Brjones, I assure you that my comment was an observation. I really do think we see this issue quite similarly.

In Missouri it was more than the slave issue that got the press destroyed, the church offended everyone that was there before them. Bogg’s extermination order was named such to use the same words the church leaders used in Missouri when they said they were going to “exterminate all the gentiles from the land”. The government was reacting to the church’s violence against Missouri citizens. Boggs tried working with the saints. (Many of the records in Missouri confirm this). Hhans Mill was a bad violent act however the gentiles were beaten and threatened by the saints previously. The leaders of the church and the Dannites caused much conflict for everyone. Smith could have prevented all the violence if he acted more like a man on God. Perhaps Brigham Young was right when he said Joseph was a fallen prophet.

There was much violence and suffering among everyone both gentile and saint. The records (outside of church resources) state that the mormon leadership was the main cause of these inflictions. Isn’t it fair to state that the saints (those who participated in violent acts) were also cowards?
Why was it so important to Joseph to try to take over everything that the gentiles had? Why did he think he was so much greater than everyone else? His death by a mob was just a matter of time and none of it had anything to do with the religion.

I’m hoping your comment was an observation and not an indictment (it’s hard to read tone in this forum).

Cowboy, “I’m not sure the tit for tat over printing presses has much relevance. “ Viewed in isolation, I agree with you. However, I don’t think the printing press should be viewed in isolation. I think Bushman’s words apply here as well.

Doug, “the official history of the martyrdom is colored by the people who wrote it.” I couldn’t agree more. Once again, the main reason I wrote this post was to take issue with the antagonists, whose “official history of the martyrdom is colored by the people who wrote it.” From the antagonistic websites I’ve seen, none of them talk about the issues we are talking about. They paint Joseph as a master schemer, who got what he deserved. They never mention misdeeds of the mobbers (unlike you, Cowboy, and brjones), but make the lynching sound justifiable. I think that’s reprehensible. I thank you 3 for explicitly stating that these mobbers were thugs and murderers, but that kind of balance is missing from “official” websites antagonistic to the church, and I find that just as problematic (if not more so) than the church’s whitewashing of certain events.

If Joseph had established the church, as it is today, he would never been killed by a mob. Agreed, but the church today would be nothing if it weren’t for Joseph Smith.

So again, what did he die for? It wasn’t for the restoration as the things the church and Joseph did that ignited hatred are not part of who we are today. If you’re going to insist that he died as a martyr, I think you should be willing to go the next step and show what causes he brought to life that needed his blood to seal.

There’s so many ways to go with this question. If we look at Jesus, why was he killed? In the Jewish court of the day, he was guilty of blasphemy. While this was a capital offense for the Law of Moses, blasphemy didn’t matter to the Romans. So the Jews had to invent another reason to make Jesus guilty of a capital offense. So, they said he was a King, and therefore guilty of treason against Rome. Treason was a capital offense, and anyone causing a ruckus in the name of revolution would be put to death. So, the case can be made that Jesus didn’t die as a martyr of religion–the Romans couldn’t have care less about the Jews and their religion–Jesus was guilty of treason, and was a traitor to Rome. Romans will say it had nothing to do with religion–heck, even the Pharisees probably would have agreed with that position, and I doubt Pharisees would have seen Jesus as any different from David Koresh. (By the way, thievery wasn’t a capital offense either. The two “robbers” Jesus was crucified between were also revolutionaries. That’s a mistranslation.) So, I think martyr could be in the eye of the beholder/follower, and it has been throughout this discussion.

What did Joseph die for?

The Sunday School answer is D&C 135:1 “To seal the testimony of this book [D&C] and the Book of Mormon.”

The historical answer is “because he tried to set up a theocracy, and ticked off too many people.”

I remind you that Latter-Day Saints still believe that theocracy is the ultimate form of government, and when Christ comes again, it will be the form of government that Jesus uses. We haven’t backed away from that belief, or even polygamy as an eternal principle (though I know you are familiar with my beliefs on polygamy, which are not orthodox). Consecration is still seen as the ideal economy of God. We still believe in eternal progression and temple work as Joseph taught. So, while the church isn’t as radical on these beliefs as it was in the 1830′s and 1840′s. As Richard Bushman says, “Mormonism gave up on its radicalism because the United States government beat it out of them.” The church as a whole hasn’t fully abandoned the things Joseph died for–it has just placed them in a dormant state, with the idea that when Christ comes again, there will be the restitution of all things that Mormons believe Joseph died trying to implement.

As we look at the evidence, Joseph originally wanted to build an egalitarian society like the city of Enoch, where there were no poor among them. When his friends turned into mortal enemies, I think Joseph became increasingly frustrated. Bushman says in this interview, (referring to Mormon theocracy under Joseph and Brigham), “That intense pressure from the federal government was backed up by every branch of government, including the Supreme Court, which was, in Joseph Smith’s spirit, the Mormons’ last best hope. They believed to the end that the Constitution was on their side and that they were simply claiming religious freedom, but the Supreme Court knocked down their claims one after another…..Mormonism gave up on its radicalism because the United States government beat it out of them. They were forced to the point of extinction and then realized it all had to be abandoned to preserve their existence as Mormons.”

Surely this had something to do with Joseph’s increasing militancy in the days of Nauvoo, and not merely some sort of invented “religious hysteria.” Such comments don’t seem to take into account the virulent persecutions Joseph was subject to.

Smith was forced into politics by the abuse that the Mormons received. As soon as they were driven out of their first city site in Independence, Mo., he turned to the government for redress. He never obtained it. No level of government, from local justices of the peace to governors to the president of the United States – to whom he constantly appealed – ever came to the defense of the Saints.

I don’t want you to misread what I’m getting at with your original post. I think the killing of Joseph and his brother were horrible acts committed by men I would never want to associate with. A despicable part of early American history that has no justification no-matter what Joseph and his followers did. We are a nation of law and thereby must be subject to them even when we don’t think we’re getting treated fairly. That goes both for the folks in Illinois as well as the Saints.

In writing about this subject, I was merely trying to show the circumstances that led up to the lynching. The fact that Joseph and Hyrum were armed is a very small part of the story. The events that led up to their arrest are not well understood or taught to members for reasons I’m still not sure I understand.

As Cowboy and Brjones alluded to, Joseph’s end has more to do with the internal fracturing of his organization then any outside hatred. The Kirtland problems also were a direct result of internal struggles with Joseph’s leadership and the failure of the bank. So, to your point, he was in-trouble most when his group became a house divided on critical issues. Polygamy was no different and therefore happened to be the catalyst that got him in front of a lynch mob.

I don’t think we’re in disagreement on any of your points accept that you seem to be implying that everything that happened to him was the fault of others. (Both with apostates and frontier justice.) I just don’t see it that way. He narrowly escaped Missouri with his life and yet continued on the same path that got him imprisoned there. I’ll reiterate my comment from before. If Joseph had established the church, as it is today, he would never been killed by a mob. So again, what did he die for? It wasn’t for the restoration as the things the church and Joseph did that ignited hatred are not part of who we are today. If you’re going to insist that he died as a martyr, I think you should be willing to go the next step and show what causes he brought to life that needed his blood to seal.

My point in bringing up Hyrum’s killing was to show that the official history of the martyrdom is colored by the people who wrote it. John Taylor worked very hard to portray both men going to the slaughter innocent of any wrong doing. I don’t think we have the other side of the story here to balance it with. The events at Carthage probably went down much differently than his report. Things like, who fired first, how many were actually in the mob, and if the governor took part in the conspiracy are lost to history. Given the church’s propensity to “color” events toward the eye of the believer, I don’t think we can trust this one source for all the facts.

there will be a difference of opinion as to whether joseph was patient enough. certainly joseph didn’t follow through on his zion’s camp experience to go to war in missouri so most tbm’s are going to say joseph exercised much more patience than gentiles did. elder oaks gave a conference talk a few years ago stating that freedom of the press wasn’t always followed in joseph’s day. certainly the destruction of the church press in missouri indicates oaks is correct. in hindsight, joseph shouldn’t have ordered the destruction of the press, though he did get the city council to approve the move, unlike the mobbers in missouri. his actions were a higher standard than in missouri though obviously they should have been higher. but I think the mobbers were looking for any excuse to attack joseph and even if he had handled the expositor problem better, the mobbers would have found something else to lynch him for.

it is also important to understand that part of joseph’s imperialism was because the mormon constitutional rights were trampled. joseph was adopting some of the heavy handed tactics only after the saints were denied justice. I am sure he felt his imperial rule would have been more just than the democracy which had failed to protect the saints.

I am not saying I endorse joseph’s position on theocracy, but I am trying to explain his mindset and actions.

I can appreciate the sentiment that the law was not always fair with the Church. That is not an adequate justification for the destruction of William Law’s printing press, which was a case of Mormons vs Mormons. It was an internal conflict, and the contents of the expositor showed Joseph Smith to be a fraud, ie, he was practicing polygamy when he publicly declared that he was not.

Let’s pretend that polygamy had nothing to do with the events in Nauvoo. The Saints were kicked out of Kirtland and Missouri, and it had nothing to do with polygamy. In Kirtland, the bank failure and local elections were the problem. In Missouri, the slave issue and local elections were the problem. Polygamy played no issue in these two expulsions (because polygamy was unsubstantiated rumors at this time.) Joseph had been arrested for lots of things, and the issue wasn’t really polygamy per se, but it was the Nauvoo charter, and Joseph’s attempts to circumvent the law by essentially making Nauvoo review any arrest warrants. The polygamy issue/destruction of the press provided a reason to arrest him, just like the bank failure caused problems. If the two problems had been reversed, (polygamy in Kirtland and bank in Nauvoo) we’d be talking about the bank failure rather instigating the crisis rather than polygamy. The mob was looking for a reason to lynch Joseph, and the Nauvoo Expositor provided them with a reason. I’m sure that they were looking for any reason, and it could have been Joseph’s failed extradition to Missouri, or Gov Boggs attempted assassination which could have easily been the straw to break the camel’s back. Polygamy is a scape goat–habeas corpus and control of county law was the real issue gentiles had a problem with.

Once again, we seem overly focused with Joseph’s supposed misdeeds. Part of the reason the Nauvoo charter was created was because gentiles had burned, beaten, robbed, and arrested Joseph and his followers. Joseph was reacting to the frontier misjustice that was handed to him. Why would someone have any confidence in gentile justice when not a single person was was arrested for Haun’s Mill Massacre, which had to be fresh on Joseph’s mind? Nobody was convicted of Joseph’s murder, even though 200 participated in the lynching. Joseph had appealed to the President to redress property illegally taken in Missouri, and the president said it was a local issue, and offered no help. Joseph was subject to mob justice, which was far from fair.

If you want to blame Joseph for his destruction of the printing press, let’s not forget that just a few years earlier, the mobs had destroyed the church’s printing press in Missouri, and nobody was arrested for that. What was the scandal the church printed at the time? It wasn’t polygamy, it was the church advocating free blacks come to Missouri–a slave state. I’m sure Joseph felt justified since it was apparently legal to destroy the church’s printing press in Missouri. But printing press justice is blind when gentiles destroy Mormon presses–when it turns the other way, the Mormons end up dead. Where is the justice in that? Can anyone fault Joseph for acting the same as the Missourians with regard to printing presses? Where do you think he got the idea? Why was nobody arrested in Missouri?

As for Hyrum being shot in the face and back, it seems to me that he was probably shot in the face by those approaching from the door. He probably turned as he fell, and the lynch mob shot him in the back. I don’t think Cubans/Russians provided a high powered rifle to Lee Harvey Oswald who hid in the Book Depository (as with JFK) to shoot Hyrum in the back when there were so many participants in close proximity who could have easily shot Hyrum in the back. There was so much action going on, I don’t think John Taylor and Willard Richards needed to focus on such details. Once again, such analysis seems hypercritical to me. Have you done similar analysis on the Haun’s Mill Massacre?

My apologies for the hasty and poorly written comment I wrote in the few minutes I had before leaving town this week. I’ve read the posts by folks who have looked into this deeper than me and agree with brjones on imperialism vs. isolationism. Having said that, polygamy accusations got Joseph’s “dander” up and drove him to destroy the William Law’s press. Therefore, while I agree the mob probably didn’t care too much about polygamy, Joseph wouldn’t have been put within their reach had he never started the practice.

The Mormons were diligently trying to establish “Zion” thereby developing communities with large groups of people who voted in blocks and networked within. (Not a very pleasant situation for the locals or their economies.) So again, I agree the mobs rallied against the church and Joseph because they were a threat. His death then was the direct result of “imperialism” and polygamy. Don’t you agree?

I am curious about a couple of thing involving the guns at Carthage. If Hyrum died first and Joseph sprang to his side and realized there was nothing he could do to help him, why didn’t he grab Hyrum’s’ revolver? Wouldn’t you go to the door armed with as much firepower as you could to defend yourself? More likely an exchange of gun fire erupted between the mob coming up the stairs and Joseph when his brother was shot. I suspect he went to his brothers side after firing and then to the window for escape. Not that it changes the story much, but the way it’s written in Church history seems problematic. Also, Hyrum is said to have been shot in the back as well as the face at the same time. Given the height of the window and the shallow angle needed to clear the window case and hit a man in the back standing in the middle of the room, the shooter would have needed a modern high powered rifle as he would have had to have been back over a hundred yards. The ball also managed to go all the way through his body and break his vest pocket watch. I just don’t think a shot fired from that distance would have enough velocity to penetrate the torso of a full grown man. As I said, there seems to be some problems with the official account. Just wondering if anyone else found these things interesting?

Was Smith a martyr? If he was in jail because of his religious beliefs and he refused to deny or denounce those beliefs, then ok he was a martyr. However, it is very clear that he was jailed for breaking the law. The “mob” did not come after him because of his beliefs in polygamy, the BOM, multiple Gods, etc. They came after him for putting himself above the law and threatening others way of life and beliefs. If he as mayor can destroy someone’s property and deny them due course of the law, it wouldn’t take long before he would do the same to others who disagreed with him. If Smith was more “Christlike” he never would have been in that mess. Given the time period and all the doings by Smith before this, anyone could’ve seen it coming unless blinded by faith.

Overall my problem is that the church actively hides or misleads members in knowing and finding the truth. Only someone who knows how to research and takes the time to search will find the truth. The majority are left with only a portion of the truth that makes the church look good. Oh. that’s why Smith wanted to destroy Law’s printing press, he was printing about polygamy which went against the standards. Hmm, some church practices still exist. If the church teachings are true, then it can withstand all the garbage, if you must hide all the garbage, you loose credibility. If some of the church is not true, then does that mean the whole is not true?

Great post, MH – and I also can’t get worked up about this one. I first heard about this when I was in primary, and that was decades ago. If the Church has tried to hide or distort this, it’s done a lousy job of it.

I also have a problem with people who take issue with the “lamb to slaughter” comment. Whether one wants to claim it was an inspired comment, or simply common sense doesn’t really bother me. What bothers me are people who look at Joseph’s actions and say, “see, Joseph didn’t act like a lamb. He should have been submissive and laid his life down like Jesus.” This kind of Monday morning quarterbacking makes absolutely no sense to me, and makes mountains out of molehills. I think such comments are hypercritical, and not grounded in reality. These people seem to forget that Joseph had been threatened, beaten, and seen his followers killed.

While the anti-Nephi-Lehies were willing to be perfectly pacifist and willingly died, their children became the 2000 Stripling Warriors who were not pacifists at all. I think most people are like the latter group, not the former.