Bill McKeever explains the issues and events, the rumors and facts, that led to the death of Joseph Smith on June 27, 1844.
Viewpoint on Mormonism Archives
Blogroll
- 365 Reasons
- Apologetics 315
- Ensign vs. The Bible
- Heart Issues for LDS
- Heart of the Matter
- I Love Mormons
- Keith Walker
- Latter-day Saint Woman
- Mark Cares
- Mormonism Investigated UK
- Mormonite Musings
- Mormons are Christians… aren't we?
- Musings on Mormonism
- Of First Importance
- Share the Son Ministries
- The Mormon Chapbook
- The Religious Researcher
- Utah Advance
Links
Subscribe
Join the Discussion
Check out our comment policy.Categories
Afterlife Authority and Doctrine Baptism for the Dead Bible Book of Mormon Brigham Young Christianity Coffee Beans D&C and Pearl of Great Price Early Christianity Early Mormonism Forgiveness Friendship, Interaction, and Evangelism General Conference God the Father Gospel Grace Great Apostasy Jesus Christ Joseph Smith King Follett Discourse LDS Church Marriage and Singlehood Misconceptions Mitt Romney Mormon Culture Mormon History Mormon Leaders Mormon Missionaries Mormon Scripture Mormon Temple Multimedia Nature of God Nature of Man Nauvoo Personal Stories Polygamy Priesthood Prophets Salvation Truth, Honesty, Prayer, and Inquiry Uncategorized Viewpoint on Mormonism Virgin birth Worthiness
Let me be the first to draw out Alex, she water, and fairhoffathers. I fully denounce the murder of Joseph. Clearly, there were many who were itching for an excuse to get rid of him. What happened to him can hardly be called justice. It was murder. Ad I don’t fault Joseph for defending himself. He had every moral right to do that. To call his death a martyrdom, however, stretches the definition of that word. To me, it’s like calling John Lennon a martyr because his personal cause was one of peace and love. John was murdered not martyred. Joseph was murdered, not martyred. If you want to talk about martyrs for the cause of Jesus, read about the early Christians who died at the hands of the Romans. Polycarp, for example, who was a direst disciple of the Apostle John, was burned to death because he steadfastly refused to burn incense to the Roman Emporer, thereby signifying that the Emporer was a god. Polycarp, and hundreds if not thousands of others, could have easily lied for The Lord, burned the incense, saved their own lives, and gone on in civil disobedience declaring the name of Jesus. But, no, they drew a line in the sand and stood steadfast over a seemingly insignificant issue,incense.
I don’t think Joseph would lose any of his luster in Mormondom at all if, all along, they had told the story straight up: he died in a gun fight of sorts and was murdered. But to call it a straight-up Christian martyrdom trivializes his murder in a way. It certainly makes trivializes all the martyrdom of those believers in time past.
That should be shemwatern, not she water. Stupid spell check.
I had posted on another thread regarding my recent trip to Nauvoo and my tour of the Carthage jail. Two things stood out to me. One was the woeful ignorance, at least of the group I was touring with, of Mormons about their own history. The second thing was how Mormons are constantly attempting to conjure up emotions as spiritual experiences.
Between my wife and I we asked our tour guides and the Mormons in the group three times, if there was a precipitating event that led to Joseph Smith being jailed. All we kept getting was the persecution story. Smith, according to these folks, was just a really great guy that people hated for his religious beliefs.
I was thinking about bringing up the shoot out but let it pass. I was sitting, BTW, by the window Smith bailed out of.
I was talking to a guy who is a non-Mormon but who had grown up in the area, about his experiences with Mormons coming out of the jail. He related how this one couple came out all doe-eyed having just had the spiritual experience of their lives and he subtley brought up Smith exchanging gun fire with the mob. He says the gal responded, “Oh no, the prophet would never do that.” The next Mormon he talked to and brought up the gun play said, “Yea, isn’t that cool how Joseph Smith tried to shoot his way out of the jail?” The non-Mormon says to me, “How could people who belong to the same religion, have such entirely different knowledge and reaction to it?”
The guides, who were cute little gals and very nice and friendly (my guess preselected for these traits) really turned the murder room into a shrine. The emotion was as thick as molasses. The Mormons were of course, really into it, my wife and I not.
It was a good lesson, however, in how people’s emotions can be manipulated and mistaken for a real spiritual experience. I don’t blame the tour guides or say they were phoney. They were as much into it as the other Mormons.
I did feel really bad for the whole crew though. They were very nice, sincere folks absolutely taken in by the fantasy land of Mormonism and the prophet Joseph Smith. I can see why some would dig this though. What a great story this whole Joseph Smith the prophet is but unfortunately for these Mormons, totally untrue.
It is filled with all sorts of emotional rewards for those who buy into it however.
So what exactly does Bill present about the death of Joseph Smith that is “untold?” Any member of the church who has spent any energy and time studying this event knows all the details Bill talks about. The LDS sources that cover all of this are too numerous to list here. Always the claim of cover-up and conspiracy. It does truly get old.
One thing that Bill claims that I have never heard is that Carthage jail is compared to Calvary by members of the church, somehow equating the death of Joseph with the death of Christ in significance and importance. I have never, ever heard any person suggest such a thing. But I am not surprised that a critic would make this straw man argument. I believe Joseph and Hyrum were martyred. But many prophets and saints have been martyred. Nothing compares to the death of Christ.
Other thoughts. It is quite revealing what Bill says about Joseph’s words to his dying brother, Hyrum. Bill states that Joseph’s exclamation “Oh my dear brother” are “cheezy.” How Christian! How Christ-like. In reality, this shows the attitude toward Joseph Smith and his family from a person who spends his life criticizing the church and the restored gospel. I would call this extremely calloused and unfeeling. Joseph and Hyrum were best friends and brothers. The lack of empathy is shocking, even considering the belief that Joseph was a false prophet.
Also- it always bothers me when the critics insist that “Joseph tried to escape from the jail.” This claim is made as if there is no other possibility. I suggest one other possibility. After Hyrum fell, there remained two other men whom Joseph loved in that upper room. With over 100 mob members outside shooting into the building, do you think it would have been a smart thing to jump out the window into the mob if one were really trying to escape? It was probably the most unreasonable thing to do if a person was truly interesting in saving his own skin. Could it be that Joseph sought to preserve the lives of the other two men, one of whom would become the third prophet of the church? That makes a great deal more sense to me. But I understand that critics who cannot attribute any good motive or feeling to Joseph Smith can hardly consider such a possibility.
The same applies to the gun and Joseph’s shooting out the door. Is it possible that Joseph would not have shot back if he was the only one in the room? Could he have been trying to defend his brother and two close friends and saints? Again, the critic simply cannot consider such a possibility.
McKeever’s extreme bias is also shown in his statement that “I think Joseph was not calm, but probably screaming at the top of his lungs” as he fell out the window. Bill clearly detests Joseph and projects everything possible that is negative onto Joseph. There could have been absolutely nothing good about Joseph it seems according to Bill and the critics.
Also- the wine issue. I have absolutely no issue with the brethren having wine in the jail. The word of wisdom was for “the weakest of saints” and given through inspiration as a consequence of “evil and designing men that will exist in the last days.” It is different today than it was in 1844. It was not nearly as prohibitive back then. We believe that Christ will again partake of wine with the saints. The prohibition of the WOW is a result of the influences in the world today that entice so many people into addictive behavior relating to substances. So I have no issue with Joseph having wine in the jail. And that is not really a double standard considering society today compared to 1844.
So Bill doesn’t like the way missionaries share the story of the death of Joseph Smith at the jail. So what?
FOF wrote:
“So Bill doesn’t like the way missionaries share the story of the death of Joseph Smith at the jail. So what?”
The “so what” is that the LDS church has a way of leaving out very important facts and in so doing create an impression of Joseph Smith that is not true. By doing this, the LDS church is lying by omission and trying to promote a prophet, who isn’t a prophet.
This is a constant technique within Mormonism; to cover up and recast the Joseph Smith and Mormon story in a way that doesn’t match reality.
FOF I think you’d probably be the easiest sale in the world to anyone who could engage you emotionally in the purchase of a product or service. The Mormon mind-set is at the heart of any discussion that deals with Mormonism; reality vs. fantasy.
If you’re so willing to do the Mormon Mind Bend, you’ll believe anything that is sold to you by this false religion.
Jesus is waiting for you to surrender to Him and be born again by the Spirit of God. I will continue to pray for you that you accept this free gift that God is offering you through faith in Jesus Christ.
You don’t earn it!
Here is an account of an eye witness to the Calvary statement.
As for the word of wisdom, FOF has it exactly BACKWARDS. The WOW revelation says that it “was adapted to the capacity of the “weakest of Saints” (in other words even they would be able to follow it). Try reading in context next time. And, Jo Smith himself said, in 1834:
“That no official member in this church is worthy to hold an office, after having the words of wisdom properly taught to him, and he the official member neglecting to comply with or obey them….” (Times and Seasons 6:1, p. 1022; see also Essentials in Church History, 169.
He could not even follow his own commandments. Typical Jo Smith.
I forgot something- Joseph supposedly killing two men. I am quite confident that Bill McKeever knows better.
John Wills, William Voras, and a man named Gallaher were all included on an indictment in the murder of Joseph and Hyrum. The following is from “Carthage Conspiracy” by Dallin H. Oaks in 1975:
“Wills, Voras, and Gallaher were probably named in the indictment because their wounds, which testimony showed were received at the jail, were irrefutable evidence that they had participated in the mob. They undoubtedly recognized their vulnerability and fled the county. A contemporary witness reported these three as saying that they were the first men at the jail, that one of them shot through the door killing Hyrum, that Joseph wounded all three with his pistol, and that Gallaher shot Joseph as he ran to the window.[Hay, “The Mormon Prophet’s Tragedy,” 675] According to Hay, Wills, whom the Mormon prophet had shot in the arm, was an Irishman who had joined the mob from “his congenital love of a brawl.”[Statement of Jeremiah Willey, August 13, 1844, Brigham Young correspondence, Church Archives.] Gallaher was a young man from Mississippi who was shot in the face.[Hay, “The Mormon Prophet’s Tragedy,” 669, 675. Another source says Wills was a former Mormon elder who had left the Church. Davis, An Authentic Account, 24.] Hay described Voras (Voorhees) as a “half-grown hobbledehoy from Bear Creek” whom Joseph shot in the shoulder. The citizens of Green Plains were said to have given Gallaher and Voras new suits of clothes for their parts in the killing.[Statement of Jeremiah Willey, August 13, 1844].”
Why rely upon what John Taylor “heard” instead of these data? Bias?
FOF just regurgitates hearsay. For a good account of the trial, and how Mormons lied and made up “miraculous events”, see this article. Here is one of the “eye witnesses” to the events and how he was discredited as a witness against those three men,
Brackenbury confirmed earlier testimony that three members of the mob–Wills, Voras, and Gallaher–had been injured during the assault. Browning’s cross brought an admission from Brackenbury that “I had something to drink that day and had taken enough to make me feel nice.” Browning scored points with the concession from the witness, “I should have remembered things better if I had not felt so [nice].” Brackenbury also didn’t help the prosecution when he described his present occupation as “loafering.”
Mormons don’t blame Brigham Young’s rhetoric for the Mountain Meadows Massacre, but they sure blame Thomas Sharp’s for Jo’s murder. In that atmosphere it’s not surprising that some got away with murder. It was a sad day for American justice.
What is interesting, is that the Mormons accused (and published the names of) just about everybody that was a critic of Jo Smith of being in the mob, like Wilson Law (who wasn’t there), William Law (same), the Higbee brothers, Joseph H. Jackson, etc. None of this could be proved. What is notable is that Smith and everyone involved in the Nauvoo Expositor incident were also acquitted. Thomas Ford would later lament, “No one would be convicted of any crime in Hanc*ck [County]; and this put an end to the administration of the criminal law in that distracted county.”
Grindael,
“Hearsay?” Do you have alternative evidence that would suggest that the men shot by Joseph Smith did, in fact, die? If not, you are simply trying to change the subject.
The link that you provided even states the following:
” The three indicted men most closely linked to the actual shootings fled the county and were never arrested. An eyewitness to the murders, Jeremiah Willey, said that John Wills, Gallaher (a man whose first name has fallen out of the historical record), and William Voras were among the men that broke into the jail room. Willey reported that Gallaher shot Joseph Smith in the back as he ran to the window. Wills, Gallaher, and Voras all received wounds when they were shot through the cell door by Joseph Smith.”
There is no evidence that anybody Joseph shot ended up dying of those wounds. But Bill McKeever seems perfectly willing to recount the “hearsay” that suggests Joseph killed 2 men. As it is Bill’s “ministry” to know such things, I can’t figure out how he would not have this information about the 3 men shot by Joseph not actually dying.
Now- on with your distraction and confuscation.
Yes, hearsay. You misinterpret what I was getting at. (as usual). If there was concrete evidence, it would have been presented. They had no credible witnesses that would testify. Am I denying that they might have been involved, absolutely not. But that is not the point. No one knows if any of them died because they never showed up for the trial. More than one person stated that one of them was shot in the face. Your quote doesn’t prove anything either way.
The men Jo shot sure didn’t die because of some “curse”. That is because there was no teeth in any “Mormon Curse”. It’s all folklore. But that doesn’t stop Mormons from repeating over and over the “miraculous” shaft of light that “saved” Jo from mutilation and other stories that are not based in reality, and comparing Jo to Jesus at Calvary. They are still repeating this dribble,
This was all bunk. They even had ol Jo saying the words of Christ to the mob before he died, “forgive them for they know not what they do”… Calvary indeed.
And isn’t it interesting that you take the one statement that Bill McKeever attributes to John Taylor to object to, when it wasn’t even Bill’s point. His point was that they whitewash what happened during the murder at the Carthage Jail “tour”. Bill is only relating accounts given by Mormon leaders. Funny how FOF has to discredit John Taylor to make his point. Just like with Bill, you rely on hearsay when you claim that none of them died. You can’t answer that affirmatively. All we know is that they “fled”, possibly to Missouri and there were hearsay accounts about what they did and said later on. You are trying to pull on us, what you say Bill McKeever is doing. Shame, shame, FOF.
And your “contemporary witness” John Hay? Orson Whitney takes him apart in this publication, found here. Nothing but HEARSAY. Even Whitney sarcastically comments that didn’t Hay realize the mob blackened their faces to avoid identification. Try again, FOF.
Don’t worry, Grindael, we’re just lazy takers living off producers like FoF. We just simply are never going to be right.
Smith’s death is not something I know much about, except that he did go out in a blaze of glory after swigging some sort of hard alcohol with his buddies.
I don’t necessarily blame him for those actions, but again I would choose to focus on the whitewashing of the incident on subsequent leaders of the LDS church.
Grindael,
Bill claims that Joseph Smith killed two people, thereby trying to make the martyrdom seem less like a martyrdom and more like a “gun fight.” It is a simple attempt to discredit and undermine any claims of Joseph Smith. “Joseph Smith was a killer.”
You have added nothing to that debate about Joseph having killed anybody. There is no evidence that anybody died as a result of a gunshot wound from Joseph. Do you think bodies would show up if they had indeed died? Given the fact that the bodies of those three men never showed up and contemporary witness states that they left to avoid indictment in the murders of Joseph and Hyrum, I think it is safest to conclude that there were, in fact, no individuals who died as a result of gunshot wounds from Joseph Smith.
Being shot in the face in no way means dying.
Almost all that you have posted is beside the point and further the discussion in no way.
And this is to be expected.
MJP- “whitewashing.” Do you ever get tired of making that blanket, sweeping claim about the church? What has been whitewashed? Who whitewashed? Do you know how many LDS sources there are that discuss the gun in the jail, the wine, and all the other stuff? There is no reason for anybody to be ignorant of any of the details. Except for ignorance.
Did you notice I quoted from a book published in 1975 written by none other than Dallin H. Oaks? But even back when this all occurred, we had the testimonies of John Taylor and others who were honest and open about the details. Where is the “whitewash?”
Personally I am quite comfortable calling Joseph Smith a martyr for his polygamist, god-making religion. However, a Christian martyr he was not. There are all types of martyrs in the world. The defintion can be used quite loosely. Joseph Smith did not die witnessing the Christian faith. and to claim otherwise, I believe you would need to provide some evidence that Mormonism has any roots in historical Christianity, which is something I personally can not find.
FoF said
Many Mormons do, do this. Have you never read
Now lets see how Joseph Smith said the Same thing Jesus Said. We read in Isaiah 53:7 Isa 53:7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
This prophecy was fufilled in Acts 8:32 Jesus did not fight back. What about this, this also is said about Jesus before he was Crucifed. 1Peter 2:23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed [himself] to him that judgeth righteously:
This was not how Joseph the maryter handled the end of his life. He sadly does not fit the descrpriton Given in Isaiah.
Well, when Mormons don’t believe he went out shooting his own gun, something is amiss.
I can grant that some people are simply misinformed or uninformed. But I honestly do find it intriguing that so many LDS don’t know of it, or minimize it.
This is a point we are free to disagree on. Its not a big deal to me as it is to others, but calling it as I see it I say it looks funny. Oh well. So be it.
So FOF,
What group would you have been with? The bunch that endorsed Smith’s polygamy and began practicing it themselves, or the bunch who were repulsed by it and exposed what was going on?
There was a precipitating event and it wasn’t just the wrecking of the printing press and office. The event was when Smith began to acquire for himself extra wives some married to other men and some adolescent girls.
So FOF, which group are you with the pro or anti polygamy group. Those opposed to it became the Reorganized LDS headed by Joseph Smith’s son and having Emma as a member. The poor son just could never accept that his old man was ever involved in such a sinful thing as plural marriage.
So FOF who would you have joined with? Those who exposed it or those who supported and practiced it.
You’ll wiggle out of this one with some non-answer I’m sure.
FoF
I mentioned this to the schizophrenic Jason/Alex troll on a previous thread but of course it was ignored. I mention it again now because I believe it’s an important issue. There is Dogma & there is Doctrine, Dogma being divinely revealed doctrine & doctrine being that which men espouse.
Now let’s have a look at Falcons question to you. He asked you which group you would have stood in at the time of Joe Smiths murder, He doesn’t expect a straight answer from you & neither do I so perhaps you would answer another couple of questions, this time for me.
Bearing in mind the definitions above will you tell us if Polygamy & Polyandry was Dogma or Doctrine? If you claim it was Dogma then why did your god change his mind? If it was Doctrine then Joe Smith must have been a false prophet.
The Christian God is unchanging; your god clearly isn’t so how can you have any certainty of salvation or attainment to the CK. even if you faithfully follow ALL the ordinances of the Mormon church?
I guess we’ve settled on the fact that Joseph Smith had a gun in the Carthage Jail and he used it in an attempt to defend himself when put upon by a mob.
What seems undetermined, someone help me here, is if he wounded or killed anyone in the process of shooting the pistol.
Wiki, which I’m sure is the final authority of all truth, says the following:
There have been conflicting reports about to what extent members of the mob were injured during the attack, and whether any of them were killed. Shortly after the events occurred, John Taylor wrote that he heard that two of the attackers died when Joseph Smith shot them with his pistol.[2]:v7,p102
Most accounts seem to agree that at least three mob members were wounded by Joseph Smith’s gunfire, but there is no other evidence that any of them died as a result of the attack. John Wills was shot in the arm; William Voras was shot in the shoulder; and William Gallaher was shot in the face.[20][26] Others claimed that a fourth unnamed man was also wounded.[27] Wills, Voras, Gallaher, and a Mr. Allen (possibly the fourth man) were all indicted for the murder of Joseph and Hyrum. Wills, Voras, and Gallaher, perhaps conscious that their wounds could prove that they were involved in the mob, fled the county after being indicted and were never brought to trial.[28] There is no evidence that Wills, Voras, Gallaher, or Allen died from their wounds[29]
Well, so there you have it, right?
The fact remains that the LDS church paints a different picture, from omission, of the events leading up to and the actual murder of the Smith brothers. I don’t know why they just don’t tell the truth? There’s probably a good reason and it’s not that the truth is elusive.
This is what the Wiki article says about the events leading up to Smith going to jail.
The bulk of the paper was devoted to three main criticisms of Smith: (1) The opinion that Smith had once been a true prophet, but had fallen by advocating polygamy, exaltation and other controversial doctrines; (2) the opinion that Smith, as both Mayor of Nauvoo and President of the Church, held too much power, which was further consolidated by the overwhelmingly Mormon make-up of Nauvoo’s courts and city council, who intended establishing a theocracy via the Council of Fifty; and (3) the belief that Smith had corrupted women by forcing, coercing or introducing them into plural marriage.
The Law of Sacrifice: “…which continued until the death of Jesus Christ, which ended sacrifice by the shedding of blood. And as Jesus Christ has laid down his life for the redemption of mankind, so we should covenant to sacrifice all that we possess, even our own lives if necessary, in sustaining and defending the Kingdom of God.”
Joseph gave us the endowment as revealed by God and would have known the principle and willingly accepted death in sustaining the kingdom. To do otherwise, he would have become a covenant breaker.
No gun, no shots, no injury, no deaths.
LWG,
Here’s your problem. The endowment ceremony didn’t come from God. The endowment ceremony came from the Free Masons.
You’re ignoring what led to Smith being jailed. You need to ask why there was a schism in the leadership. I think that you’ll find that polygamy had a large part to play in what happened.
There is a commandment that says we are not to covet another man’s wife. Joseph Smith broke this commandment by “marrying’ women married to other men; members of his church.
You really need to deal with reality and not these fantasy explanations that help you sustain your faith in Smith.
Falcon said:
“Here’s your problem.”
I’m simply giving support for the LDS need to deny/suppress/downplay the story of Joseph and the gun. The endowment and polygamy are entwined along with all the other problems occurring in Nauvoo that led to the death of Joseph. We have the endowment ceremony today as revealed by Joseph. Joseph was intimate with it, he trained the actors, led the ceremony, and is responsible for the changes in it up to his death. The endowment explanation of the Law of sacrifice is clear that Jesus ended the shedding of blood to sustain or defend the kingdom of God. In doing so Joseph becomes a covenant breaker as his last earthly act, and without repentance. Joseph dies an unrepentant sinner and covenant breaker destined for hell.
It’s not my problem!
It was a gun fight. It was also an assassination. It was hardly a martyrdom. You have no proof that anyone DIDN’T die. So your argument is beside the point and doesn’t further the discussion. Being shot in the face in 1844 was indeed “something”. Unfortunately you haven’t got a leg to stand on here. I’ve added plenty to the REAL discussion. You have added nothing. And this is always to be expected with you.
Jo didn’t willingly accept death. He purportedly sent for the Nauvoo Legion to rescue him and accepted two pistols. And the endowment covenants are nothing like what Jesus did. He died to save the world, as a willing sacrifice. He wasn’t “defending” anything. Jesus “turned the other cheek”. Jo fired bullets into those that were seeking to kill him. Jesus did nothing when he was arrested and told his friends to put down their swords. Jo armed the Mormons in Nauvoo and compared himself to Muhammad. “The alcoran or the sword.” He was nothing like the Savior, or Jesus apostles. Jo got the endowment from the Masons. It has nothing to do with the “Kingdom of God”. And the endowment ceremony today is very little like the one given by Jo and finished by Brigham Young. All of the death oaths are gone today. Mormons today don’t covenant to “slit their throats” or disembowel themselves for breaking their covenants or revealing them. They can’t be consistent in anything.
LWG,
Thanks for the clarification. I didn’t get your perspective the first time around.
Quite frankly, I don’t see how anyone, in getting the straight dope on Joseph Smith, could claim that he was a prophet. If someone gets all of the information, doesn’t alibi but accepts it as is and still accepts Smith as a prophet I say, OK that’s your problem. It’s a problem for them because it defies logic.
However I’m reminded that there are people who accept all kinds of things that quite literally blow my mind. I went to a presentation by the Amazing Randy, James Randy a debunker of all forms of spiritual claims. He talked about Peter Sellers dying of correctable heart disease because he believed in psychic healers.
When the Amazing Randy was asked why people believe this bogus stuff he said, “Because they want to!”
And there in lies Mormonism. There are those who really like it. It gives substance, structure and meaning to their lives. Believing in Joseph Smith is spiritual candy for them. It’s a kick to believe in the little grove of trees and the young lad earnestly seeking God and having Jesus and God the Father appear to him. And then an angel and golden plates and magic glasses, it’s a hoot, it’s fun and it’s euphoric and intoxicating for some people.
And then there’s the feeling of being special for getting that confirming feeling from the Mormon god. It’s all zippidy doda. The whole point of the presentations in Nauvoo is to get the people feeling something. Now it’s a whole other thing, the folks going through the temple the first time and getting freaked out, confused and dumb founded by the experience.
So it all rests on keeping Joseph Smith the prophet on his pedestal. Once the pedestal starts rocking, keeping it steady is a real problem.
The point is that the SLC LDS have to keep this idealized version of the Joseph Smith story front and center. That’s also why the LDS members who start to dig into the story often are upset at learning something that the LDS church has kept from them. It’s kept from them because they just believe what they are told. As far as the Carthage Jail story goes, just lay it out there.
As far as him marrying women married to other men, that is not OK in anyone’s book regardless if he had sex with them or not. If leaders get themselves into trouble it’s usually related to sex, power or money. Smith, at one time or another, was in trouble with all three.
So if Joseph Smith isn’t a prophet, does that mean that none of it is true? Yea, that’s what it means. None of it is true. The temple, the priesthood, the BoM, the forever families, none of it is true. It’s just a religious Disney World without the rides!
In the Utah Evangel ( #6 1989 ) a christian ministry to the Mormon people , founded by the
late Pastor John L. Smith , there was a article in the Peoria’s ” Journal Star ” ( 6-26-1988, pD3)
newspaper about the historical site the Carthage jail . The director of the LDS Vistor’s Center at
Nauvoo and Carthage, Ted Cannon, said that the Carthage jail , ” holds the same significance
to his ( Joseph Smith’s ) approximately 6.5 million followers as Calvary holds for Christians
all over the world. ”
Statements like this can easily breed similar type statements such as what Bill has heard from
some Mormons when visiting the jail site . What’s important is how the fact that Joseph Smith
died in a gun fight shooting to kill those attacking him , is not divulged by the tour guides at
the jail site unless pressured to do so . The whole affair at Carthage should’nt have happened .
This behavior by Mormon guides there kind of serves as a example of why ministries like MRM
are here : investigators need to know about Mormonism , and many times they are not getting
enough info from Mormons —the missionaries at historical sights or the leadership and their
sequestering of documents in the Church archives .
Mike,
The problem is that the LDS church has to make Joseph Smith into something he wasn’t in order to keep the fantasy going. There is a stark contrast between reality and the fantasy picture Mormons paint regarding their prophet.
I remember when I heard about Lance Armstrong doping. I didn’t want to believe he had done it because I admired his story. Then I began to think that, well, it’s what they do in that sport so he’s competing the way it’s done. Then finally the real story got out and the truth about him being a common cheat and liar was known. Frankly, I still didn’t want to believe it. I liked the fantasy better.
Thus it is with Mormons and Joseph Smith. Many, after learning about him, don’t want to believe it so they deny, alibi, excuse and reshape the truth to fit their own desires to believe.
That’s what’s going on with the Carthage Jail story. It’s a totally recast account of what happened and the lead up story is totally ignored.
Remember what Bill said about the guy he asked the direct questions to? The guy knew the truth but he liked the fiction better so he just kept repeating it. Just pump-up the emotions of the LDS and sell it as a spiritual experience.
Anything to keep the fantasy going!
It all really has to do with creating a “feeling” about Joseph Smith and his claims. The feeling is the hook because it’s said, by Mormons, to be attributed to God confirming that it’s all true. Not a real good test, I would say, despite what the BoM claims.
Smith grew-up in a time and place where emotions ran high during revivals. I’ve documented some of the reported “manifestations” in other posts in the past. Smith grabbed a hold of that idea of going out into the woods and having an encounter with God, I believe, from a similar account told by Charles Finney. One major difference was that, as far as I know, Finney never changed his story. We all know that Smith did. There’s something like nine different versions and it wasn’t a matter of changing a few small details.
Consider this:
The first written version of the account by Joseph was not given until 12 years after it supposedly took place. When he first penned the account, Joseph only mentioned one person visiting him, which is no small detail to be mistaken about.[4] There are now known at least nine different accounts[5] given by Joseph Smith relating the First Vision with varying degrees of changes and circumstances. If this vision was so important, why are there discrepancies and why did it take so long to write?
As far as Mormon literature is concerned, there was apparently no reference to Joseph Smith’s First Vision in any published material in the 1830’s, it was left out of the first publication of the Church’s history written by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. It was also left out of the Book of Commandments (the precursor to the Doctrine & Covenants) and the general church membership did not receive information about the First Vision until the 1840’s and that the story certainly did not hold the prominent place in Mormon thought that it does today.[6]
http://www.mormonthink.com/firstvisionweb.htm
My point in bringing this up here is that there’s a lot of creative story telling and Mormon folklore surrounding Joseph Smith which would cause any one to pause and consider if he’s really the prophet the LDS church claims that he is.
Falcon, I think that for rank and file Mormons because they are so busy with striving to live
the Mormon church system that they simply trust their leadership to the extent that what they
say about their history ” is gospel ” , etc . LDS have been told that to start to question that their
leaders are not being accurate about various parts of their history or that previous leaders taught
false doctrine , that this kind of thinking is akin to questioning God and can invite Satan’s
influence in their lives . The Mormon produced film , ” Legacy” seems to be a example of this
issue of Church leadership not being forthright about some important events in Mormon
history some of which are related to this thread , but it is powerfully emotional film created
to strengthen the testimonies of members and help persuade investigators of the truth of
Mormonism . This is the reason why tour guides at Mormon historical sites are’nt so willing
to admit some things about Joseph Smith or those in leadership who followed him .
I personally believe that the Mormon people have been misdirected by their leaders into
embracing a man made church system . While this elaborate system has much good and whose
participants can be great neighbors there is still the the fact that good people can be misled by
men today who mimic the claims of Jesus’ true apostles , and thus succumb to accepting
from these men more than just moral teaching because Mormon leaders have introduced some
very aberrant teachings about God and Jesus that if embraced, can have a detriment effect on
one’s salvation . Jesus saw our day and took the time to forewarn us all to beware of such men
—-Mk 13:22-23 .
The Mormon people don’t need Joseph Smith or subsequent Mormon prophets . What all need
is not another prophet ,it’s a Savior . The Savior has come , and He picked men to spread
the truth about Him and how to be forgiven, reconciled to God , and receive eternal life with
Him in heaven . This same good news has changed the lives of multitudes for centuries and it
still can today . The Bible contains this wonderful news .
wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Joseph_Smith
” Most accounts seem to agree that at least three mob members were wounded by Joseph Smith’s gunfire, but there is no other evidence that any of them died as a result of the attack. John Wills was shot in the arm; William Voras was shot in the shoulder; and William Gallaher was shot in the face.[20][26] Others claimed that a fourth unnamed man was also wounded.[27] Wills, Voras, Gallaher, and a Mr. Allen (possibly the fourth man) were all indicted for the murder of Joseph and Hyrum. Wills, Voras, and Gallaher, perhaps conscious that their wounds could prove that they were involved in the mob, fled the county after being indicted and were never brought to trial.[28] There is no evidence that Wills, Voras, Gallaher, or Allen died from their wounds[29]”
“There is no evidence that Wills, Voras, Gallaher, or Allen died from their wounds [29].” They fled the county after being indicted. A dead person can not flee.
Whilst waiting for FoF to respond to the questions asked by Falcon & myself (It could be a long wait) it might be helpful to step back & take a broader view of Smiths death. I agree that there is no absolute proof that anyone shot by Smith actually died & he may or may not have sent for aid to the Nauvoo legion. I agree that Smith was murdered but I see no evidence of him being a martyr. He was in prison awaiting trial for the illegal destruction of a printing press, & while that in no way justifies his murder, it does reflect badly on his claims of him being an innocent man of God.
However, this isn’t really about any of those things, this is about the integrity of the LDS church. We are asked to view the LDS as a Christian organization when from the very beginning it has practiced deception & has lied about its past.
The elevation of Smith to the status of a martyr, the creation of some kind of a ‘shrine’ at the place where he died & the falsification of the facts concerning his death is simply another example of the true nature of the LDS Corporation.
One article that I read suggested that the idea of someone dying as a result of Smith’s shoot out was actually started by a Mormon. I think we see that someone making that claim was John Taylor. Why would a Mormon claim such a thing? It was to show the macho side of Smith. If it would make Smith look good to the Mormon believers then they’d use it.
The question for me is whether or not our Mormon readers would have gone along with the things that resulted in the printing of the newspaper by those opposing Smith’s new direction. Marrying multiple women, some married to other men, I would think would be a pretty shocking development.
So it always comes back to Joseph Smith and if he was a prophet of God. I think the evidence is over whelming that he wasn’t. A clever guy? I’d say yes. A man of God? No way!
There is also the possibility that one of more of them may have died from wounds later. This is just a case of maybe yes, maybe no. There are reports to indicate both. So, quoting a Mormon historical figure like John Taylor, who said that according to reports, two of those who shot Joseph had died, is perfectly fine to do.
But this, again, is a straw man for the OP, because they avoid telling that Joseph even had a gun.
Just my 2 cents. The title is a bit deceiving since this “untold story” has been readily told and easily found for anyone both Mormon and non- Mormon. Are there members who still don’t know the history?….sure. In any church, you will find those who are more informed and less informed of their own faith… No big surprise. Lastly, the argument of whether Joseph Smith was a Martyr is a bit futile. Obviously, a believer like my self, will see him as a martyr and those who see Joseph in a bad light will not attribute the title of martyr to him…Once again no surprise!
2bowdown said
“this “untold story” has been readily told and easily found for anyone both Mormon and non- Mormon. Are there members who still don’t know the history?….sure. In any church, you will find those who are more informed and less informed of their own faith”
While you are right in saying you will find more informed & less informed in any faith I’m afraid you’re completely missing the point, unlike other Churches the LDS deliberately withholds information from its members. The information to which you refer may be easily found but, & this is the important part, your church does NOT want its members to know about it. As I said previously, this topic isn’t really about Smiths ‘martyrdom’ or whether he was murdered or not, it’s about the integrity of an organization that has, from its earliest beginnings practised deception, deception that continues to this day.
Unless & until the LDS Corporation starts teaching it’s members the truth, especially the truth concerning Joseph Smith, until it is prepared to say to the members, ‘we have not been honest with you’ & for as long as its deceptive practices continue, it will be viewed as nothing more than a cult
2bowdown, welcome. You made a good point about the word ” martyr ” . I personally have a
difficult time thinking of Joseph Smith as a martyr for Christ because of his dying in a gun fight
after shooting at his foes . The whole episode in the Carthage jail should never have
happened as lives were lost . Now when this thread is about ” the untold story ” of Joseph Smith,
I look at it as not that this information is not available or that it has literally never been admitted
by Mormon leaders before , but rather that it seems that this information is usually never told to
those visiting the Carthage jail site by tour guides . Why ? Perhaps this information of Joseph
being killed while trying to kill those who were attacking him does’nt fit with the common
image of a lamb ? Since this is not being told , does’nt that make it a “untold story ” ( together
with the events that led up to that fateful day ) .
MRM is here to make available information about the Mormon church that is important and
which many times investigators will not hear from the Mormon Missionaries or the Church
P.R. dept . The Mormon people also need to know these things .
So I hope you will peruse the information this ministry has available .
Mike and Old Man. I think I just simply disagree that the LDS church is trying to hide this history. Since 1844 the account of Joseph with the gun can be found countless times in various a magazines/newspapers both church published (Times and Seasons, Deseret to name a couple) and non LDS affiliated. If the LDS church wanted to hide this why did they publish the account twice in the History of the Church? Or why have various General Authorities mentioned the pistols in their discourses and publications (Dallin Oaks, BH Roberts, etc…)? Not to mention that the pistols can can be viewed in the Church’s Historical museum Salt Lake City for all of the tourists and investigators to see. Now I cant comment on the tours at Carthage Jail since I have never been there, so if it is true that they don’t mention it there then I can see how your view point can be conceived. I would be curious to know how they would answer if asked about the pistols? Maybe I will ask when I’m there:)
2bowdown you said
“Mike and Old Man. I think I just simply disagree that the LDS church is trying to hide this history.”
I didn’t say the church is trying to hide its history, what I actually said was this.
“unlike other Churches the LDS deliberately withholds information from its members. The information to which you refer may be easily found but, & this is the important part, your church does NOT want its members to know about it.”
With respect 2bowdown, you are again missing the point, anyone who wanted to learn about Mormonism should not have to look for some obscure & ancient publication, they should be able to find it on the LDS site, here’s the link to the LDS version of events
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=f319b00367c45110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=198bf4b13819d110VgnVCM1000003a94610aRCRD
I have pasted the relevant details together with my comments
“On June 10, 1844, Joseph Smith, who was the mayor of Nauvoo, and the Nauvoo city council ordered the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor and the press on which it was printed.”
TRUE: Smith ordered the destruction of the printing press, however, the destruction of the press was a criminal act.
“The Nauvoo Expositor was an anti-Mormon newspaper that slandered the Prophet and other Saints and called for the repeal of the Nauvoo Charter. City officials feared that this publication would lead to mob action……….As a result of the action by the mayor and city council, Illinois authorities brought an unfounded charge of riot against the Prophet, his brother Hyrum, and other Nauvoo city officials”
FALSE: The Expositor was not an anti-Mormon newspaper & it did NOT slander Joseph Smith, it simply printed the truth about his SECRET polygamous activities. The denial of the ‘Expositor’s’ right to free speech & its destruction without due process of law is why Smith was arrested for inciting riot.
“Believing that the mobs wanted only them, Joseph and Hyrum decided to leave for the West to preserve their lives. On June 23, they crossed the Mississippi River, but later that day, brethren from Nauvoo found the Prophet and told him that troops would invade the city if he did not surrender to the authorities in Carthage. This the Prophet agreed to do, hoping to appease both government officials and the mobs. On June 24, Joseph and Hyrum Smith bade farewell to their families and rode with other Nauvoo city officials toward Carthage, voluntarily surrendering themselves to county officials in Carthage the next day. After the brothers had been released on bail for the initial charge, they were falsely charged with treason against the state of Illinois, arrested, and imprisoned in Carthage Jail to await a hearing.”
FALSE: Smith did what he always did when he was in trouble, he ran, he was persuaded to return by his brother who told him that he would be rejected by the members of the church if he did not. The charge of treason was NOT FALSE; Smith had illegally called upon the Nauvoo Legion to prevent his arrest.
“Shortly after five o’clock in the afternoon, a large group of attackers stormed the jail, firing their guns at the men inside. Within a few minutes, the foul deed was done. Hyrum Smith was shot first and died almost immediately. Elder Richards miraculously received only a superficial wound; and Elder Taylor, though severely wounded, survived and later became the third President of the Church. The Prophet Joseph ran to the window and was fatally shot. The Prophet of the Restoration and his brother Hyrum had sealed their testimonies with their blood.”
PARTIALLY TRUE: A large mob did storm the jail, they did kill Hyrum & Joseph Smith but where is the mention of Smith having a gun? Why no mention of him shooting & wounding 3 men? Why aren’t we told that he tried to escape by jumping from a window while shouting the Masonic cry of distress? Well, possibly because those are not the actions of a martyr sealing his testimony with his blood.
Now, if the LDS is not trying to hide its history why does the story of Smiths death NOT include details that would tend to put a different light on things? As I said at the start of this post, any would be investigator into the LDS is not going to start looking at some obscure & little known LDS publication they are going to look at the church website, & the above (Minus the comments) is what they would find, a story full of half truths deliberately designed to deceive.
I said this in my previous post & I’ll say it again now,
“Unless & until the LDS Corporation starts teaching it’s members the truth, especially the truth concerning Joseph Smith, until it is prepared to say to the members, ‘we have not been honest with you’ & for as long as its deceptive practices continue, it will be viewed as nothing more than a cult”
2bowdown, perhaps you did’nt read what I said closely . My point was’nt that the gun play by
Smith at the Carthage jail has never been published by some Mormon author , but that this
information seems to be conspicuously absent in the presentation at the jail site by Mormon
tour guides , and I might add this is also the m.o. in to other venues where the Church provides
outreach to the public , especially to non-LDS . The fact that Joseph Smith died in a gun battle
while trying to kill his foes is indeed consistent with a military officer’s behavior ( Smith was
a Lt. General of a very large Mormon army ) , however this type of behavior is not something
the public associates with a person ( Joseph Smith ) who is presented as a ” lamb” .
Do you see my point ? Now it needs to be said that this type portrayal of Smith by Church
leaders is not new . In 1993, and again in 2005 , Church authorities allowed two films to be
shown to the public about their early history , especially about Joseph Smith . In both of these
important facts were left out , some pertaining to the events related to Carthage . Both of these
films were designed to be highly emotional ( which can be very effective at convincing an
audience ) . The films were ” Legacy” , and ” Joseph Smith : Prophet of the Restoration ” .
( see Salt Lake Messenger # 88 , and # 106 , or utlm .org ) .
Now I personally believe that for the vast majority of rank and file Mormons it’s boils down to
trust in their leadership , an allegiance that in my opinion is spiritual unhealthy . Do Mormon
leaders hide important historical information ? However you might label it , the fact is that
right now you do not have access to some documents in Church archives or the First Pres vault .
What about knowing how much of a “salary ” your top leadership receives ? Quite frankly,
you have joined a church whose leaders don’t seem to trust you with some important
information related to some of their truth claims . The Mormon church has morphed into a
powerful multi-billion dollar empire whose leadership controls practically every area of a
members life . Submit and follow the prophet !
Jesus forewarned us all today that false prophets will arise in the latter days, and these men gain
acceptance form sincere people ( like you) , because they mimic the claims of Jesus’ apostles ,
and sadly embrace their aberrant doctrines about God/ Jesus / salvation . Truth matters, so
may you test your prophets soon ( 1 Jn 4:1 ) . You’re not here by accident .
Take care.
My whole point is that I disagree with y’all in that the LDS church is deliberately withholding (not sure how this is different from hiding) information from its members. Like I mentioned before, this story is found in countless magazines even in the Ensign. Multiple Church authorities have talked about it in conferences to the church’s members and those investigating. The pistols themselves are up for display in the Church’s historical museum where countless members and non-members are free to visit. I have heard it talked about in Sunday school and in Sacrament meetings. So far you have only pointed out the Carthage Jail tour and the Church website. I have spoken to various people who have gone on that tour. Some say it was mentioned while others say it was not. Maybe it depends on who is giving the tour and what day you went on that tour. The website link is a synopsis of Joseph’s death, not an exhaustive history of events that day. Many details were left out b/c the main point was to talk about Joseph’s death. Don’t forget that the pistol was mentioned twice in the “Official” History of the Church. Either the LDS church is not trying to withhold information or they do a pretty sorry job at doing so.
Lastly, I wanted to reply to the Nauvoo legion being called up to prevent Joseph’s arrest. Do you have a source….Brodie perhaps??? Just beware that there was a verified forgery concerning that event. The letters that are verified are of Joseph ordering the militia to defend the city and then to pretty much stand down…. All serious sources point to the fact that Joseph well understood his fate and accepted it. If he ran “like he always does”, then why did he return? Whether his brother convinced him to or whether he did so to follow Gods will…. That would take some serious courage!
Just one more thing, Mike: Most of your points are valid, but in the end you made some far reaching assumptions about Church leadership and their control over members.. The members choose to follow, just like those of old chose to follow Joseph Smith. No one is forced. The invitation has always been to sincerely pray about it. Is this bad advice??? Have you? If you have and can say that you truly received an answer that told you that this was all false then I say to you Godspeed. I have sincerely prayed for a long time over these matters and have truly received answers to my prayers! so you are right, I am not here by accident.
2bowdown
You said this
“So far you have only pointed out the Carthage Jail tour and the Church website. I have spoken to various people who have gone on that tour. Some say it was mentioned while others say it was not. Maybe it depends on who is giving the tour and what day you went on that tour. The website link is a synopsis of Joseph’s death, not an exhaustive history of events that day. Many details were left out b/c the main point was to talk about Joseph’s death. Don’t forget that the pistol was mentioned twice in the “Official” History of the Church. Either the LDS church is not trying to withhold information or they do a pretty sorry job at doing so.”
I’ll leave Mike to answer your objections to the things he says but I’ll try to answer, more clearly this time, the points you raise concerning the church website.
What is the purpose of the LDS website, well, obviously it must be there to inform, to inform who? Presumably to inform the people who are interested in learning about the LDS? So ask yourself this, suppose someone wanted to join your church, suppose they read about Smiths death on the church website, what impression would they be given? Obviously it will be a false one, the hope being that investigators will believe Smith was a prophet of God who was martyred for his beliefs. Are these hypothetical investigators told that it isn’t the full story & they will need to do further research to find the truth? Of course they aren’t, they’re supposed to accept what they have read in the hope that they wont investigate any further, this is an example of the deceptive ‘milk before meat’ policy practised by the LDS. Please face the facts 2bowdown & admit that the entire account is biased towards that end.
You make the point about the account being a synopsis but that is not strictly true, as even a synopsis should include enough detail to avoid giving a false impression. So, in the belief that you are an honest man who will give an honest answer, I have a question for you. Can you read through that account & tell me that it does NOT give a different impression to that which would have been gained if it had been told in full?
You said
“If he ran “like he always does”, then why did he return? Whether his brother convinced him to or whether he did so to follow Gods will…. That would take some serious courage!”
It would only take ‘serious courage’ if God really had told him to go back to give up his life for the church & that CANNOT be true as Smith DID NOT willingly give up his life, you know full well that he fought to save his life even to the point of attempting to kill his attackers. I don’t want to get too deeply into this, suffice it to say that he returned because he had little choice, if he had continued to run he would have had no followers & would still have been a wanted man, the charges against him were very serious. The very fact that he returned when he had always ran from trouble in the past indicates that he fully expected the Legion to come to his aid.
Ps. why would God want Smith to die if He had called him to restore the original Church?
As to the assassination of Jo and Hyrum, most of the information that was compiled was done so over a decade later. Dean C. Jessee wrote a great article about the murders in 1981 called “Return to Carthage, Writing the History of Joseph Smith’s Martydom”. Aside from Jo’s “Lamb to the slaughter” statement, (Reported in the Times & Seasons directly after the murders) there are no contemporary statements recorded about anything else Jo said. Dan Wales, Stephen Markham, John Taylor, Cyrus Wheelock and all the others wrote accounts after 1856 when asked to by then Historian George A. Smith. Williard Richards kept a diary with him, but it was so garbled and brief that it was of little use. He wrote one account in 1844, but Richards died before he ever wrote a more comprehensive account of the murders. What we have is mainly from John Taylor. William Daniels obviously made up most of his story about the shaft of light, the frozen Militia men, the attempted beheading, etc. which were removed by B.H. but are still repeated.
FAIR just put up a piece in wiki to show how many historians have reported the accounts and Jo’s gun firing, but it doesn’t address the Nauvoo tours, which is the whole point of the OP, not that the Church itself is trying to hide something. On the churches official website they give an account which states, “He grabbed a six-shot pepperbox pistol, and attempted a feeble defense.”
Did anyone try to make Jo recant his religion? Torture him to do so? Jo was not arrested simply because he was a Mormon, in fact it was Mormons who had him arrested. It was those that felt Jo had wronged them by destroying their property and infringing on their rights to free press that initiated the whole affair. Others then took advantage of Smith’s vulnerable position and assassinated him, motivated by much more than just his religious views.
Did Smith submit himself to the law under duress? Sure. He was told that if he did not, it would probably get ugly. Did he know that he was going into a very hostile situation, again, yes. But a lamb to the slaughter? Jo was no innocent lamb. In fact Chris Smith just wrote this excellent piece about how Jo used his power in Nauvoo in an almost dictatorial fashion, and in doing so probably created an enemy that helped to murder him. It’s called Joseph Smith’s personal feud with a probable ringleader of the Carthage Mob.
Jo brought much of his troubles on himself.
Good Comments from both Grindael and Old Man: I think we will just disagree on the hiding/withholding information bit.
To Old Man: You posted, “It would only take ‘serious courage’ if God really had told him to go back to give up his life for the church & that CANNOT be true as Smith DID NOT willingly give up his life, you know full well that he fought to save his life even to the point of attempting to kill his attackers. I don’t want to get too deeply into this, suffice it to say that he returned because he had little choice, if he had continued to run he would have had no followers & would still have been a wanted man, the charges against him were very serious. The very fact that he returned when he had always ran from trouble in the past indicates that he fully expected the Legion to come to his aid.
Ps. why would God want Smith to die if He had called him to restore the original Church?
… I just disagree with you here. How can you say that He did not willingly give up his life, when in just about all correspondence with friends and family he indicated that he was not going to come back from this event. He knew full well what it meant to turn himself in. How can you know why he fired those shots? Remember, he was not the only one in that jail. Did he really think he was going to escape from a mob numbering over 200 with a six shooter?
Lastly, about your question, “why would God want Joseph to die if he had called him to restore the Original Church”. Well first, Joseph completed his purpose in restoring the church. Second, why would God want any of his disciples to die? (Peter, Stephen, etc….) Maybe it is because Sealing testimony with your death tends to leave a mark in the memory of followers… Hence the quote, “A crown of roses fades, a crown of thorns endures”.
Grindael: There are many comments about Joseph’s statement of being a Lamb to the Slaughter. Was he an innocent Lamb? Of course not, he was a man who admitted many mistakes and past transgressions. He used language familiar to him which reflected his situation while he was being taken away. He is not Jesus Christ, he did not die like Jesus in courage, nobility, humility,or any other Godly attribute. Joseph is no Christ and no one presumed him to be! But He did die for his faith. You don’t really believe that a mob gathered over a printing press do you?
I was a bit troubled by your last statement, “Jo brought much of his troubles on himself” Are you implying that he deserved to die? Or are you just saying that based on your article which makes a number of grand assumptions? Dictator? Mr. Eagle never had to stay in Nauvoo if he didn’t want to follow city ordinances. Also, you should read some other sources and journal entries on the type of person Mr. Eagle was. Simply said, you should be careful when making such a bold statement about a man who was murdered by a mob whether you find his beliefs true or not!
Last of all, please look up the definition of Martyr. Joseph meets the criteria! Whether it fits your personal definition is another matter all together.
Good Comments from both Grindael and Old Man: I think we will just disagree on the hiding/withholding information bit.
Thank you for that 2bowdown but respectfully I beg to differ & I’ll explain why, you could try this if you doubt what I say.
Before my initial post I did what most casual seekers of information would have done; I typed the words ‘the death of Joseph Smith’ into a search engine. The ONLY entry from the LDS site was the page I quoted from, the one you call a synopsis but which I choose to call a misleading synopsis; To have come across the much more detailed entry found elsewhere on the LDS website would require prior knowledge of at least some of the circumstances surrounding his death. Why doesn’t the church do the simple & honest thing & set out in full all the circumstances surrounding Smiths death on the same page? I stand by my previous assertion that anyone seeking information on Smiths death who used a similar search term would be directed to a page that is deliberately misleading. Whether the information is available elsewhere on the LDS site is neither here nor there, the important thing is HOW that information is made available. It’s a common enough ploy by politicians & business to put important information in places where no one is likely to look & the LDS is no different in that regard. Anyone believing the LDS to be just another Christian Church would take that account at face value & would see no need for further research & that, I have no doubt, is the idea behind it. Therefore I maintain that the LDS website is misleading at best & is designed with one purpose in mind, to give a deceptive impression of Smiths death as is shown by the header
“The Martyrdom: The Prophet Seals His Testimony with His Blood.”
You said
“Well first, Joseph completed his purpose in restoring the church.”
I rather expected you to come back with that but it’s a fallacious argument, Christ founded His Church, the Apostles who died after completion of their tasks expounded the Dogma. There was no need for prophets in the LDS sense of the word after that time. Smith COULD NOT have completed his purpose of restoring the church or there would be no need for a succession of so-called prophets. Because the LDS is a church of continuing revelation it can never be complete. Please think about that 2bowdown.
You said
“please look up the definition of Martyr. Joseph meets the criteria! Whether it fits your personal definition is another matter all together.”
While I would agree with you that in the general sense of the word Smith meets the criteria & in the same way all Muslims who die for their faith, whether they be suicide bombers or are murdered, are called martyrs. However, as this is a Christian site a more specific question has to be asked. Did Joe Smith die the death of a Christian martyr as is implied on the LDS website? The answer to that has to be a resounding NO. There can be no doubt that Smith tried to escape, there can be no doubt that he did NOT die willingly but at the end did all he could to avoid his fate. Rather than comparing his death with that of Christ who was obviously more than a man, it might be helpful in understanding Christian martyrdom if you read the account of Stephens death in Acts 7:57-60
2bowdown, I’ll comment on some of the things you said , and then I’m moving on from this
particular thread . You said that , ” Joseph Smith well understood his fate and accepted it. ”
Then why aggressively engage in a gun battle with those at the jail that day ? Sounds like a
soldier ( he fancied himself a LT. General ) rather than a lamb .
You said, ” most of your points are valid but in the end you made some far reaching assumptions about church leadership and control over members . The members choose to follow …..no one is
forced .”
What I made was a simple reminder of the far reaching consequences to sincere people who
follow prophets in these latter days who are not sent by God —Matt 24:11 —- i.e. Mormon
prophets . These prophets mimic the claims of God’s true prophets , hence the allure which
results in people submitting to them and embracing their doctrinal revealments .
You said that ” no one is forced ” to follow Mormon leaders . Obviously no one is holding a gun
to your heads and forcing you to follow . But there is subtle reminders by these men to their
followers that to criticize them places one’s salvation in danger , and to believe that these men
are as likely to be wrong as they are to be right on what they teach is to play into Lucifer’s game .
Remember that not all false prophets are immoral or conniving individuals , some a very polite,
well dressed , and can talk about living a moral lifestyle . This is something I feel many LDS
don’t think through . Concerning praying to know if Mormonism is true or not . The Holy Spirit
being the Spirit of truth will not confirm a teaching that is not in accord with the written word
of God , which He inspired the Bible’s prophets/apostles to pen , he will not give a good feeling
to such . We are asked to test anyone claiming to be a prophet , this is absolutely crucial today—
the latter days . An appropriate thing to do is to compare — Gal. 1:8 ; 1 Jn 4:1 .
Good people with good intentions enhanced by good feelings are misled by doctors ,mechanics
or Insurance reps every day with unfortunate physical or financial consequences resulting .
Concerning our spiritual well being , Jesus said to be on the look out for false prophets . God
has given us His word , written by men He chose to reveal the truth about Him , how to receive
forgiveness and eternal life with Him , and how to detect prophets today who He has not
spoken through concerning important spiritual truths .
Old Man: Your argument about the internet search is valid enough. Maybe the LDS church could do a better job of getting that information out there. I only see one flaw in your argument. The church has published the account in various Church Magazines which go directly to members and are discussed in Church. So hiding info from members in not accurate, but may have a better point when concerning members. Still not totally in agreement though. But that is ok. Your point has been made.
As far as your view point regarding the restoration of Christ’s church being a fallacious argument, it is based on mere assumption. The fact is that Joseph Smith did establish the church and had it formally organized. Now whether one believes it to be a restoration of Christ’s church is up to each individual, but there is no doubt that a church was established, hence why we are talking today.
Another assumption you made is that the Apostles and Prophets were not needed after the original Twelve died. Did I understand this correctly? What do you base this assumption on?
As far as Martyr goes: Like I’ve said before, those of the faith will see him as such. Those with negative views will not… not really worth debating.
2bowdown
First let, me say that I appreciate way this dialogue has been conducted; It makes a pleasant change & I sincerely hope it will continue this way.
Just a brief comment on the church website, I was not talking about members being kept in the dark although I do believe that happens, I was in fact referring to any non LDS who wish to know how Joseph Smith died.
“As far as your view point regarding the restoration of Christ’s church being a fallacious argument, it is based on mere assumption. The fact is that Joseph Smith did establish the church and had it formally organized. Now whether one believes it to be a restoration of Christ’s church is up to each individual, but there is no doubt that a church was established, hence why we are talking today.”
I don’t think you really understand what I am saying. Setting up a Church is one thing, establishing it is something quite different. Neither Joseph Smith nor his successors have done that because it cannot be done. It took roughly one generation to set up & ESTABLISH Christ’s church & that was done through the medium of the Apostles directly appointed by Christ, see Ephesians 4:11. Established means permanent & that is what Christ’s Church is, not simply permanent as a divine institution but also as regards its Dogma. However, because of the succession of LDS prophets no permanent Dogma can ever be established within the LDS & therefore the church can never be complete (established). What is Dogma for one generation is NOT necessarily Dogma for the next.
You said
“Another assumption you made is that the Apostles and Prophets were not needed after the original Twelve died. Did I understand this correctly? What do you base this assumption on?”
Yes & no. Yes, you understood correctly but no, it isn’t an assumption. Anyway, before answering let me to show you what I actually said as unfortunately I see a little Mormonspeak creeping in.
“Christ founded His Church, the Apostles who died after completion of their tasks expounded the Dogma. There was no need for prophets in the LDS SENSE OF THE WORD after that time.”
The Apostles as we know them from Scripture were exceptional men directly appointed by Christ & empowered with exceptional gifts to enable them to carry out their appointed tasks. What you actually have in the LDS organization is one of the very things the Catholic Church is condemned for, namely the theory of Apostolic succession. I see no difference apart from the name.
You said I was ‘assuming’ that prophets were not needed & I say to you it is nothing more than an assumption on your part to say that they are needed. The burden of proof lies with the LDS. So, if you can clearly show me, from Scripture, where we are told that Prophets seers & revelators, in the LDS sense of the word, will be needed in the future then someone will be happy show you, from Scripture, why they are not. I say ‘someone’ as I have to head south yet again in the next couple of days & may not be able to reply.
Ps. I’m not shouting when I use BOLD, I’m simply not clever enough to figure out how to use emphasis or italics in here.
Hello 2bowdown.
I have been following all the replys and just have been to busy to add my own.
I agree with you to a point that the info is in books and magazines and such about JS and his gun.
I dont believe it as easy to find as you feel it is and I say this becasue of my experinces.
When I first meet MM back in the late 90’s, I started talking to them and when I first heard about JS trying to run like a coward and shooting back, well that was not told to me from Mormons.
Now I am all for self defence, I myself was and in some ways am still a fighter. I just went and got my carry and conceal permit and plan getting a gun(s). So I have zero issues with that. My problem is how people view JS as a martyer, I dont agree that martyers Fight back, you can say he was trying to defend his friends, I’m sorry, but even Jesus told peter to put away the sword, Jesus if it were in this mor modern time would be saying, Put the gun down.
But I also spent two weeks back in early 2000 touring the entire temple square, me and a friend. My friend was just a friends kid. He knew zero about Mormonism and went along for the ride. I dont recall the name of the buildings I was in, but one place I saw a big group of about 10 people getting a tour. So I walked up and went along with them, then when I opened my mouth to ask a question, then all of a sudden, the two MM giving the tour split up, one took me and my friend away from the group and took the group on. Before they did that, one member of the group said, thats a great question. She never got to hear what we said.
Typical Divide and conquer, they would not allow us to ask tough questions in the group and would not allow the group to hear the questions. So your church is not as honest as you think.
Then in another building, I flat out asked a question about JS, his guy, and shooting people. One MM giving the tour walked away, came back with a very well dressed “Huge” guy. He was dressed like an FBI agent and was about as big as Brock Lesener the fake wrestler and wanna be UFC fighter.
Anyway this guy flat out told me, No asking questions that cause contrversy, I said this is what I asked… and repet my question, he said one more time out of me and I will be removed from the building. So I guess, that must have simply been either a one time thing, or times have changed and that no longer happens.
I also have been to many LDS churchs and sat in for service, but after service after being asked by the MM’s what I thought of service, and I open my mouth and reply, Get taken aside into rooms with nobody but the two MM’s and we talk briefly, then they show me the door and tell me never to come back.
Now this happens a lot and is very common. I am polite, in talking, not yelling, not being mean, they asked me and I reply.
I do have one question for you if you dont mind. I said to some Mormon Missionays over my house a short time back. I meet some MM’s years ago who told me that they black list people like me, They sit in meeting and talk about people like me and say avoid this persons house. I have witnesses that were with me that heard these MM’s tell me this to my face.
I’m not looking to debate this with you, just wondering if you are aware of your church doing this, have you ever heard of this happening? Thanks.
Yes, I do. It was the catalyst. (And I also said that they took advantage of him at Carthage). I already said that he made the ONE comment about “Lamb to the Slaughter”. As for all the other dialogue, including supposed prophecies about the SLC etc; all that was written over a decade later. You basically only have a few accounts of what happened that are contemporary, Willard Richards “Two Minutes in Jail” that only covers the assassination, and the Times and Seasons reports that do mention “Lamb to the Slaughter”. (Read Dean Jesse’s article, it’s very good). Joseph died because he was put in jail for treason, and his enemies (both political, personal and those that disliked his religious power) took advantage of his incarceration there. Did some hate him because he was a Mormon? Sure.
But the majority of the problems with Smith was his dictatorial powers in Nauvoo (the Legion scared the hell out of the people in Illinois) along with the political power that he wielded as the spiritual father of the Mormon people. Anyone who has extensively studied this period knows this.
WHO had Joseph jailed? Members of his own church, mostly. They were the ones who disagreed with his spiritual wifeism, his version of the Adam god scenario (The Expositor speaks of men who become gods and then “fall with their creations” a classic ingredient of Adam-God), and all of this was well documented in the only issue of the Nauvoo Expositor. The reason that he was locked up in Carthage was because Gov. Ford said that Nauvoo Charter had abused Habeas Corpus, and other points of Federal and State law and that if Jo went back to Nauvoo he would surround himself with the Legion and declare himself innocent and get off on the charges, JUST LIKE HE HAD DONE MANY TIMES BEFORE.
It was a political strategy to lock him up in Nauvoo so they could get him to tell the Nauvoo Legion to disarm. (Gov Ford acted atrociously in this affair, even though he made good points about the law, his actions in leaving Jo in Carthage were misguided at best, negligent at worst. He may have wanted Jo dead because he feared his political ambition. He surely knew that Jo would be murdered if he left him there. Anyone with an ounce of common sense should have known this. He should not have returned Jo to Nauvoo, but he should have had him transported to a safer venue. He is culpable in that).
You must read all of the communications that passed between Jo and others when he was in jail. It was all about the laws broken in relation to the destruction of the press in Nauvoo and the over reaching power of the Nauvoo Charter, specifically the habeas corpus laws that Jo was abusing. (If you are in charge of a city, and have the courts packed in your favor, and can get set free on any charge, and then have yourself declared innocent, this was a major violation of habeas corpus, and this was the focus of Ford’s conversations with Jo at Carthage). It would have been interesting to see the end result if it had been litigated in the courts and Jo wasn’t murdered, because Jo threw many legal precedents in Ford’s face about it. It’s one thing on my back burner to research.
Was Joseph Smith a sort of Martyr? Yes, in the very broad definition of the term. In the narrow religious definition, it doesn’t apply, (and this is the MORMON application not the one you say) because he did not go to his death in meekness, trusting in God to deliver him. He went down to his death with his gun blazing. Did he have this right? ABSOLUTELY. Was one motive to protect his friends? ABSOLUTELY. There is nothing wrong with that.
Anyone who thinks he didn’t have those motives for shooting at the mob don’t know much about Jo. He was fiercely loyal to his friends, and would take people back at the drop of his hat (That is why he got deceived by many like John C. Bennett, he took him back and was immediately betrayed by Bennett, but Jo also had a motive in doing so, because Bennett knew Jo was practicing his own version of spiritual wifeism). This makes him a generous person to his friends, but does little to confirm his supposed priesthood power of discernment. And as generous as he was to his friends, he was just as nasty and vindictive to his enemies.
Christian Martyrs were taken, jailed and then asked to recant or face death. Joseph was never asked to recant his Mormon beliefs as a way out of his troubles. He was never put to that test. Peter and Paul weren’t Jesus either. But they did not stand at the head of an army and cry the Word of God or the Sword! Others, who came later did, but this was in error. It was never taught by Jesus or his apostles.
If the mob hated the Mormons so much because they were Mormons, why did they abandon the upstairs and go down to finish off Jo? It was him they were after. The others just got in the way. And they didn’t leave because someone shouted “The Mormons are coming”, they disbanded quite calmly, as one witness to the assassination writes in this piece by Kenneth Godfrey, (another good solid historical article). The mob didn’t just start killing every Mormon and search for them. They did in Jo, and left. It was him they had problems with, for all the reasons I discuss here.
Chris Smith did a great piece that I mentioned about one of those who held a grudge against Jo and was probably part of the ringleaders of the mob. I don’t think you really understood all that happened.This was not over religion, it was over selling liquor in Nauvoo. Jo acted badly in this case. This was in 1841. Then in 1844, Jo began selling liquor in Nauvoo, (overturning his own ordinance banning it) but he was in charge of the licenses. (This was blatant hypocrisy to some, especially in the light of Jo’s command in 1834 about the Word of Wisdom that no one who did not keep it could hold a church office – Jo drank alcohol but still kept his standing as Church President.) This ticked people off, and I’m sure one was Eagle. And Jo would not recuse himself from such litigation. He acted like a dictator. Even Chris Smith says so in so many words. You are putting all the blame on Eagle. Jo had the upper hand, but he rubbed it in the guys face and made an enemy of someone because of it. Would Jesus have done the same? Hardly. Jo WAS a dictator in Nauvoo AND ACTED LIKE ONE.
We can go into all the supposed causes of why Jo acted that way, the Kirtland troubles, the Missouri troubles, the New York troubles, but it all boils down to Jo having problems with regular folk who felt he was abusing his power as a religious leader. (The glass looking in NY, the failed bank and land speculation in Kirtland, the armed insurrection in Missouri that resulted from the Mormons wanting to own all the land and “the riches of the Gentiles”, which was published in the first Book of Commandments, then later changed in the 1835 D&C) Even Jo’s “revelations” describe his fellow Americans as “enemies”: “If ye are faithful, ye shall assemble yourselves together to rejoice upon the land of Missouri, which is the land of your inheritance, which is now the land of your enemies.” (D&C 52:42) Would you be offended if someone moved into your neighborhood (with a bunch of others) and began calling the neighborhood “enemies” and that YOUR land was THEIR INHERITANCE? That “revelation” was written by Jo in 1831! This was long before the problems that arose in Jackson County.
Ask yourself, why were the Mormons getting along so well with the Missourians in Ray/Daviess County under the leadership of the Whitmers? (Read John Corrills, Reed Smoot and John Whitmer’s Histories). Then Jo left Kirtland in the middle of the night to avoid prosecution, set up shop in Missouri, ejected that leadership on trumped up charges and incited the Mormons to riot (him and Sidney Rigdon – the Salt Sermon). This was ALL on Jo. He then embraced the Danites and affirmed them in his own Journal (written in his own hand). READ ALL OF THE HISTORIES.
Jo’s problem was the mixing of political and religious elements that he incorporated into his doctrine. Not only was he to be a religious leader, but a political one, ordaining himself “king” and then running for President. Those that knew about this, (the Law brothers, the Higbees, and others) were exposing it, and Jo didn’t like it. This was a whole other dimension to Jo. They were terrified of what he might do. It is not even that Jo WOULD HAVE DONE anything, but they felt he was CAPABLE of it. He lied about polygamy, and kept secret the Council of FIFTY and the Anointed Quorum and did all of this behind the backs of the majority of the members of the Church. And he had a large well armed body of men at his command, and had already threatened the sword to people who got in his way in Missouri. He was not open and transparent. This was a big problem for many. And he lied. He constantly lied and then threatened those that found out if they talked. He even threatened his own friends with damnation if they did not submit to his spiritual wifeism and give him their daughters. This is far from Christ like behavior. All of this came to a head in June 1844.
Jo was in some ways the quintessential American. But he did not, could not perhaps separate Church and State. It brought about his downfall, and Americans have been skeptical of Mormons ever since. Look at Reed Smoot and Mitt Romney. And Reed Smoot was far from innocent in his dealings about the Church, but he served his country with distinction and the fears of some concerning him doing this were largely unfounded. But the confirmation hearings showed how much of a liar Joseph F. Smith was. This didn’t help the Mormons.
You must take all of the evidence and weigh it before you make a judgement about Jo being murdered only for religious beliefs. This is far from the truth.
Saying that Jo brought much of his troubles on himself in no way implies that I believe that his murder was justified. This is just ludicrous, and I’ve never ever said that. I’ve condemned his murder many times elsewhere and do so now.
Were you even aware of Chris Smith’s article? I’ve read all the sources I can find. And Eagle was a member of the church to boot. Funny how Jo had a habit of making the worst enemies out of those who followed him. Ask yourself why, and why all of those accused as his worst enemies (like William Law, Wilson Law, John Corrill, the Whitmers, Oliver Cowdery, etc.) all led good decent lives that were free from trouble. These were not evil men, they were misguided by Jo Smith. Did some embrace evil? Yes, like Eagle. If Jo had been more Christlike and less war like, none of that might have happened.
Does it give you pause that The History of the Church is full of accusations of the Laws, Higbees, etc. being the RINGLEADERS of the mob, and they weren’t even there? That their names were smeared through the mud by the Mormons but they were totally innocent of his death? That Mormons would gleefully take up revenge oaths? That they would prophecy the destruction of all the “gentiles” in America by the end of the 19th century? That Brigham Young would wish an American President dead? (Buchanan). That Heber C. Kimball would prophesy that Young would become President and he Vice President? That none of this came to pass? That as self proclaimed prophets of Jesus they embraced violent rhetoric and revenge and hatred towards America, instead of turning the other cheek and submitting to law? They only way they submitted was by force. Legal force. They could not even live up to their own Articles of Faith unless forced to do so.
It was not Thomas Marsh who said “The Alcoran or the Sword”, it was Jo. For all Jo’s vaunted prophetic powers, he sure gathered around him some snakes. John C. Bennett is a good example. Where was his “gift of discernment” then? Jo was up to his neck in spiritual wifeism the same as Bennett, and LIKE BENNETT lied about it and smeared and castigated those that accused him of it. This was a major reason for the printing of the Nauvoo Expositor, the destruction of which was a direct cause of Jo’s assassination.
Jo Smith’s personal “weaknesses” have nothing to do with his “revelations”, by his own reckoning:
Jo’s “revelation” of spiritual wifeism was abhorrent. Everything about it tore people down. It caused men to lie, to deceive their own wives, it encouraged arrogance, domination, deception and soured relationships and marriages. It was, and is an abominable doctrine and practice. This was what Jo Smith became, and it led to his death. It was never based in love, but based in domination of one person over others, and degraded women, who were once likened to “cattle” by Heber C. Kimball. It was based on personal aggrandizement, (The more wives you have the greater you are in the after life). It has succeeded as a practice (only for a short time) by any who took it up after Jo died, and only by dictatorial rule under those like Brigham Young and Warren Jeffs, the LeBarons and others. It led to power struggles and murders. Some even say that Young was poisoned. It can’t be practiced openly without problems. Even the Muslims have major problems with women’s rights because of it and how it shapes their view of women. That is why it is rejected as a practice in the Bible and only taken up in error. That is why God forbade the Kings of Israel to practice it.
This was Smith’s mia culpa, and it directly led to his death, because he could not stand to have his secret revealed by “apostates”, who did nothing wrong but reject it. It could never have been practiced, taught and accepted out in the open, it was a work of darkness, born in darkness and hidden from the light of day by those who knew that it would never be accepted by American Society. The Mormons left Nauvoo more because of this, than any other reason. They knew it would never fly in the United States. Young became just as much a dictator as Jo.
The Whitmers (and children of Jo) knew it, and abandoned it and believed the Book of Mormon and were left in peace AND PROSPERED IN MISSOURI. Why could they do what Jo could never do?