163 Years Ago Today, Carthage Illinois
At the jail, the four brethren sweltered in the sultry afternoon heat. Joseph gave Hyrum a single-shot pistol and prepared to defend himself with the six-shooter smuggled in that morning by Cyrus Wheelock. Gravely depressed, the brethren asked John Taylor to sing a popular song entitled “A Poor Wayfaring Man of Grief,” about a suffering stranger who revealed himself at last as the Savior. Joseph asked John to sing it again, which he did.
In pris’n I saw him next condemned
To meet a traitor’s doom at morn;
The tide of lying tongues I stemmed,
And honored him ‘mid shame and scorn.
My friendship’s utmost zeal to try,
He asked, if I for him would die;
The flesh was weak, my blood ran chill,
But my free spirit cried, “I will!”
At 4:00 P.M. the guard at the jail was changed. Frank Worrell, who had threatened Joseph Smith earlier that morning, was then in charge. A few minutes after five, a mob of about one hundred men with blackened faces arrived in town and headed for the jail. The prisoners heard a scuffle downstairs followed by a shout for surrender and three or four shots. The Prophet and the others rushed to the door to fight off the assailants who had ascended the stairs and poked their guns through the half-closed door. John Taylor and Willard Richards attempted to deflect the muskets with their canes.
A bullet fired through the panel of the door struck Hyrum in the left side of his face, and he fell, saying, “I am a dead man!” Joseph, leaning over Hyrum exclaimed, “Oh dear, brother Hyrum!” John Taylor said the look of sorrow he saw on Joseph’s face was forever imprinted on his mind. Joseph then stepped to the door, reached around the door casing, and discharged his six-shooter into the crowded hall. Only three of the six chambers fired, wounding three assailants. The shots delayed the assassins only a moment.
John Taylor attempted to jump out of the window, but was hit by gunfire. A shot through the window from below hit the watch in his vest pocket, stopping it at 5:16 and knocking him back into the room. He fell to the floor and was shot again in his left wrist and below his left knee. Rolling to get under the bed, he was hit again from the stairway, the bullet tearing away his flesh at the left hip. His blood was splattered on the floor and the wall.
Joseph, seeing there was no safety in the room, tried the same escape. Instantly the mob fired on him, and he fell mortally wounded through the open window exclaiming, “Oh Lord, my God!” The mob on the stairs rushed outside to assure themselves that Joseph was dead.
Willard Richards alone remained unscathed, having only had a bullet graze his ear. Earlier Joseph had prophesied in Willard’s presence that one day he would stand while bullets whizzed around him and would escape unharmed. Only then did Willard fully understand what Joseph had meant. He dragged the terribly wounded John Taylor into the next room, deposited him on straw, and covered him with an old filthy mattress. The straw, Elder Taylor believed, saved his life by helping stop his bleeding. Meanwhile Willard, expecting to be killed at any moment, was surprised when the mob fled and left him alone with his dead and wounded comrades.
Samuel Smith, brother to the Prophet, heard about death threats to his brothers and hurried to Carthage. He arrived in Carthage that evening physically exhausted, having been chased by the mobbers. Through the exertion and fatigue of a life and death chase, Samuel contracted a fever that led to his death on 30 July. At Carthage, Samuel helped Elder Richards move the bodies of his martyred brothers to the Hamilton House. After a coroner’s inquiry, Willard Richards wrote to the Saints at Nauvoo, “Joseph and Hyrum are dead.”
The above is quoted from:
“The Martyrdom” — Church History in the Fulness of Times Student Manual (Church Educational System Manual, 2003), 273–85.
My purpose in posting this, in addition to simply marking the occasion of the Prophet’s death, is to ask for your thoughts on the following:
To what extent should we as a people remember the martyrdom of our Prophet or refer to it? What meaning does it have for us in the “modern” church? What feelings do you have have when you read the above account?
Comment by MCQ — June 27, 2007 @ 12:22 am
A friend of mine recently told me with much glee about the grim fates of Joseph’s murderers. The vengeful motif once so intertwined with the martyrdom is, thankfully, not prominent in the church today, but as I listened to my friend I ruefully reflected on the Saviour’s words, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” I suppose those would be my feelings today: forgiveness and reconciliation. The same goes for Mountain Meadows.
Comment by Ronan — June 27, 2007 @ 1:17 am
I don’t know, Ronan. President Hinckley sure likes to talk about the misfortune of Governor Ford.
As for MMM, it is not up to us to forgive anything. We are not the wronged party.
Comment by Hellmut — June 27, 2007 @ 2:01 am
Yes, obviously, Hellmut. I’m just getting to the broader point that we all trespass and are trespassed against. Also, just so you know, I’m not a big fan of the Ford Schadenfreude. Anyway, it seems a bit crass to get wound up by that today. May Joseph and Hyrum continue to rest in peace.
Comment by Ronan — June 27, 2007 @ 2:58 am
I don’t see why we shouldn’t remember the martyrdom of Joseph Smith. His murder is part of the history of the Church and the formation of Latter-day Saints as a people. It cannot be disputed that many people harbored ill-will toward Latter-day Saints in those days — ill-will that was expressed in mobbings and murder. It does not seem reasonable to suggest that these things should not be remembered. Many deride what they describe as a “persecution complex” among Latter-day Saints. But even if there is a persecution complex, it doesn’t mean that those people weren’t horribly persecuted. Those who wish to diminish or minimalize the human suffering and tradegy foisted on the Latter-day Saints by their detractors in those days are presenting an inaccurate picture of what happened.
Blaming the victim doesn’t help either. Yes, Mormons are and were annoying. How that justifies mobbings, pillaging, forced migration and murder remains unclear.
Comment by john f. — June 27, 2007 @ 4:04 am
“We are not the wronged party.â€
We sure are. Very much so. We are still paying for the consequences of their actions.
Comment by Eric Russell — June 27, 2007 @ 4:17 am
MCQ, was your entire post was quoted from the Student Manual?
Comment by john f. — June 27, 2007 @ 5:02 am
I suppose if remembering or referring to the events of that day encouraged us to make and keep covenants and strengthen our testimony of Christ, then I would answer “to the fullest extent.” And if a recollection of that afternoon led to a just society where all could count on the even-handed application of the law, then by all means, remember away.
But interpreting those events is no easy task–even calling Smith’s murder a martyrdom is already loading the question–and there is certainly no guarantee that memories and references will be at all productive.
Comment by Peter LLC — June 27, 2007 @ 5:23 am
Peter, fair point on the murder/martyrdom — but murder at least remains murder.
Comment by john f. — June 27, 2007 @ 5:34 am
To what extent should we as a people remember the martyrdom of our Prophet or refer to it?
We should remember it and refer to it as a simple matter of fact - our founding prophet was lynched while in custody of the state. There’s no need for a sense of vengeance or denunciations of Gov. Ford, but the martyrdom is a significant historical event.
What meaning does it have for us in the “modern†church?
It has meaning for us because remembering his death helps us to make sense of his life. You can’t talk about Lincoln without mentioning Ford’s Theater. Also, it is very good for us “moderns” to occasionally be reminded that a belief in Mormonism has cost people their lives. I don’t think we should dwell unduly on the martyrdom, but it would be disrespectful to forget it, or gloss over it.
What feelings do you have have when you read the above account?
Feelings of solemnity and gratitude, and a sense of kinship and love for those early saints. It feels odd for me to say that I love Carthage, but I think the visitor’s center there gets it just right. It celebrates the lives and contributions of Joesph and Hyrum. I think this statue helps convey the sense of forward-looking hopefulness that is one of my favorite things about Mormonism.
Comment by Mark IV — June 27, 2007 @ 5:45 am
That is an important insight, Eric. It’s a sensitive situation though. The retiring generation in Germany are the children of World War II who are beginning to tell their stories, which are usually about their suffering. It’s quite difficult to acknowledge that without eschewing German responsibility.
I also agree with John. There is no excuse for Joseph Smith’s murder. His opponents had every opportunity to prove their point in court.
Although, I have a hard time imagining an open minded jury in Illinois. At that point in history, it might have been possible to convict Joseph Smith of witchcraft or similarly bizarre charges.
It’s an interesting question, how do you determine the justice of grievances that have polarized communities? One solution would be for perpetrators to get punished by their own community.
Comment by Hellmut — June 27, 2007 @ 7:39 am
1 Hebrews 9:16
For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
We should remember the martydom of our prophet and be grateful in my opinion.
Comment by john scherer — June 27, 2007 @ 8:00 am
John, we should be grateful they killed Joseph Smith?
Comment by Steve Evans — June 27, 2007 @ 8:05 am
fyi, the watch was not shot, it was broken as JT fell into it, the song was then called “The Stranger,” and was one of several songs they sang together, most scholars feel that the scene at the window and calling out “O Lord, my God” was an attempt to tell the mob, which included Masons, to stop the attack and protect Smith from the non-Masons in the group.
The fate of the murderers is a fascinating set of legends. There’s one okay article in Dialogue some years back, and I will treat it in my book. The Mormons in this case extended a long-standing Protestant fascination with the fate of the people who had murdered Christians over the years–the fates are eerily similar often.
In a sense both martyrdom and the fate of the murderers is an attempt to wrap our heads around Providence, to chisel away at the rough contours of a theodicy that allows us to know that God will never desert us even as we see that our founding prophet was savagely murdered.
Incidentally, Biblical scholars recently (as summarized by Alan Segal of Columbia) have begun to suggest that martyrdom was the driving force for the development of bodily resurrection in late sectarian Judaism (right before Jesus arrived).
Comment by Sam MB — June 27, 2007 @ 8:08 am
Oh, and the Samuel story is medically quite unlikely, even though the myth starts with eyewitnesses. He was one of at least 4 other “piggyback” martyrs within the Smith family, and hundreds of “piggyback” martyrs in the church at large. Almost any death from 1835 on was attributed to persecution, stressing the importance of martyrdom in explaining why good people might die.
Comment by Sam MB — June 27, 2007 @ 8:10 am
Steve, I don’t understand your comment # 13.
Comment by john f. — June 27, 2007 @ 8:18 am
John, I do. (See how frustrating under-explained comments can be?)
Comment by J. Nelson-Seawright — June 27, 2007 @ 8:19 am
it was pointed to john scherer not you - john f
Comment by Ronan — June 27, 2007 @ 8:23 am
oops #18 was me! (the trouble sharing a computer!)
Comment by Rebecca — June 27, 2007 @ 8:26 am
John f., #13 was directed at #12.
Comment by Steve Evans — June 27, 2007 @ 8:28 am
As I read the account of the murder of Joseph and Hyrum (I use the term “murder” because the word “martyrdom” may be too complex when discussing the circumstances surrounding the deaths of our brothers), I am left to wonder how much literary license went into this account. Specifically, is it possible to be shot in the face/head and to exclaim afterwards that “I am a dead man”?
I would think that the trauma to the brain would preclude any such statement. Any doctors here who can clarify?
(As an aside, I have heard President Hinkley’s accounts of the fate of the Ford family, and unlike my very positive and appreciative reaction to virtually everything else that he has said, find myself cringing at the sense of satisfaction expressed over the trials of Ford and his family. I’m with Ronan when it comes to the prayer that our Father will somehow forgive Ford and his progeny.)
Comment by Antonio Parr — June 27, 2007 @ 8:30 am
Ah. I hadn’t even seen john scherer’s # 12. Thanks.
Comment by john f. — June 27, 2007 @ 8:33 am
Underexplained indeed! teaches me for commenting on blogs at work when I don’t really have time to.
My point, which I failed to make is that matyrdom seems to be part in parcel with starting a new dispensation; this dispensation being something which I am indeed very grateful for. It seems to me that Joseph knew he would be martyred and it was something he accepted as his fate. This bravery is more than admirable.
Comment by john scherer — June 27, 2007 @ 8:37 am
I can envision someone with a bullet wound to the face being able to mumble something to that effect. But it does sound kind of formal and stylized. I think Joseph Smith’s exclamation, however, is pretty well established.
Comment by john f. — June 27, 2007 @ 8:40 am
“most scholars feel that the scene at the window and calling out “O Lord, my God†was an attempt to tell the mob, which included Masons, to stop the attack and protect Smith from the non-Masons in the group.”
It’s not just what “most scholars feel.” It’s what John Taylor, Willard Richards, other eye witnesses, and closely-associated second hand sources of the time all said Joseph was doing. This never became a point of debate until many years later, when B. H. Roberts (for reasons known only to him, but which may include discomfort with Freemasonry) inserted a footnote in his edited version of the History of the Church, claiming that Joseph was most likely beginning a prayer. Now we are seeing more and more CES personnel spreading that lie.
One more reason I need to finish my book….
Comment by Nick Literski — June 27, 2007 @ 8:42 am
Nick,
I’m not as well studied as most, so pardon my questions. I’m wondering if there was any recorded response by those in the mob to Joseph’s Masonic appeal. Were they sympathetic, indifferent, or did it anger them? I’ve read somewhere, from a less than reliable source that I cannot recall, that some in the mob may have been there because they considered temple ceremonies a violation of masonic oaths. Is this a possibility?
Comment by john scherer — June 27, 2007 @ 9:14 am
I’m all for forgiving and reconciling, but I’m puzzled at the idea that both the mob at Carthage and the agressors at the MMM didn’t know what they were doing (”know not what they do”). Perhaps the motives were not as nefarious as sometimes described, but I don’t think there’s any evidence in either event to suggest that the mobs didn’t intend to murder the unarmed. They knew precisely what they were doing.
Comment by jimbob — June 27, 2007 @ 9:24 am
John (#7): Yes.
Hellmut, it seems to me that was tried at the time and didn’t work. What is it exactly you are proposing?
Yes, some details are in dispute. I just chose one account of the events. Note that in this account, the purpose of Joseph’s exclamation is not stated, just the fact of what he said. Anything more than that is, to some extent, mere speculation. Do these details matter?
Remember that the ball that hit Hyrum came through the door. Perhaps it was moving slow enough that it did not prevent him from making that statement. It seems to me that the eyewitness accounts agree that the statement was made.
Where are you getting that Nick? I have never heard anyone say that Joseph was praying, merely that he said those words. Joseph’s purpose in saying the words cannot be definitively determined without talking to Joseph. Thus, to call any speculation on this point a “lie” seems to be overstating what we know and what we don’t know.
Comment by MCQ — June 27, 2007 @ 9:43 am
Jimbob: The hope for forgiveness for the murderers of Joseph and Hyrum is consistent with the charge in the D&C that “I the Lord will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men”. (Paraphrasing — I forget the exact verbage/section/verse.)
Comment by Antonio Parr — June 27, 2007 @ 9:58 am
On The Stranger and some of the folklore that has evolved around its performance at the jail, see Michael Hicks’s excellent “‘Strains Which Will Not Soon Be Allowed to Die…’: ‘The Stranger’ and Carthage Jail” from BYU Studies.
I agree with smb that Taylor’s watch wasn’t hit by a bullet.
Calling the gun Joseph used a “six-shooter” is strictly speaking accurate, but also misleading in our modern culture. By that word we think of the kinds of handguns seen in westerns, such as the Colt 45. But this was an ungainly and unreliable “pepperbox,” with six rotating barrels (as opposed to a single barrel and six rotating chambers).
I remember the old Fate of the Persecutors of the Prophet JS book and its accompanying attitude, which was thankfully supplanted by Dallin Oaks’s and Marvin Hill’s Carthage Conspiracy.
While I agree there are some semantic complications, I personally have no problem calling this a martyrdom.
Finally, I think it is an important story in our history that needs to be remembered and retold, and I think it’s great that Mormon pilgrims have the opportunity to see where these events unfolded at the restored jail.
Comment by Kevin Barney — June 27, 2007 @ 9:58 am
jimbob,
What makes Jesus’ prayer so beautiful and magnanimous is that the Romans and Jewish leaders knew exactly what they were doing — they were executing (they thought) a rabble-rouser and blasphemer. By any human measure, they did not “deserve” his forgiveness. That’s the power of Christ.
Comment by Ronan — June 27, 2007 @ 10:07 am
Kevin,
What do you make of the stories involving an execution style shooting of JS as he lay wounded against the well and the sword-lightning-beheading story?
Comment by bbell — June 27, 2007 @ 10:15 am
“sword-lightning-beheading story”
bbell, that story was debunked before it was ever invented.
Comment by Steve Evans — June 27, 2007 @ 10:20 am
I agree with the accounts of Taylor and Richards that Joseph was already dead when he hit the ground.
Comment by Kevin Barney — June 27, 2007 @ 10:38 am
Ronan and Antonio,
I think maybe I didn’t communicate what I meant to communicate very well. My point was that we should forgive, regardless of the circumstances, but that such forgiveness does not depend on us believing the offending party “knew not what they [did].” That is, one can forgive the Carthage mob without having to believe that they didn’t understand what they were doing.
Sorry if I was unclear.
Comment by jimbob — June 27, 2007 @ 10:41 am
BBell, remind me what the sword-lightning-beheading story is.
Comment by john f. — June 27, 2007 @ 10:42 am
MCQ, I hate to tell you but Nick is right. Every year in Seminary I heard the whole “Joseph was beginning to say a prayer” right along with the whole J T’s watch miraculously stopped the bullet! Bit. I know for a fact several of my friends had the same experience. Sure you can debate as to whether it’s a lie, but it’s handed out as if it were doctrine when at best it’s hopeful conjecture.
I remember hearing Hinckley tell about the Ford family. I remember feeling saddened and disappointed. The whole thing seemed petty to me.
Comment by ronito — June 27, 2007 @ 10:42 am
I agree with #23. I think Joseph Smith knew that he was going to die. It was the precident, so to speak, and he faced death with measure of bravery I feel sure I myself could not muster up.
As far as how much we should remember and recall his death today… I think there’s no question that the death of the Prophet shaped the church almost as much as his life. It was a loss that bound the mormons together as a community, and in some ways helped make the exodus to SLV possible.
Personally, even though it was a horrible loss, I am thankful to Joseph Smith for dying when he did. Had he lived, work would have continued on the kingdom, and the saints could have been prepared for the second coming as early as the 1890’s. As it is, we still aren’t ready, but at least I got a chance to see the world for a little while, and to try to measure up.
Comment by Virginia — June 27, 2007 @ 10:48 am
Ronan, if he were a blasphemer, the Jews would have been obligated to execute him under Leviticus. If he were a rabble rouser, particularly one inciting uprising against Rome or placing curses on the Roman emperor, then the Romans would have been obligated to execute him under applicable Roman law at the time. Thus, a viable argument exists that in having these designs in their actions toward Jesus, they really did not know what they were doing (i.e. killing an innocent man and the Son of God).
Comment by john f. — June 27, 2007 @ 10:48 am
Also, I wasn’t a member at the time, so I don’t remember GBH talking about the Ford family. I assume I can find that talk on lds.org, but where on the site should I look for it? Under old Ensigns?
Help is appriciated.
Comment by Virginia — June 27, 2007 @ 10:51 am
#26 john:
All we know of the response of masons in the mob comes from John Taylor’s commentary in the Times & Seasons a few days later, where he shames them for ignoring the sign. For what it’s worth, the obligation of a mason to respond to this sign is conditional–there must be a greater chance of saving the imperilled brother’s life, than of losing your own. Arguably, this was not the case during the Carthage attack.
#28 MCQ:
Most recently, the claim that Joseph was just praying was published by retired CES instructor Gilbert Scharffs, in his unfortunate and grossly inaccurate *Setting the Record Straight: Mormons & Masons*. I have personally witnessed Ken Godfrey tell an inquiring student that Joseph was “having a vision of Jesus, coming to take him home,” and that Joseph responded to that vision by praying with those words. If you do some searching on the web, you’ll find this claim is becomming rather common.
As for supposedly not knowing Joseph’s purpose, such a position requires you to ignore the circumstances, as well as the eyewitness accounts of fellow masons (some of whom happened to be Mormon apostles).
Let me illustrate: Suppose I was kneeling down behind a table in an LDS chapel, at the front of the congregation, with filled bread and water trays on the table. Suppose I spoke the words, “Oh God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee to bless…” and then I was suddenly shot to death by an intruder. Suppose the bishop and his counsellors wrote statements about the event, saying that I was in the midst of blessing the sacrament when I was shot. Suppose other people in attendance published their accounts of what took place, and said I was in the midst of blessing the sacrament when I was shot.
Now suppose someone else, born many years later and unacquainted with any of the witnesses, taught or wrote that I was most likely just praying that some sick or injured member of the ward would be healed. To borrow a phrase from Eliza R. Snow (Smith Young), “the thought makes reason stare.”
The evidence that Joseph was attempting to give the Grand Hailing Sign of Distress of a Master Mason is equally compelling. Besides, there is nothing remotely faith-challenging in acknowledging that fact.
Comment by Nick Literski — June 27, 2007 @ 10:51 am
Its a legend…….
The story is that one of the mobsters grabbed the dead Joseph by the hair and raised his sword to behead him and a bolt of lightning hit the dude with the sword. Causing the mob to flee
Its fun to talk about but is obvious hokum.
Kevin there is something to the idea that JS was shot some more after he was laying by the well. If you check D&C 135 vs 1 its says that he was shot after he was dead.
Comment by bbell — June 27, 2007 @ 10:55 am
re # 41, it should be noted that Nick is responding to John Scherer and not me.
Comment by john f. — June 27, 2007 @ 10:59 am
By the way, re Nick’s # 41, Nick wrote The evidence that Joseph was attempting to give the Grand Hailing Sign of Distress of a Master Mason is equally compelling. Besides, there is nothing remotely faith-challenging in acknowledging that fact.
I agree with this. I wonder what some people might find faith-challenging in the idea that Joseph Smith was voicing a Masonic distress sign, supposing Masons to be part of the mob.
Comment by john f. — June 27, 2007 @ 11:03 am
What exactly was the wording to that Masonic injunction? Something like Lord have mercy on the son of a widow?
Comment by NJensen — June 27, 2007 @ 11:03 am
I believe it’s “Oh lord, my God, is there no help for the widow’s son?” Or something close to it.
Comment by ronito — June 27, 2007 @ 11:11 am
I’ve been to the jail. I remember the window being very small and at the end of a tight and fairly long recess in the wall.
It seems like it would have been hard for Joseph Smith to “fall” out of the window.
I conclude that he way deliberately trying to jump out of it.
Comment by John Williams — June 27, 2007 @ 11:12 am
bbell, I was reacting against the Daniels account, as described in the Wikipedia article on the death of JS:
I don’t doubt that there were more shots pumped into the corpse, but I do doubt that Joesph was only wounded, propped up against the wall and then executed.
Comment by Kevin Barney — June 27, 2007 @ 11:18 am
re #43, I think that’s why he references comment #26, john. I think we need a few more guys name john to comment here, there’s not nearly enough confusion
.
Comment by john scherer — June 27, 2007 @ 11:19 am
It’s okay Kevin. As you know, mutilation of a corpse is also a crime, even if perpetrated by a mob.
Comment by john f. — June 27, 2007 @ 11:20 am
The Masonic grand hailing sign is “O Lord, my God, is there no help for the Widow’s Son?”
Comment by Kevin Barney — June 27, 2007 @ 11:21 am
Nick: I’m not disputing the masonic connection. It makes sense to me, and I do not find it faith-challenging. My only question was with regard to the “lie” issue. I had not heard the prayer story before, and the above account does, after all, come from a CES manual. I defer to those who have heard the prayer version. While it does seem much less likely than the masonic version, I would still hesitate to call it a “lie.”
JW: Note that the above account does say that Joseph was trying to escape through the window, as Taylor had been when he was shot. Are you saying that he actually jumped out before he was shot? That’s a distinction that appears to me to be immaterial.
Maybe it’s just the lawyer in me but one reaction I have to the account of the martyrdom (yes I do now think that word is appropriate) is outrage. If this had happened at Joseph’s house it would be one thing, but the fact that it happened while he was in the custody of the state makes it much worse. The injustice of it grates on me.
Comment by MCQ — June 27, 2007 @ 11:26 am
#43 john f.:
I apologize for any confusion I may have caused–I’ll be more clear in identifying who I’m responding to in the future.
#44 john f.:
Some LDS writers have sought to distance Joseph Smith from Freemasonry as much as possible, in response to criticisms that Joseph supposedly “stole” Masonic ritual to form the Endowment. For example, Ken Godfrey and others have repeatedly claimed that Joseph only ever attended three lodge meetings, to receive his own degrees (which, incidentally, was done in two meetings–not three). This claim is completely false, based on both the published History of the Church and the Nauvoo Lodge minute book. My research has found that he attended well over 30 lodge meetings, and he actually participated in performing rituals for new initiates on at least one occasion. It would be charitable to suggest that these writers simply made a mistake, but the fact is the resources were quite readily available to them to show otherwise.
The argument of these writers is that Joseph “barely knew anything” about Freemasonry, thus he “couldn’t have” copied it in framing the Endowment. I think this approach is misguided, since it neither proves nor disproves anything at all about the Endowment. Furthermore, there is reason to believe that Joseph was *very* familiar with the legenda and rituals of Freemasonry, from the time of his youth. It would be far better, in my opinion, to acknowledge Joseph’s familiarity with Freemasonry, and discuss the fact that inspiration doesn’t occur in a vacuum. Any deity with an ounce of common sense would make use of a man’s environment and experience as part of the revelatory/teaching process.
Comment by Nick Literski — June 27, 2007 @ 11:28 am
Nick, it’s a mixed bag in the Church. Some seem interested in downplaying JS’s connection to Freemasonry. Others acknowledge it without the slightest degree of controversy. My experience has been interaction with the latter.
Comment by john f. — June 27, 2007 @ 11:32 am
MCQ, there is a grand tradition in the States of mobs killing people while in police custody — lots of spaghetti westerns have that plot. Thank goodness those days are over now, having replaced external mobs seeking vengeance with internal prison gangs seeking sadistic pleasure.
Comment by Steve Evans — June 27, 2007 @ 11:41 am
#47 John Williams:
You are quite right. A visual inspection of the window (which I did several times, when I lived in Nauvoo) makes it very difficult to believe anyone could “fall” out of it. I think it’s largely a semantics game, however. Some of the witness accounts say that Joseph clung to, or hung from, the windowsill for a short time, before falling to the ground. If so, then it’s fair to say he both attempted to leap *and* fell.
#54 john f.:
I agree with you, as far as the membership is concerned. CES employees, however, seem to remain pretty strongly in the “Joseph didn’t know much about Freemasonry” category.
Comment by Nick Literski — June 27, 2007 @ 11:46 am
Steve: Yeah, thank goodness for that. Prison movies have become much more entertaining.
BTW, what happened to your reenactment idea?
Comment by MCQ — June 27, 2007 @ 11:46 am
LOL, yeah — I was thinking of doing a Robot Chicken re-enactment of the martrydom, but (a) couldn’t find the action figures, (b) didn’t have enough time and (c) don’t want to get lynched myself and/or hit by lightning (with sword aloft, apparently).
Comment by Steve Evans — June 27, 2007 @ 11:54 am
#52 MCQ:
Would you settle for “refusal to acknowledge any and all contemporaneous evidence, in order to create or maintain a revisionist mythology?”
Comment by Nick Literski — June 27, 2007 @ 11:55 am
Nick: That’s perfect! Everyone: Please use that phraseology whenever you refer to the “prayer” idea in the future. Failure to do so will result in beheading.
Comment by MCQ — June 27, 2007 @ 12:00 pm
I think it’s in Rough Stone Rolling where I read that Joseph Smith’s advocacy of the plurality of wives and the plurality of gods is what got him landed in Carthage jail and therefore got him killed. You won’t hear that from the lips of a CES employee!
Comment by John Williams — June 27, 2007 @ 12:47 pm
In a recent and excellent Sacrament Meeting talk during a Sacrament Meeting devoted to the achievements of the seminary students in our stake here in England in completing the D&C/Church History course, the seminary teacher (a house-wife mother of four daughters in her late 40s) discussed Joseph Smith’s Nauvoo polygamy as the reason for the apostasy of William Law and the destruction of Law’s Nauvoo Expositor as lead-up and contribution to the murder of Joseph Smith in her talk.
Comment by john f. — June 27, 2007 @ 1:22 pm
The latest church Joseph Smith movie has Joseph whisper “Oh Lord my God” in a declaration of worship as he falls from the window and ascends to heaven.
Comment by Ronan — June 27, 2007 @ 1:40 pm
Yeah, that movie didn’t show brandy and pistol in Joseph Smith’s hand either. We’re all critics.
Comment by john f. — June 27, 2007 @ 1:52 pm
“To what extent should we as a people remember the martyrdom of our Prophet or refer to it?”
I am intrigued by this question. Every religion or country or political movement or whatever that has “martyrdom” or any kind of death by the hands of enemies in its history remembers and honors those who were killed. What if we rephrase it to say, “To what extent should we as a family or country remember and refer to the death of our father or brother or sister who died in the service of our family or country?” What if it referred to the firefighters who died on 9/11? In this case, I think everyone would agree that such a death should be memorialized and celebrated and referred to fairly often. We should not obsess over it to the point of all else, but we should do whatever possible to keep it from being forgotten and trivialized - or lost in semantic arguing over detail, when no such detail was requested.
“What meaning does it have for us in the ‘modern’ church?”
That our founder believed in his calling enough to submit to a situation where he knew he probably would die - but that he actively fought to keep it from happening. That last point, I believe, is important and profound.
“What feelings do you have have when you read the above account?”
I am struck by the injustice of it all, and I pray for the spirit to allow me to not act with such bigotry and hatred as was exhibited by the mob - and the spirit to fight my own adversaries (external AND internal) to the very end with whatever I have at my disposal. I want to go down swinging in the end, not passively allowing someone else to decide my fate.
Comment by Ray — June 27, 2007 @ 1:54 pm
#63 Ronan:
Yes, and that’s just one of the reasons I’m thankful that my footage for that film ended up on the cutting-room floor. I was an extra, cast as a Missouri mobber. My best friend at the time wasn’t so lucky, but at least it was only his…ahem…posterior that was featured in the final version!
(Funny thing about that casting. Anyone who was overweight was cast as mob members. When the crew did actual filming in Nauvoo (which was all shots of Mormons), they actually indicated that they would only accept people up to a certain clothing size.)
Comment by Nick Literski — June 27, 2007 @ 2:27 pm
That’s a cool insight. What film are we talking about here?
Comment by John Williams — June 27, 2007 @ 2:33 pm
Unnumbered(?) John Williams:
We’re talking about “Joseph Smith the Prophet,” released at the end of 2005, and currently being shown in LDS visitor centers.
Comment by Nick Literski — June 27, 2007 @ 2:37 pm
P.S. John Williams:
I hope you’re not saying it’s “cool” that large guys were all cast as the “evildoers.” As a “gentleman of size,” it was actually a little disconcerting at the time.
Comment by Nick Literski — June 27, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
Nick Literski,
No, I think it’s a cool insight into how the Church puts lipstick on things to make history look good. Like how Joseph Smith looks more and more handsome with each painting that gets made of him.
In fairness, I will acknowledge that the LDS Church is not the only instituion to put lipstick on things to make itself look better.
Comment by John Williams — June 27, 2007 @ 3:00 pm
Yes. My friend (the one who’s posterior features in the film) and I joked that there were obviously NO overweight Mormons in the 1840s—despite evidence that Willard Richards weighed in over 400 pounds. Obviously, these Mormons of 163 years ago prophetically anticipated fashion and health ideas of the late 20th and early 21st century.
The same film features a scene where Joseph is outside beating a carpet. Another Mormon walks up to tease him about doing “women’s work,” and is subjected to pseudo-Joseph giving him a lengthy lecture about how doing housework is the way to show your wife that you really love her, etc. I suppose the filmmakers thought the viewing public would be impressed, and actually believe Joseph was a modern feminist!
Comment by Nick Literski — June 27, 2007 @ 3:28 pm
Don’t forget how in those films everyone looks like they just took a shower.
I think in 1844 people habitually had grease and dirt smeared on their faces, their clothes were yellowed and stained, and their fingernails were blackened. And last but not least, their hair would have been greasy and stringy becaue they didn’t have shampoo like we do.
But in those films they look like they used not just shampoo but also conditioner.
Comment by John Williams — June 27, 2007 @ 3:31 pm
Oh, and in 1844 I think people had really, really bad teeth. But in those films they look like they have worn braces for years and that they just had their teeth bleached.
I want some realism in these films, d*mmit.
Comment by John Williams — June 27, 2007 @ 3:33 pm
So, can anyone speak to the reason he was in jail to begin with? I’ve heard everything from the CES sanctioned “He was just being persecuted by evil men!” to the whole he was preaching about plural marriage, to that he was arrested for ordering a printing press that used to print anti-mormon literature destroyed and was jailed for the infraction against the constitutional right of free speech.
Can someone separate fact from fiction?
Comment by ronito — June 27, 2007 @ 3:42 pm
He was originally arrested for inciting a riot, based on the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor. When it appeared that he would be set free on bail, he was further charged with treason, on the basis that he had declared marshall law in Nauvoo. While different writers have disagreed, it’s important to point out that the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of free speech and freedom of the press only applied at that time against the federal government, not states or municipalities.
At the time of his arrest, Joseph was also awaiting trial on charges of adultery (stemming from a plural marriage) and perjury (stemming from testimony he gave in the Nauvoo Municipal Court, but promptly recanted when it was proven his testimony couldn’t be correct). While you won’t read about it in CES manuals, there is no question as to these pending charges. I’ve personally seen the original documents at the Hancock County Courthouse in Carthage.
Comment by Nick Literski — June 27, 2007 @ 3:51 pm
thanks nick!
Comment by ronito — June 27, 2007 @ 3:58 pm
That’s good to know, Nick. Thanks!
Comment by Virginia — June 27, 2007 @ 4:23 pm
Nick: What is the point of bringing up the charges leveled against Joseph by his enemies? Are you suggesting the charges are true based on the fact that they were filed? That would be failing to give Joseph the benefit that we give any charged criminal when, in fact, the motives of those who brought the charges, and in most cases the alleged basis of the charges, were highly suspect.
In any case, the alleged charges against him have little or nothing to do with his martyrdom because none of the charges justified the actions taken by the mob. I think bringing those issues up in this context shows, at the very least, poor taste. At worst, it betrays your agenda.
Comment by MCQ — June 27, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
@71:
Wasn’t a similar anecdote attributed to Jesse Crosby in “They Knew the Prophet”?
Comment by Jim — June 27, 2007 @ 5:09 pm
What agenda MCQ? I asked a question. He answered it.
Methinks you protest too much.
Comment by ronito — June 27, 2007 @ 5:11 pm
Answering the question of what charges resulted in Joseph agreeing to voluntarily come to Carthage does not require listing every charge levelled against him in other courts by those with an axe to grind. What adds insult to injury is the insinuation that the charges were somehow proven or mob action justified. They weren’t and it wasn’t.
Comment by MCQ — June 27, 2007 @ 5:18 pm
MCQ, Joseph Smith didn’t do anything that merited lynching but he was a polyginist-polyandrist, which very well may have been against the law at the time. At the very least, bigamy was enough to incense people at the time.
Comment by John Williams — June 27, 2007 @ 5:22 pm
IIRC, Joseph and Hyrum started to flee, but then they decided to turn themselves in instead.
Comment by John Williams — June 27, 2007 @ 5:27 pm
MCQ,
Just as we discuss the charges against the Savior at the time of his arrest and crucifixion, I don’t think it it wrong to know the charges leveled against Joseph Smith. You are 100% correct that none of these charges justify the cold-blooded murder at the hands of a mob, but knowing the context is helpful. I’ve long know that the destruction of the press of the Nauvoo Expositor was probably not legal under the circumstances, but none of that has impacted my admiration and testimony of Joseph Smith as the founding prophet of this dispensation. In fact, reading “Rough Stone Rolling” has given me more of an understanding of the atmosphere of persecution and and hatred that the Prophet was dealing with, and helps me understand the Expositor incident in context.
I don’t think anyone is grinding any axes here, or even small toy knives, IMO.
Comment by kevinf — June 27, 2007 @ 5:30 pm
OK, maybe I misread Nick. If so, I apologize for the agenda comment. If, however, anyone is looking to this thread as an opportunity to bash Joseph, please look elsewhere. As you can tell, my sense of outrage is alive and well.
JW: FWIW, I agree with everything you said in 82 and 83, except that Joseph himself distinguished between celestial marriage and bigamy. Whether that distinction would (or should) make any difference in a bigamy prosecution is another question. It’s worth noting, however, that he was not in jail in Carthage for bigamy.
kevinf: Thanks for that comment. I agree that Joseph overreacted with respect to the Expositor. Again, however, whether his action was illegal is a completely different, and unsettled, question.
Comment by MCQ — June 27, 2007 @ 6:21 pm
Ray #65: Excellent, thank you.
Comment by MCQ — June 27, 2007 @ 6:24 pm
OK, thanks for your level-headed response MCQ. However, off the top of my head, I want to say that the Nauvoo Expositor mentioned Joseph Smith’s plural marriage, and that is a reason (if not the reason) that Joseph Smith destroyed it.
Comment by John Williams — June 27, 2007 @ 6:28 pm
It’s not the only subject the Expositor discussed, JW, and the inflammatory language was as much the problem as the subject matter: “abominations and whoredoms,” for example. It was not exactly a scholarly paper. The city council passed the ordinance outlawing libel and Joseph signed the destruction order as Mayor. The idea was that the paper was a “nuisance,” as that term was defined under property law. Whether that was a correct interpretation of the law or not (probably not), the fact is that Joseph was at least acting through legal channels. He didn’t just ride over and burn the place down.
Comment by MCQ — June 27, 2007 @ 6:48 pm
Though I’m not doing much blogging currently, I have noticed that in the past couple of days, two blog posts on different sites were summarily clipped short because the conversation became contentious. Why is this happening?
MCQ’s post was about the deaths of Joseph Smith and his brother, a summary of the events of June 27th, 1844. I personally am glad to be reminded that this is the anniversary. The death does matter.
Yes, it is significant that plural marriage likely led to the Prophet’s death, that the Expositor was destroyed far too hastily and without fair legal basis, and that “O Lord My God” likely started to the Masonic distress call. (Zina Young certainly thought it did and made bold accusations against those who did not respond to it.)
Still, there is something a little scary about the energy being spent on the details of Joseph Smith’s death, details which seem to imply that he somehow deserved to die. Why would we want to disparage the man who gave so much to the world? Even for non-believers, what Joseph Smith accomplished was nothing less than astonishing. To reduce him to an adulterer or a tempestuous mayor who capriciously ordered the destruction of a printing press, and to forget that he provided a vision of human potential which has never been equaled, that he organized a sprawling community of people from all over the world who truly attempted to live as Latter-day Saints, that he codified a religion which stated that men would not be thrust to Hell for what Adam did, and that women would not be punished for Eve’s transgression, that the atonement is universal and not just for a certain number of pre-chosen souls–I can’t possibly go along with that kind of reductive process.
I’ve been absent from blog conversations for a couple of weeks, and will be leaving the conversation again shortly. But I sense some discouraging degeneration in the conversation. I would guess that it was very hard for MCQ to see his lovely post turn into a discussion of whether or not Joseph should’ve ordered the Expositor to be destroyed. I hope that when I return to the bloggernacle, conversations are a bit more respectful and generous.
Comment by Margaret Young — June 27, 2007 @ 8:11 pm
Beautifully said Margaret.
Comment by mmiles — June 27, 2007 @ 8:21 pm
Margaret: Amen and thank you. Please hang around more often!
Comment by MCQ — June 27, 2007 @ 8:25 pm
Oh, brother. Joseph was a frontier man. I say let us go ahead and brawl.
Comment by Bored in Vernal — June 27, 2007 @ 8:32 pm
Thank you, Margaret, for saying directly what I tried to say more gently when I talked of trivializing his death over semantics. I read with thanks the original post and cringed with disappointment as I read how quickly the responses deteriorated into the type of wrangling and inanity I can get from the comments following any newspaper article. I have come to enjoy and look forward to the insight and enlightenment I experience here, so this truly left me sad - in a very real and profound way.
I apologize if this comment sounds condescending to anyone, but this thread has disappointed me more than any other I have read in my time here - even though the original post was inspiring and heartfelt. All I wanted was serious discussion of MCQ’s three questions - and I just went back and counted the number of responses that address those questions directly - or even just one of them. Of the 92 comments in this thread, I counted 5 that were “on topic”. Perhaps my count is off, but I think the point is clear. Can we please honor and respect MCQ’s effort enough to respond to what he asked? Please?
Comment by Ray — June 27, 2007 @ 9:06 pm
While I believe the power of the internet medium is that it frees us from a tyranny of directed conversation and there is value in letting organic conversations go. I’ll play along.
1. The church, like every church, has a group of people that focus way too much on it. Verging on the realm of worship. Already so many people believe that mormons worship Joseph Smith, some of them might just be right. Is it important? Yes. Did it change the form of the church. You bet. But we don’t need to rent our clothes and sit in sackcloth and ashes.
2. Let’s be honest. Does it change the way I practice mormonism today? Not really. It does remind me to be very open minded. I’m constantly surprised that mormons can possibly be closed minded when their prophet himself was murdered for what he believed. You’d figure given the fact that it was legal to kill us in some states would teach us to be tolerant. I guess not.
3. Honestly? I get feelings of dread. There are always three camps when it comes to discussing Joseph Smith’s death.
1. The CES crowd. J. Smith died with a book of mormon in his hands and was killed by overweight dirty men.
2. People who tired of having been spoon-fed a beautiful mythology all their lives are out trying to tell everyone every possible fact they can find.
3. The people who are very overly defensive about it and anything said even if it is factual is attacked or labeled as a personal attack against Joseph Smith.
Not so much of the CES crowd here. But plenty of the last two.
Comment by ronito — June 27, 2007 @ 9:45 pm
ronito, What about those of us who don’t fit those categories? There is a fourth category, and I think many of us fit it: those who love open and honest dialog every bit as much as you do, but want some semblance of focus on the topic at hand. Everyone knows I branch off and contribute to threadjacks and tweak Steve and his man-purse and over-apply evil emoticons and employ ALL CAPS too much and annoy plenty of people, so I’m not asking for nothing but academic dissertations of awe-inspiring, celestial insight. That would be hypocritical, pure and simple. Frankly, my plea had much less to do with Joseph Smith than with MCQ - someone I admire for the thought and care he puts into his posts. I didn’t object to any factual issues regarding the historical discussion of JS’s death; I objected to the way MCQ’s request at the end of his post was ignored almost completely throughout the course of 92 comments.
I really, really, really liked your response - specifically because it answered MCQ’s questions. Your response, for that reason, was one of my favorites.
Comment by Ray — June 27, 2007 @ 10:03 pm
My thoughts about this post are colored by the fact that it is my oldest daughter’s birthday. Our family can’t help but remember Joseph’s death every year, since she is so aware of the fact that she shares that day with him. We have not emphasized it to her at all, but she can’t escape the connection. It simply is what it is.
Just as we are unconcerned about the exact details of her birth by now when we celebrate her birthday (the exact time of birth, her birth weight, etc.), we also are unconcerned about the details of JS’s death by now when we celebrate his sacrifice. They just don’t matter to us. We celebrate our daughter; we celebrate a prophet.
I believe we should remember it to whatever extent we need to in order to be grateful but not worshipful. It’s meaning to me is that it is something we are linked to no matter how we feel about it. He restored Gospel principles and organized our church. His death had enormous consequences that helped shape the church in too many ways to count.
I feel grateful for Joseph’s sacrifice and dedication to the cause he believed in. I have been in the Carthage Jail with some of my teenagers, and the impact of just being there and feeling the spirit of that place was obvious on them - and had nothing at all to do with the exact details of his death or someone else telling them they should feel that way.
Comment by Mi — June 27, 2007 @ 10:31 pm
ronito: “Honestly? I get feelings of dread”
I feel bad for you.
And I agree with Ray that your three categories need expansion. You’re missing at least two categories of people: Those who think Joseph was taken away by the three Nephites and those who think he was reincarnated as Elvis.
Ray: Thanks, man. I love you too. [manly hug]
Comment by MCQ — June 27, 2007 @ 10:54 pm
This topic reminds me of the difficulty in drawing the line between appreciation and worship.
Undoubtedly, Joseph Smith has captured (in one way or another) the spiritual imaginations of ever participant on this list. To that end, expressions of appreciation, admiration, respect, kinship and love all seem very appropriate.
What I find to be more than a bit unsettling are words and expressions that go beyond appreciation/respect/love, and venture instead into the realms of adoration/worship. Creating fictionalized accounts of his life/death designed to make him look superhuman; making him the hero in every instance; portraying him as movie star handsome and “practically perfect in every way”; etc., all tend to result in worship-like expressions that, justifiably, I believe, cause non-LDS’s to complain that we are worshipping the man. (I wince and cringe every time a Sacrament Meeting includes the hymn “Praise to the Man” — how do we avoid the charge that we “worship” Joseph Smith if during our public worship service we sing hymns of praise about him? Surely we can find enough hymns about our Savior to cover the 3 - 4 songs sung each week . . . )
Joseph — like Moses; like Thomas; like Peter; etc. — was a sinner in need of a Savior. Perhaps some day we as a people will develop greater self-confidence in telling the story of Joseph with the same candor displayed by writers of the Bible in sharing Moses’ denial of entrance to the Promised Land; Thomas’ doubt; Peter’s stumbling; etc.
Comment by Antonio Parr — June 28, 2007 @ 4:51 am
“practically perfect in every way”? Dude, that’s Mary Poppins! And you’re right, people do worship her way too much.
As for Joseph, I see no worshipping going on. I expect those sorts of accusations on an anti-mormon site, not here. I think we talk plenty about Joseph’s flaws. I hear a lot less about his virtues, frankly.
Comment by MCQ — June 28, 2007 @ 6:28 am
My comments were not directed towards any specific person (or persons) on this list. Instead, they were intended to address the near deification of Joseph Smith by modern LDS culture, and to lament the way that this quasi-worship distracts us from our focus on Jesus Christ.
Comment by Antonio Parr — June 28, 2007 @ 6:47 am
#78 MCQ:
“Nick: What is the point of bringing up the charges leveled against Joseph by his enemies?”
The question was asked, regarding why Joseph was jailed in the first place. The fact that Joseph already had pending legal charges would have had an impact on how the court handled his new charges. While I haven’t seen historians discuss this point, I can tell you as a former public defender that it’s much tougher to get your client out of jail when he is arrested on new charges, with other charges still pending. In Joseph’s case, he may have otherwise have been allowed to remain at the Hamilton Hotel, as planned, rather than being placed in the jail.
I note that you, evidently with zero knowledge of the circumstances, automatically consider Joseph’s already-pending charges as “leveled against [him] by his enemies.” I understand that it is common in the LDS church to think that Joseph never violated the civil law, and that literally every time he was charged with a crime, it was a false accusation. This assumption, however, is more than a little problematic. The fact is, for example, Joseph had more than one wife under circumstances which left him vulnerable to a civil charge of adultery. That doesn’t mean that Joseph was wrong. It just means that he was vulnerable to the law at the time. It also doesn’t mean that the local constables were Joseph’s “enemies,” any more than they are the “enemies” of anyone else who is charged with a crime.
“Are you suggesting the charges are true based on the fact that they were filed?”
Not at all. I was “suggesting” that he already had pending charges….period.
“In any case, the alleged charges against him have little or nothing to do with his martyrdom because none of the charges justified the actions taken by the mob.”
Did I, in any remote way, suggest that members of the mob was justified in their actions? No, I didn’t.
“I think bringing those issues up in this context shows, at the very least, poor taste. At worst, it betrays your agenda.”
I gave an honest answer to an honest question, MCQ. Perhaps you would have preferred, when someone asked for an honest explanation of why Joseph was jailed, I had said “because his eeeee-vil enemies were out to get him.” That may well be true, but at best, it is incomplete. At worst, it is deceptive. I’ll thank you not to randomly assign some “agenda” to me, particularly when I happen to consider Joseph a prophet.
Comment by Nick Literski — June 28, 2007 @ 8:50 am
#99 MCQ:
“As for Joseph, I see no worshipping going on. I expect those sorts of accusations on an anti-mormon site, not here. I think we talk plenty about Joseph’s flaws. I hear a lot less about his virtues, frankly.”
MCQ, I think I understand your point, and I want you to know it wasn’t my intention to villify Joseph. I suppose I tend to look at Joseph a little differently than you do. He was a real person, not a flawless myth. He had a temper. He showed great love. He was ambitious. He stopped to wipe the mud from a little child’s face in the street. He was an amazing leader. He was a terrible shopkeeper. Like you and I, he was a bundle of virtues and imperfections, and often, apparent contradictions. Repeatedly, he told the Mormons in his day NOT to expect him to be perfect, despite their preconceived notions of what a “prophet” should be. For me, Joseph is an inspiration—proof that a very mortal, very flawed individual can be one of the true “great ones” in history. Have you stood at his grave, paying him quiet tribute? I have–many times. While I may have chosen to withdraw from the LDS church, I still have great appreciation–even affection–for Joseph. He has had a profound impact on my spiritual life.
Now, in fairness, to answer your questions:
“To what extent should we as a people remember the martyrdom of our Prophet or refer to it?”
It has been said that “the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church.” I believe that. Let me share a story. When I was on my mission, I taught a gentleman who was voraciously reading The Book of Mormon. One hot summer day, we were visiting this man, and discussing his reading. He was obviously impressed with The Book of Mormon, but rather cautious about the idea of modern prophets, etc. As we spoke, I felt impressed to read to him John Taylor’s report of the martyrdom, from the D&C. This had an amazing impact on the man. He found great importance in the fact that Joseph lost his life in this way. Frankly, he was awestruck. Only a little later did I realize that the date—June 27, 1986.
“What meaning does it have for us in the “modern†church?”
Far too little, in my honest opinion. Sometimes, there is such a desparation to appear “christian” to everyone else, that the LDS church almost seems to forget the things that makes Mormonism unique.
“What feelings do you have have when you read the above account?”
Sadness. Fascination. Anger. Disgust. Many things.
Comment by Nick Literski — June 28, 2007 @ 9:19 am
There’s a lot of wisdom in Margaret’s comment #89. She might come off as scolding us like children, but perhaps that’s not far off the mark. Apologies, Margaret, for not being more mature.
Comment by Steve Evans — June 28, 2007 @ 10:16 am
Nick: Thanks for your latest comments, I appreciate them very much.
Comment by MCQ — June 28, 2007 @ 10:45 am
I love Steve’s observation that I MIGHT come off as “scolding us like children.” Yes, it is my goal to be seen as the mother figure of the bloggernacle. (Tuck your shirt in, Steve. Remember who you’re representing. And do you really think you’re dressed appropriately? Also, you can make your bed better than that. I believe in you and I love you, it’s just that sometimes you disappoint me so much…but I’ll get over it–as long as you’re happy…)
Steve, I really do love you. Still looking forward to that fish fry someday.
Nick–I have to say how impressed I am by your last comment. So many who have left the Church will never have a kind thing to say about anything in their Mormon experience. I genuinely appreciate your tribute to Joseph Smith. Beautifully stated.
Comment by Margaret Young — June 28, 2007 @ 11:26 am
Margaret — you know it! Anytime you’re in God’s country. So, we’ll go ahead and strike “might” from my comment…..
Comment by Steve Evans — June 28, 2007 @ 11:35 am
#95, 3rd sentence, justifies me not following my own general advice
- If Steve ever grows up completely and starts being mature all of the time, I’m leaving. I have a father figure, already; I like having a snotty little internet brother.
Also, I want to add my sentiments to Margaret’s. Nick, that was one of the most touching responses I have ever read by someone who has left the Church. I wish everyone else in a similar situation could see Joseph as you do - and, more fundamentally, that everyone in my type of situation could act in such a way that they might be able to do so. Thanks.
Comment by Ray — June 28, 2007 @ 11:38 am
It becomes quite easy for us to seize on a particular point, and jump in with both feet to a thread, and forget the context of the original post. Thanks, Margaret, for reminding us of what we really should be about.
To answer MCQ’s questions, I’ll sum them up in a somewhat combined statement.
Even though I was born in the church, and learned about Joseph Smith from a very young age, it took me until will into my adult life to gain a testimony of his role as the founding prophet of the modern church, and that only after I had come to a greater appreciation of our modern prophets. I am saddened by the accounts of the prophet’s death, and a little angered. I am also concerned when I hear and see the kinds of rhetoric being tossed around in an effort to discredit Mitt Romney, and the willingness of people in their political agendas to feel okay about marginalizing an entire religious group for their own ends. There is a difference between my evangelical friends who try to save me from being a Mormon, and the kinds of religious bigotry being propagated by the various campaigns. (Disclaimer: I am not a Romney supporter, but my candidate of choice, Sen. Chris Dodd, doesn’t seem to have a chance. I am concerned because the effort is to discredit us as a religion as a means to discredit an individual then because of his religion).
Ultimately, I am heartened that the horrible events of that summer day 163 years ago did not thwart the Lord’s work, and that Joseph Smith’s sacrifice was not in vain. He truly sacrificed all in the service of the Lord, and as such set an example to us about commitment and service that should sober and empower each of us.
Comment by Kevinf — June 28, 2007 @ 11:39 am
Steve: “Anytime you’re in God’s country.”
So you’ve moved? I thought you lived in the NW muggy, rainy, places. Where in Guatemala would you like to meet?
I should not be blogging. I have other commitments. Dang, sometimes my willpower is so weak. But I have to put in 2 cents worth on the legacy of Joseph Smith as seen from the MTC.
I posted something on MM about our latest devotional there, but the devotional before that one was devoted to Joseph Smith. One of our missionaries said afterwards that his favorite hymn was “Praise to the Man.” I admit I’ve been uncomfortable with some of the lines in that song, but what I see every time I meet with our missionaries is the exquisite fruit of what the Prophet Joseph started in 1830. We just welcomed the millioneth missionary into the MTC. In 1830, there were six people present for the organization of the Church of Christ.
To me, there is one truly moving moment in the film _Legacy_. It’s the moment when the members think the Church will fall because Joseph is dead. Then, accompanied by a lovely arrangement of “The Spirit of God,” the Mormons return to the Nauvoo Temple to complete the work.
We’re still completing it. Tonight I get to be with my missionaries. I will sing a French hymn with them and be sure they’re doing okay. In two weeks, we’ll send a group off and then get another group in. Shift after shift, these young people continue the work. It is a glorious thing to behold and to be a part of. And Wherever they’re headed, it’s God’s country.
Comment by Margaret Young — June 28, 2007 @ 12:15 pm
MCQ #28, I am sorry for taking so much time before responding to you. I am not really proposing anything. I am mainly wondering if it would have been possible to have a fair trial of Joseph Smith if there had not been the lynching.
At an academic level, I am also wondering about the fragility of institutions and the possibility of finding an institutional arrangement that would give aggrieved and passionate parties confidence into impartial conflict resolution.
In the process, I have begun wondering aloud about what may or may not work. My apologies for confusing you.
Comment by Hellmut — June 28, 2007 @ 2:03 pm
I’m a little disappointed by those who seem to think that discussing why Joseph was in jail is tantamount to saying he deserved to die. This is quite a leap, and obviously defies the rules of a logical argument. I read every post on this thread, and I did not at any point get that impression. What I see is a lot of open discussion.
I remember the first time I heard about the whole Masonic prayer thing, or whatever it is. I didn’t know what to think. I was 20 years-old and had always been told that Joseph Smith was praying to God. I think trying to make everything in church history all shiny and bright, constantly making the Mormons the good guys, is very dangerous and potentially damaging to members of the church. Because then when you hear about something like this, or about the similarities between Masonic ritual and temple ceremony, you really don’t know what to think. You don’t know what the implications are. This kind of thing can shake some people’s testimonies, and there is no need for it.
I don’t consider Joseph Smith to be a martyr. That does not diminish anything that he did during his life nor does it downplay the importance of his life. A martyr, by definition is “a person who willingly suffers death rather than renounce his or her religion.” That does not describe Joseph Smith’s death.
Comment by Stephanie — June 28, 2007 @ 3:33 pm
It is now June 28. Is it time to close this thread? It’d be nice to close it WELL. I hope somebody does that. Maybe one more person could actually answer the questions MCQ posed.
Comment by anonymous Mormon — June 28, 2007 @ 4:45 pm
Margaret,
Every time I read you, I hope that I grow up someday.
(I get the same feeling when I read Ardis.)
~
Comment by Thomas Parkin — June 28, 2007 @ 4:56 pm
Hellmut: no apologies necessary, it’s a good question. Reading RSR, in particular, you get a feel for the almost desperate attempts by the saints, and Joseph specifically, to find a fair forum to hear and address the disputes they were having with those around them in Missouri and Illinois. Even going all the way to congress and the president brought no relief.
Stephanie: I’m curious. What part of that definition does Joseph’s death fail to meet? I’ve wondered about this myself sometimes. Similar to the debate over whether Mormons are Christians, your answer depends on how strict your definition is.
My conclusions on those questions are that Mormons are Christians and Joseph was a martyr, because my definitions support those conclusions. If someone is working from different definitions, I have no problem with them coming to different conclusions. I’m not certain how important it is that Joseph be acknowledged to be a martyr. He was certainly murdered by people who hated him primarily for his religious beliefs and practices. He could have escaped but, realizing that could put his people in danger without him, he chose to voluntarily come to Carthage where he knew his life was in very serious danger and he could not be protected. Where do you think your definition fails to fit?
Comment by MCQ — June 28, 2007 @ 6:34 pm