this: it is not sensible to me. It has no history or tradition behind it. It relegates Jesus Christ to the position of a rather nice man. Maybe a nicer man than Joseph Smith as Jesus was more willing to die himself than kill. But never the less, only a good man. To say Jesus Christ is only a good man and nothing more is to refute entirely the Testimony of the Old Testament and the New. Which of course, is why there is a book of Mormon because something has to pick up the absent parts of the Bible. Now, I have said exactly what I mean. You, of course, must disagree. No problem for me.

 

[Casen]

RE: Oh, a six shooter, not a pea shooter. Thank you. Pea shooters may blind, but they rarely kill. this is the point.

iwonder,
I used the term “pea shooter” because of the caliber. The odds of killing anything larger than a squirrel with a low velocity caliber smaller than a 22 are pretty slim. Perhaps you’re not familiar with guns and common terminology. Anyway, I’m still waiting for your evidence that Joseph killed three men.

RE: *To say Jesus Christ is only a good man and nothing more is to refute entirely the Testimony of the Old Testament and the New. Which of course, is why there is a book of Mormon because something has to pick up the absent parts of the Bible. *

I really have no idea what this means. Perhaps someone else can interpret this for me.

 

[iwonder]

Casen:

RE: Oh, a six shooter, not a pea shooter. Thank you. Pea shooters may blind, but they rarely kill. this is the point.

iwonder,
I used the term “pea shooter” because of the caliber. The odds of killing anything larger than a squirrel with a low velocity caliber smaller than a 22 are pretty slim. Perhaps you’re not familiar with guns and common terminology. Anyway, I’m still waiting for your evidence that Joseph killed three men.

RE: *To say Jesus Christ is only a good man and nothing more is to refute entirely the Testimony of the Old Testament and the New. Which of course, is why there is a book of Mormon because something has to pick up the absent parts of the Bible. *

I really have no idea what this means. Perhaps someone else can interpret this for me.

I know nothing of guns, but I do know pea shooters. I know nothing of the three men killed. I have no evidence- I am taking my info from your own prior post. Do you have evidence? I certainly don’t. You say he killed three men in self defense and want evidence from me that he killed three men? I don’t know. Did he or did he not? How would I know? I’m not a Mormon.

“Perhaps someone else can interpret this for me.” Certainly, with pleasure. When a religion denies the actuality of a Triune God, automatically Jesus Christ becomes man only without a Divine Nature. In other words, a good guy, with great intentions, well meaning and maybe even reasonably polite, but not God. This in fact is denied throughout both Testaments, first the Old which prophesized the coming of a Messiah and the New which stated clearly that Jesus was defiantely He. Now if the Testament states clearly that there is a Triune God and a religion decides to keep the New testament but throw out the Triune God, what does it have to do to fix this? Write it’s own Bible, of course. The Jehovah Witness’s have their re write 1800 years after the fact which categorically proves (according to them) that God is not Triune and the Mormons have theirs called the Book of Mormon- also proving according to them that God is not Triune. In other words, much like Watergate, if the New Testament and Old Testament do not historically, traditionally and theologically prove one’s argument, just shred it and re write it according to one’s own personal interpretation. And this is exactly what the JW’s and Mormons have done. Does this clear your confusion a bit?

 

[Paul_G]

Ziggy:

Can you provide any links or documentation on the event at the Carthage jail ? …

Thanks Ziggy

I think your right the word “ok” was not the best one to use, and I agree with your conclusions. I wanted to illustrate that there may have been situations where they might have felt the need to defend themselves. I will compile an account of the Carthage Jail incident and the events that lead to it, and post it later.

Paul

 

[Paul_G]

Here are the events leading up to and at Carthage Jail

 

[DustinsDad]

Casen:

…Doesn’t a man have a right to defend himself?

Sure, but going out in a gunfight, whatever the circumstance, isn’t martyrdom.

Our Lord didn’t fight back, nor any of the martyred Christian saints. Joseph Smith can’t claim martyrdom - at least not by Christian standards.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[Paul_G]

Random House Webster’s College dictionary (1991) states that a martyr is:

       [list=1]

1. a person who willingly suffers death rather than renounce his or her religion.;
   2. A person who is put to death or suffers on behalf of a
   cause.;
   3. A person who undergoes severe or constant suffering.

On the way to Carthage Joseph Smith’s party stopped at the farm of Albert G. Fellow, four miles west of Carthage, where Joseph Smith uttered these fateful words:

"I am going like a lamb to the slaughter, but I am calm as a summer’s morning. I have a conscience void of offense toward God and toward all men. If they take my life I shall die an innocent man, and my blood shall cry from the ground for vengeance, and it shall be said of me ‘He was murdered in cold blood!’

Elder B.H. Roberts made these comments about this event:

“It was self-surrender that Joseph Smith made to certain death. He was clean escaped out of the hands of his enemies. He had crossed the Mississippi from Nauvoo and was surrounded by trusted men who were aiding his departure for the west. One more day would have seen him at the head of a small company of men in the wilderness of Iowa en route for the Rocky Mountains. Then came the pleading of some mistaken and some false friends that he submit to the demands of Governor Ford and trust to his promises of protection, and not play the part of the false shepherd who leaves the flock when attacked by wolves. This was more than Joseph’s spirit could endure, and hence he recrossed the river, against his better judgment, and with absolute conviction that he would be killed, went to Carthage”. and among a host of publicly and repeatedly avowed enemies, pledged to encompass his death, surrendered to the requirements of the officers of the law
(Comprehensive History of the Church, Vol.2, Ch.59, p.316 - p.317)

There is no doubt that Joseph Smith was finally martyred, after suffering severe and constant afflictions, because he would not renounce his religious beliefs or prophetic claims.

To say he was not martyred is to redefine the word to suit the argument.

Paul

​

 

[Casen]

Amen Paul. Any fair minded person can see that what happened at Carthage was a slaughter, not a gun battle. That Joseph Smith managed to fire off six shots into an angry mob of 200 men doesn’t change that fact.

 

[iwonder]

Paul G:

Random House Webster’s College dictionary (1991) states that a martyr is:

1. a person who willingly suffers death rather than renounce his or her religion.;
2. A person who is put to death or suffers on behalf of a
   cause.;
3. A person who undergoes severe or constant suffering.

On the way to Carthage Joseph Smith’s party stopped at the farm of Albert G. Fellow, four miles west of Carthage, where Joseph Smith uttered these fateful words:

"I am going like a lamb to the slaughter, but I am calm as a summer’s morning. I have a conscience void of offense toward God and toward all men. If they take my life I shall die an innocent man, and my blood shall cry from the ground for vengeance, and it shall be said of me ‘He was murdered in cold blood!’

Elder B.H. Roberts made these comments about this event:

“It was self-surrender that Joseph Smith made to certain death. He was clean escaped out of the hands of his enemies. He had crossed the Mississippi from Nauvoo and was surrounded by trusted men who were aiding his departure for the west. One more day would have seen him at the head of a small company of men in the wilderness of Iowa en route for the Rocky Mountains. Then came the pleading of some mistaken and some false friends that he submit to the demands of Governor Ford and trust to his promises of protection, and not play the part of the false shepherd who leaves the flock when attacked by wolves. This was more than Joseph’s spirit could endure, and hence he recrossed the river, against his better judgment, and with absolute conviction that he would be killed, went to Carthage”. and among a host of publicly and repeatedly avowed enemies, pledged to encompass his death, surrendered to the requirements of the officers of the law
(Comprehensive History of the Church, Vol.2, Ch.59, p.316 - p.317)

There is no doubt that Joseph Smith was finally martyred, after suffering severe and constant afflictions, because he would not renounce his religious beliefs or prophetic claims.

To say he was not martyred is to redefine the word to suit the argument.

Paul

​

When did Joseph willingly suffer martyrdom? I believe we have been told he was armed and fought back. That is not willingly suffering, that is trying to prevent. Just because he said he was willing to die in the cause, does not make it so. It would appear that he was more willing to defend himself and was simply outnumbered.​

 

[Casen]

We’re going in circles here…

 

[Paul_G]

From the Catholic Dictionary

The careers of the Apostles were at all times beset with dangers of the gravest character, until eventually they all suffered the last penalty for their convictions. Thus, within the lifetime of the Apostles, the term martus came to be used in the sense of a witness who at any time might be called upon to deny what he testified to, under penalty of death
newadvent.org/cathen/09736b.htm

Thought this article goes on to say much more the tenor of it suggests that those who were martyred were called before legal authorities, in front of which when pressed to, did not deny their testimony of Jesus. None as far as I can tell where martyred at the hands of an unlawful mob bent on murder.

The facts are he died as he lived with his testimony intact. Placed in the same circumstances that the early apostles found themselves in, I’m sure Joseph’s resolve would have been the same. The way he lived his life confirms it.

Whether you use the word martyr or not does not change, that before G-d and man, he sealed his testimony of Christ with his blood

Paul

 

[Ziggy]

Paul G:

Here are the events leading up to and at Carthage Jail

Paul I read this and I have come to some conclusions. First, the information, while mostly factual, is still biased to show more of a conspiracy than probably existed and it leaves out some details. I do believe that Joseph Smith was murdered by the mob that day at Carthage. I also believe that when his brother was killed, he reacted in anger and fear…that’s why he emptied his gun…not really firing at anyone at particular but firing all that he could. And then he was shot in the back while jumping out of the window…to me i don’t think he is trying to draw people away…I think they were either in the room or just getting in and he just reacted out of fear. I don’t blame him, i probably would have reacted the same. Now the details I feel that are left out, are not in Joseph Smith’s death but why the angry mob ? Did he really die for his religious beliefs or his politics ? I think Joseph Smith’s politics finally caught up to him.

In Nauvoo… Joseph Smith was the Mayor, local magistrate, and was in control of the local militia in the fact that they reported directly to him. He was consolidating(concentrating) his power there and that scared people. Coupled with the fact that the Mormons at the time had been “run out” of Missouri, I’m sure that reputation had followed him there. Also I believe the Nauvoo municipal government passed an ordinance that no external warrant or writ may be served on a resident of Nauvoo without the consent of the mayor. That worked in Joseph Smith’s favor since he was the mayor and he had arrest warrants for him issued in Missouri.

So I feel that Joseph Smith went to Carthage under promised protection to face charges, was unjustly murdered by a mob, and died fighting/running for his life… not for his religious values but his politics. His actions to me are not that of a martyr, but of an ordinary man who was not strengthened by his faith in his impending death as a martyr would have been. In my opinion, a martyr would have freely given himself to the mob to save everyone… but again, I don’t believe this to be about his faith even though many were upset about that too. This is all just my opinion based on what I’ve read of the event.

 

[Paul_G]

I appreciate your reasoned response, but I have to disagree with your conclusions. The mob did not attack to try and snuff out Joseph because of his political values. He was killed because of his religious proclamations. Going back to face his unjust accusers he did freely give up his life. He knew when he went back it would be to his death. There is nothing in religous history that compares with the events at Carthage. His actions do not, in minds of Latter day Saints, deter from our believe in Joseph as a Prophet who was martyred by the ungodly forces of satan.

History of the Church, Vol.6, Ch.34, Pg.616
Stigall suggested that they would be safer in the cell. Joseph said, “After supper we will go in.” Mr. Stigall went out, and Joseph said to Dr. Richards, “If we go into the cell, will you go in with us?” The doctor answered, “Brother Joseph you did not ask me to cross the river with you–you did not ask me to come to Carthage–you did not ask me to come to jail with you–and do you think I would forsake you now? But I will tell you what I will do; if you are condemned to be hung for treason, I will be hung in your stead, and you shall go free.” Joseph said "You cannot." The doctor replied, “I will”

This shows Joseph was well prepared to give up his life to proper authority

History of the Church, Vol.6, Ch.34, Pg.618
Joseph, seeing there was no safety in the room, and no doubt thinking that it would save the lives of his brethren in the room if he could get out,* turned calmly from he door, dropped his pistol on the floor** and sprang into the window when two balls pierced him from the door, and one entered his right breast from without, and he fell outward into the hands of his murderers, exclaiming. "O Lord, my God! "*

His actions at the hands of an unlawful mob were appropriate. The eye witness who knew Joseph Smith better than anyone believed has actions were to save lives. He turned calmly? Yes siree, sounds like the actions of a man terrified, and running for his life

I don’t expect any person of a different believe system to accept Joseph Smith as a martyr to do so would be accept him as legitimate, in some sense at least. This is why a great many people go to such great lengths attempting to blacken his character, and his words. To me and others he is Joseph Smith, a Prophet of our Father in Heaven.

 

[flameburns623]

PioAndrew:

Apparently Joseph claimed that he received a revelation from God specifying that he must have three witnesses to prove the authenticity of the plates. So, when asked about it Harris said that he never saw them with his own eyes and all three men had different accounts of what happened in the woods. All three quarreled with Smith and left the church, so Smith disowned them and called his own witnesses liars. Eight more “witnesses” were all either related to one of the original witnesses, the Whitmer’s, a blood relative of Smith or someone who married into the family. The article then goes on to say that if these witnesses were chosen by “Divine Revelation” but how did five of the eight end up leaving the church?

Pio

Most of the witnesses eventually returned to the Mormon church or participated in one of the Mormon schismatic groups. It is difficult to establish that any of the 11 witneesses to the plates ever actually denied seeing the plates and/or holding them, even though they had their differences with Joseph Smith or other early leaders of the LDS Church… Moreover, there were others who wrote of having seen the plates–Smith’s wife among them though I think there were others. Some secondary sources exist where some third party claimed to have heard one of the 11 witnesses deny their testimony.

I’m guessing and this is only my guess but Smith’s active role in FreeMasonry gave him the idea to put a sheet over his head and say that he was an angel of God.

So long as we’re guessing–I suspect that Smith mocked-up something of metal scrap to look like gold plates. BUT we’re both just guessing. You have some sort of documentary evidence that Smith dressed up and pretended to be an angel? If not, your speculation is worth as much as mine–not very much at all.

 

[PioAndrew]

flameburns623:

Moreover, there were others who wrote of having seen the plates–Smith’s wife among them though I think there were others.

His wife, when questioned about the plates, said that they were covered.

flameburns623:

You have some sort of documentary evidence that Smith dressed up and pretended to be an angel?

He was a FreeMason for goodness sakes! The Freemasons believe in many gods(polytheism) and have questionable teachings about truth. Smith just transposed his Freemasonry “ideals” onto his own LDS religion.

Pio

 

[Ziggy]

Paul… being the catholic that I am, whether or not Joseph Smith was a martyr, has no affect on my faith or beliefs. If he is a martyr, it doesn’t establish his legitimacy…there are a lot of “martyrs” throughout time. So I try to look at the matter in Carthage as objectively as possible, knowing what I’ve read and my own human reasoning…

This shows Joseph was well prepared to give up his life to proper authority

I have no problem with this statement… His whole trip to Carthage shows that he was willing to submit to the authorities…

*** turned calmly from he door, dropped his pistol on the floor***

This statement I have a hard time believing… Now if I was a Mormon, this would be a no brainer for me because of the impact of my faith on my opinion…but since I’m not… I have to think about what was going on in that room… Bullets were flying in…people were being shot… Joseph has already emptied his gun, 6 successive shots after the death of his brother… It just seems reasonable to me that calm was the last thing that happened, probably shock… Whether or not he was calm or scared, it really doesn’t change, in my mind, anything that Joseph Smith is or was… established or didn’t establish…

In my opinion… if he did run scared, it doesn’t “blacken his character”…just shows he would have done what we all would have…

God Bless

 

[flameburns623]

Pio:

He was a FreeMason for goodness sakes! The Freemasons believe in many gods(polytheism) and have questionable teachings about truth. Smith just transposed his Freemasonry “ideals” onto his own LDS religion.

Freemasons do not ‘believe in’ polytheism. They require any candidate to affirm a belief in some sort of deity, because Freemasonry was born in England, where the oath of an atheist was not acceptable. Freemasonry does not of itself have any particular concept of what the deity is, and endeavors to create an organization in which believers of any sort of theistic religion can be comfortable. Whether or not they succeed is widely debated. Even in at the Catholic Answers forum. But it’s a bit off-topic for this particular thread and sub-forum. Go to the main forum for non-Christian religions and you’ll find several active threads on the topic. Populated mainly by anti-Masons uninterested in and impervious to opinions contrary to their own, which makes it scarcely worth my time to read or respond to them.

By the way–Smith was not a Freemason until long after the publication of the Book of Mormon. So it is unlikely that he wore a sheet and pretended to be an angel for Martin Harris while the Book of Mormon was being transcribed.

Oh and about those sheets–they are not worn by Freemasons but by members of the Ku Klux Klan, an organization which formed several decades after the death of Joseph Smith. Freemasons wear costumes for some of their degrees, it is true, but not bedsheets. Top-hats and bowlers, but not bedsheets.

 

[Paul_G]

Ziggy:

Paul… being the catholic that I am, whether or not Joseph Smith was a martyr, has no affect on my faith or beliefs.

I appreciate your remarks, and understand your perceptive on this issue. I wouldn’t require a person to believe as I do, and I appreciate being able to, as best I can, explain how I express my faith in the Savior.

What ever our differences on doctrines, practices and protocols, our faith and hope is in Christ.

Paul

 

[PioAndrew]

flameburns623:

Freemasons do not ‘believe in’ polytheism. They require any candidate to affirm a belief in some sort of deity, because Freemasonry was born in England, where the oath of an atheist was not acceptable. Freemasonry does not of itself have any particular concept of what the deity is, and endeavors to create an organization in which believers of any sort of theistic religion can be comfortable. Whether or not they succeed is widely debated. Even in at the Catholic Answers forum. But it’s a bit off-topic for this particular thread and sub-forum. Go to the main forum for non-Christian religions and you’ll find several active threads on the topic. Populated mainly by anti-Masons uninterested in and impervious to opinions contrary to their own, which makes it scarcely worth my time to read or respond to them.

By the way–Smith was not a Freemason until long after the publication of the Book of Mormon. So it is unlikely that he wore a sheet and pretended to be an angel for Martin Harris while the Book of Mormon was being transcribed.

Oh and about those sheets–they are not worn by Freemasons but by members of the Ku Klux Klan, an organization which formed several decades after the death of Joseph Smith. Freemasons wear costumes for some of their degrees, it is true, but not bedsheets. Top-hats and bowlers, but not bedsheets.

I digress but please bear with me.

Thank you for clarifying but I suppose I came to this conclusion because of the way that they freely accept any religion or self-proclaimed deity. I would like to cut and paste from a site but they have a copyright so I will have to paraphrase. This article was mentioning that Albert Pike who is a Mason philosopher talked about Catholicism, Protestantism, Zoroaster, Confucius and Mohammed claiming that there is no truth but only truth of the present time. He goes on to say that some men are content to stay with their current faith when others move on to some higher truth and it is their misfortune. My point is that Pike’s encouragement of others to seek out only the popular truth denies a belief in one truth and one God so that they sway like the trees in the wind. Seemingly one God at a time but only to the degree that they themselves see fit, a self-indulgent control so to speak.

Generally my thoughts were to say that Smith’s occupation was to defraud people, so how is it so hard to believe that he wouldn’t try to do the same thing when he created this religion?

PioAndrew

 

[flameburns623]

About Albert Pike: Pike was a devout Christian who believed that Freemasonry could serve as a vehicle for the unification of the human race. He seems to have believed that while the Christian faith had more truth than any other, Christianity had ‘lost’ or lacked some elements of truth which could be found in other religious traditions. His work “Morals And Dogma” was a survey of world religions and an attempt to syncretize them within a Masonic context. The most famous citation from Morals and Dogma contrasts ‘Lucifer’ (the word appears in the King James Bible and means ‘light-bearer’; but the original Hebrew refers to the ‘morning star’–the planet Venus–a term also used of Christ) with Christ, speaking ‘not of the false Lucifer but the true’. (My paraphrase–I don’t have the actual text before me). Folks who don’t realize that the term ‘Lucifer’ was the Latin name for the Morning Star and only belatedly was applied to Satan get confused as to what Pike is saying here.

No Freemason is obliged to accept any portion of his speculative work, which is relatively easy to misunderstand due to the pithy style in which Pike wrote. Pike’s stature within Freemasonry is widely misunderstood–he was NOT the Masonic “Grand Pontiff” or some such but merely–for a time–the head of the SOUTHERN JURISDICTION ONLY of the Scottish Rite, an ‘appendent’ body (associated with but not organically a part of) Freemasonry.

Worse: a man by the name of Leo Taxil wrote a large number of FORGED materials in the name of Albert Pike. Many of these forgeries implied that Albert Pike and the Masonic Lodge were involved in ‘Luceferianism’. Taxil eventually acknowledge his hoax–actually mocked those who had been so gullible as to accept his word without any thought or effort to check his facts–but the things which Taxil composed in Pike’s name continue to see circulation in many circles. I’ve already posted at length about Freemasonry–see my profile to summon up the posts I have made previously. Such debates belong elsewhere than the LDS subforum imho.

Joseph Smith came from a very poor and not always very industrious family and he himself admits he was not always a paragon of virtue. Smith was a very young man when he began talking about the Book of Mormon and created the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. He was not however so much a professional ‘con artist’ as someone who seems to have been rather superstitious and gullible himself and who in turn sought out and sometimes exploited the superstitious and gullible. He was also supremely interested in religious truth and the evidence of his life is that he believed in himself at least as much as his followers did.

One secular writer has suggested that Smith was motivated by a desire to refute the rise of deism and infidelity in early America. Another suggests he was influenced by a religious movement which felt that Christianity had lost it’s way and needed special revelation to get back on track. This isn’t to suggest that his life’s work wasn’t tainted by his flawed character. We can’t really know how conscious he was of the dishonesty of his tactics. But I think it to be a bit too much to say that he was ONLY and ALWAYS a charlatan. I think he was a complex character with an abnormally high tolerance for ‘cognitive dissonance’–the ability to believe mutually exclusive things at the same time.