Posted on 08/17/2010 2:58:51 AM PDT by restornu
See also: Source(s) of the criticism
In order to make their argument tenable, the critics must do three things. First, they must take some creative liberties with the English language. In this case, the word being redefined is the term martyr. Websters New World Dictionary defines a "martyr" as
The online resource, Dictionary.com, defines a martyr as
Both are nearly identical and fairly standard definitions, and neither includes a requirement or qualifiers of any sort. However, some anti-Mormon writers have taken the term martyr and subtly changed its definition to suit their own needs. The new definition would probably read something like this: Martyr: a person who chooses to suffer or die rather than give up his faith or his principles without any resistance or effort at self-defense on his part whatsoever.
Critics are free to use such a definition, but it belongs to them alone; it is not the standard use of the word, and not what Church members mean when they refer to the "martyrdom" of Joseph and Hyrum Smith at Carthage.
Throughout Christian history, "martyrs" have been understood to be those who suffered quietly, and those who resisted, even with violence, and even to the death of those who persecuted them for their beliefs. (See FAIR wiki article: Martyrdom in Christian history.) The first anti-Mormon argument thus focuses on the fact that Joseph had a firearm and that he used that firearm to defend himself. Critics claim that Joseph's announcement that he was going as a lamb to the slaughter is false, since he fought back.
Anyone who has ever worked on a farm or in a slaughterhouse knows that sheep do not go willingly to the slaughter. They kick and buck, bleat, scream, and make every attempt to escape their fate. In fact, they make such a haunting sound, that the title of an extremely popular Hollywood film was based on it: The Silence of the Lambs. The term lamb to the slaughter simply refers to the inevitability of the final outcome. No matter how valiantly they struggle, the fate of the sheep is sealed. If we apply this understanding to Joseph Smith and his brother, it is clear that they truly were slaughtered like lambs. Fight as they might, they were doomed.
The critics' second tactic is to rely on their target reader being uninformed about trivial aspects of LDS history. Many members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (and this is especially true of new members or less-active members) are not aware of all the excruciatingly minute details of the history of the Church. It has become a common tactic among some anti-Mormon aficionados of Mormon history to use this historical ignorance as a weapon. These writers often claim to expose these minor events of Church history in a sensationalistic attempt to shock members of the Church with hidden revelations or secret accounts about various episodes in Church history. They will often claim that the Church has kept this knowledge under wraps for fear that if it was generally known it would cause many members of the Church to immediately renounce their faith and result in the ruination of the Church.
Unfortunately for the critics, Joseph's attempt to defend himself, his brother, and his friends, and his possession of a pepperbox gun, is clearly spelled out in the History of the Church:
The next volume of the History of the Church tells the story from John Taylor's point of view:
If the Church wished to hide these facts, why did they publish them in the History of the Church not once, but twice?
The critics' third attack is to insist that since Joseph fired his gun six times (only three shots discharged) and he hit two of the mobbers, he is a murderer.
Joseph's actions were clearly self-defense and defense of others under the common law. However, this point is moot since the attackers who were hit were not killed (as was first reported in some Church publications) but only wounded. They were alive and well at the trial held for mob leaders, and were identified by witnesses. Their good health allowed them to receive gifts because of their role in the assault on Joseph, Hyrum, and the other prisoners.
According to Dallin Oaks and Marvin Hill:
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] [5]
It seems clear, then, that:
Definitional fallacies wiki articles |
Joseph Smith, Jr. wiki articles |
Joseph Smith and legal issues wiki articles |
Prophecy wiki articles |
Post-Joseph Smith and non-Joseph Smith prophecies
First Vision wiki articles |
Joseph Smith other visionary issues wiki articles |
Moroni's visit:
God wiki articles |
Joseph Smith FAIR articles on-line |
Joseph Smith other visionary issues FAIR links |
Joseph Smith, Jr. on-line articles |
Joseph Smith, Jr. printed materials |
The Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research (FAIR) is a non-profit organization formed in late 1997 for the purpose of defending the Church. FAIR is staffed completely by volunteers, all of whom are dedicated to defending the Church. FAIR is not owned, controlled by, or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All research and opinions provided on this site are the sole responsibility of FAIR and should not be interpreted as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief, or practice.
To have a cordial discussion on this topic
Ecumenic threads are closed to antagonism.
To antagonize is to incur or to provoke hostility in others. Unlike the caucus threads, the article and reply posts of an ecumenic thread can discuss more than one belief, but antagonism is not tolerable.
More leeway is granted to what is acceptable in the text of the article than to the reply posts. For example, the term gross error in an article will not prevent an ecumenical discussion, but a poster should not use that term in his reply because it is antagonistic. As another example, the article might be a passage from the Bible which would be antagonistic to Jews. The passage should be considered historical fact and a legitimate subject for an ecumenic discussion. The reply posts however must not be antagonistic.
Contrasting of beliefs or even criticisms can be made without provoking hostilities. But when in doubt, only post what you are for and not what you are against. Or ask questions.
Ecumenical threads will be moderated on a where theres smoke, theres fire basis. When hostility has broken out on an ecumenic thread, Ill be looking for the source.
Therefore anti posters must not try to finesse the guidelines by asking loaded questions, using inflammatory taglines, gratuitous quote mining or trying to slip in an anti or ex article under the color of the ecumenic tag.
Posters who try to tear down others beliefs or use subterfuge to accomplish the same goal are the disrupters on ecumenic threads and will be booted from the thread and/or suspended.
But I am not sure that is the image that modern day LDS want him pictured.
Admittedly he was killed by a mob but he was hardly an innocent party. After all he had ordered the destruction of a printing press that he felt was against him. 1840s America still had fresh feelings about freedom of speech and the fact that Joseph thought himself above the Lord.
***
May I remind you those remarks of yours are being antagonist.
Religion Moderator Guidelines
To have a cordial discussion on this topic
Ecumenic threads are closed to antagonism.
To antagonize is to incur or to provoke hostility in others. Unlike the caucus threads, the article and reply posts of an ecumenic thread can discuss more than one belief, but antagonism is not tolerable.
----
The Expositor incident led directly to the murder of Joseph and Hyrum, but it was preceeded by a long period of non-Mormon distrust of Joseph Smith, and attempts to extradite him on questionable basis.
The destruction of the Expositor issue was legal; it was not legal to have destroyed the type, but this was a civil matter, not a criminal one, and one for which Joseph was willing to pay a fine if imposed.
Joseph seems to have believedor, his followers believed after his deaththat the decision, while 'unwise' for Joseph, may have been in the Saints' interest to have Joseph killed. For a time, this diffused much of the tension and may have prevented an outbreak of generalized violence against the Saints, as occurred in Missouri.
http://en.fairmormon.org/Nauvoo_Expositor
It's still common throughout most of the world for prisoners to make arrangements for their own meals, and in some countries wealthy prisoners might well build a modern apartment right inside the jail.
Many of the Latin American narcotrafficantes have, in the past, brought their own security people with them to prison.
Without getting a feel for "frontier Illinois" it's probably wrong to dwell too much on Smith's possession of firearms in jail.
Besides, we are talking about Illinois, not Missouri or Indiana, and who can forget the Mafia big dogs bringing in their own fully furnished and equipped double-wide trailers to the state prison facility in Joliet ~ like that's within living memory. Many state officials became quite wealthy by facilitating this practice.
There was plenty of bad blood between what we might call "factions" and "families" within the broader Mormon group.
Any history buff who's read through all the available literature on the matter, and researched some of the other affiliated groups cannot help but come away from the experience anything but surprised that Smith had enemies quite close to him ~ not just out there in some ill-defined "mob".
Not going to say the "mob" wasn't used, but it probably was.
Politics doesn't end just because you are organized like a church.
Interesting article. Thanks for posting!
“It has become a common tactic among some anti-Mormon aficionados of Mormon history to use this historical ignorance as a weapon.”
I agree with that statement.
Thank you
First question that begs to be answered was the REASON for the smith brother's incarceration. According to Bancroft's History of Utah1540-1886 (p. 175-183) they were incarcerated on charges of "The overt act of treason charged against them, . . consisted in the alleged levying of war against the state by declaring martial law in Nauvoo, and in ordering out the legion to resist the posse comitatus. These charges began with the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor and smith's follow on actions.
History also notes that the smith's surrendered themselves only after being on the run for a considerable period of time and being begged by those they abandoned in Nauvoo.
In these points, the article is not accurate, but presents a false background to the incident.
THE FALLACY OF DEEMING SMITH A MARTYR Based on the following syllogism, however, I do not believe it is accurate to classify Joseph as a martyr: Premise 1: A martyr is someone who, at the risk or cost of his own life, willingly dies for his faith. Premise 2: Joseph Smith did not die willingly, or: a. he would not have attempted to call on the Nauvoo Legion, and b. he would not have shot at his attackers. Premise 3: Joseph Smith did not die for his faith but rather for: a. his imposition of nonbiblical practices upon his people, and b. his illegal destruction of a newspaper printing press. Conclusion: Therefore, Joseph Smith was not a martyr for his faith.
|
A Comparison of Biblical Martyrs
|
I don't fault Peter for trying to cut a soldiers head in half and only taking off an ear either. Christ was the rational one and told him to put up his sword. No one is perfect save Christ, no one ever said prophets were supposed to be without flaw, or not love and defend their dearest friends.
I don't fault Joseph for the defense of others, or himself, nor do I fault Peter for what he did. He went on to lead the early Church, even after denying the Christ.
Thanks for posting this.
Websters New World Dictionary defines a "martyr" as a person who chooses to suffer or die rather than give up his faith or his principles.[1]
The online resource, Dictionary.com, defines a martyr as one who chooses to suffer death rather than renounce religious principles.
The article becomes contentious with this statement: However, some anti-Mormon writers have taken the term martyr and subtly changed its definition to suit their own needs. The new definition would probably read something like this: Martyr: a person who chooses to suffer or die rather than give up his faith or his principles without any resistance or effort at self-defense on his part whatsoever
As has already been proven, smith wasn't in jail for his religions faith or principles - but on charges of treason. As such he could never be considered a martyr for his faith.
It seems a common practice for Mormonism to redefine terms. We see it once again with them trying to make Smith out to be a martyr.
Personally I don’t see how anyone could seriously believe that Joseph was “really” in jail for treason or that the mob was there to murder him for that reason.
Yes you can remind me of that fact. Sorry I will try not to post to such threads in the future. I had a few beers in me and it was about 3am.
I don’t do well with touchy feely. People are all different and after I posted it I thought that might have been thought of as Antagonistic. But no way of pulling it back.
Other sticky facts come to light as well. Smith sent word to General Jonathan Dunham to lead the Nauvoo Legion to rescue him - smith thought the crowd was his legion coming to rescue him.
Other facts - smith removed his temple garmets and ordered all his apostles to do the same(Quinn page 147) Quinn references History of the Church 6:519 which mentions the letter, and Heber C. Kimball's diary, 21 Dec. 1845, found in the book "Smith, An Intimate Chronicle, page 224". Heber J. Grant journal sheets, 7 June 1907, LDS Archives
I find it hard to believe that this key aspect of mormon doctrine and living - essentially rejecting his temple ordinaces by removing and ordering others to do same - would be representative of one who is ready to die for their religious beliefs. It speaks a lot of other thing.
I've seen Hyrum’s temple garments with my own eyes, the ones he removed before going to Carthage, as well as the clothes he was wearing when he was shot, complete with the entry and exit holes of the bullets.
These men knew they were going to their deaths when they surrendered into the hands of the state militia, that has sworn to protect them.
OK, then they defacto denied their faith did they not rejecting their priesthood oaths? As Boyd Packer stated they are "a visual and tactile reminder of our covenants" made to the lord. Willard Richards didn't remove his garments - was he ridiculed? Were the smiths ridiculed/undressed? History says no.
Now within that same thought, they all had lots of wine the night before.
These men knew they were going to their deaths when they surrendered into the hands of the state militia, that has sworn to protect them.
Not according to other eyewitness and historical testimony. As pointed out above - smith's first comments were that the Nauvoo militia was arriving to release them. Why didn't smith believe his own prophecy that he would prevail against his enemies - found in the Nauvoo Neighbor for June 19, 1844:
"I therefore, in behalf of the Municipal Court of Nauvoo, warn the lawless, not to be precipitate in any interference in our affairs, for as sure as there is a God in heaven, WE SHALL RIDE TRIUMPHANT OVER ALL OPPRESSION.
"JOSEPH SMITH, Mayor"
Interesting how facts of history keep popping up. Just eight days after Joseph Smith made this prophecy he was murdered in the Carthage jail
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.