Which way did they go Joe?

[_karl61]

I don't think Joseph's neighbors were money diggers. Just Joseph and some of his friends. You make it seem like money digging was like voting.

[_karl61]

Sheesh, I hate Joseph Smith-Jesus Christ comparisons. It does nothing to distance the Mormon Church from the criticism that it deifies Joseph Smith.

You made a really wrong conclusion here. I didn't compare Joseph Smith to Jesus. What I was talking about was the idea that if someone dies it is because God withdraws His protection. This is one of the common anti-Mormon strateties--apply something to Joseph Smith/Mormon Church which they are not willing to apply to their own theological ideas.

The IDEA is that if you say the only reason a person dies is because God withdraws His protection, then you have to be willing to apply that in all instances.

The mob killed Joseph Smith because he pissed them off. Plain and simple.

You really think that any time someone really angers people, that a mob is going to gather and kill them? You see this as just an normal expression of good old American frontier rowdy nature? Something to do on a Saturday night? Figure out somebody or a group of somebodies, burn their houses, beat up the men, rape the wives, and then kill their leader?

You have a weird idea about people.

But Joseph compared himself to Jesus.

[_charity]

Whoa, Nelly. How is this third "fact" a fact?

It might be a fact to say: Joseph Smith practiced plural marriage.

Otherwise, you're venturing into dangerous territory.

I am on solid ground. Joseph had a history of receiving revelations, telling the people that God had spoken to him. This was another one of those instances.

What fact do you have that proves he didn't?

[_the road to hana]

You really think that any time someone really angers people, that a mob is going to gather and kill them?

Did I say that?

I think Joseph Smith made a lot of enemies, in part due to his own behavior. I believe when the mob is described as an "angry mob" everywhere the death of Joseph Smith is described, that's for a reason. I doubt they were a happy mob.

There are plenty of men in this world, today and in ages past, that if their women are threatened in any form, or their way of life endangered, they react with threats of violence. I imagine there are circumstances that your husband would do the same. I'm not necessarily suggesting that it justifies the violence. I'm suggesting that it was not unprovoked.

[Reflexzero]

I think there are several interesting implications, the Jesus/Joseph Smith fusing being one avenue, and the historical obsession with literal blood spilling being another.

An aspect I hadn't considered (although I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the term "obsession"). I wonder what the source of it is, as there does seem to be in some regards a bit of an obsession with this (not limited to, but including romanticism of martyrdom).

1-The violence it experienced (and unfortunately perpetrated in some instances) within its formative years.
2-A high emphasis on many ANE practices/beliefs that are found within the Old Testament.
3-The “frontier justice” era of the Church.

Perhaps it’s none of these. An interesting thought though Blixa.

[_the road to hana]

Joseph had a history of receiving revelations, telling the people that God had spoken to him.

Do you look at this sentence from any sort of objective distance to see the red flag in it?

Anyone can tell anyone that God has spoken to them. It doesn't necessarily make it true. It makes it convenient, but not necessarily true.

[_the road to hana]

Sheesh, I hate Joseph Smith-Jesus Christ comparisons. It does nothing to distance the Mormon Church from the criticism that it deifies Joseph Smith.

You made a really wrong conclusion here. I didn't compare Joseph Smith to Jesus. What I was talking about was the idea that if someone dies it is because God withdraws His protection. This is one of the common anti-Mormon strateties--apply something to Joseph Smith/Mormon Church which they are not willing to apply to their own theological ideas.

The IDEA is that if you say the only reason a person dies is because God withdraws His protection, then you have to be willing to apply that in all instances.

Huh? I think you want to be addressing harmony, here.

I never suggested that Joseph Smith died (or Jesus Christ either, for that matter) because "God withdrew his protection."

My point simply had to do with the spilling blood of Joseph business, which sounded precariously in the avenue of Joseph deification.

[_Doctor Steuss]

I don't think Joseph's neighbors were money diggers. Just Joseph and some of his friends. You make it seem like money digging was like voting.

Although it wasn't "like voting," it was certainly practiced by more than "just Joseph and some of his friends."

For one example, see: http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/NY/miscNYSg.htm#021625 (and as always, a mighty thank you to Uncle Dale for providing me hours of entertaining eye-strain).

Also, chapter 1 of Dan Vogel's "Indian Origins and the Book of Mormon" gives a few additional resources.

[_Blixa]

I think there are several interesting implications, the Jesus/Joseph Smith fusing being one avenue, and the historical obsession with literal blood spilling being another.

An aspect I hadn't considered (although I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the term "obsession"). I wonder what the source of it is, as there does seem to be in some regards a bit of an obsession with this (not limited to, but including romanticism of martyrdom).

1-The violence it experienced (and unfortunately perpetrated in some instances) within its formative years.
2-A high emphasis on many ANE practices/beliefs that are found within the Old Testament.
3-The “frontier justice” era of the Church.

Perhaps it’s none of these. An interesting thought though Blixa.

I'm sure I could describe this better than "obsession"---it's far too simple and somewhat psychologized for the practices/beliefs I'm refering to, like Blood Atonement, for example. Of course Blood Atonement is a bucket of worms since as both concept and practice its definition is pretty dispersed---and I guess I would argue that that's not unintentional. I think numbers 2 and 3 on your list are the most relevant, with number 2's restorationist ideology being most compelling (animal sacrifice, etc). Number 1--the "unfortunate perpetrations" is interesting: in Missouri there is already the rhetoric of vengeance in place (with Lamanites as the method of delivery in some examples) and despite the creation of the Danites, something that could be more rightly called "blood vengeance" doesn't emerge until after---Nauvoo and, of course, Utah---exclamations of making the U.S one whole gore of blood being, I think, the exception rather than the rule. Can its origin be traced to the creation of "The Friends of the Martyrs"? Maybe. In that light, a belief that Joseph Smith needed to have his blood spilled, is, oddly, both contradiction and confirmation.

And then there's the various forms of "sealing" and the introduction of that term by Joseph Smith himself...

It's a kind of "minor history" that I'm working on. I have the "practical aspects" down, I need to follow up on the "mere rhetoric." : )

[_Doctor Steuss]

[...]
I need to follow up on the "mere rhetoric." : )

This reminded me of a quote that I came upon earlier this week in the book I'm reading:

"Those who were sophisticated enough always knew the apologetic demonstrations depend primarily upon the believer’s naïveté, rather than upon the soundness of the case. Rhetoric works only as long as one does not know how it works."

Hans Dieter Betz, “In Defense of the Spirit: Paul’s Letter to the Galatians as a Document of Early Christian Apologetics,” in Aspects of Religious Propaganda in Judaism and Early Christianity, Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza ed., University of Notre Dame Press (Notre Dame, IN), 1976, Pg. 100 (Emphasis in original)