A Religion Anthropologist Weighs in on Joseph Smith’s Murder


Recommended Posts

On June 10, 1844, Joseph Smith, who was the mayor of Nauvoo, and the Nauvoo city council ordered the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor and the press on which it was printed. The Nauvoo Expositor was an anti-Mormon newspaper that slandered the Prophet and other Saints and called for the repeal of the Nauvoo Charter. City officials feared that this publication would lead to mob action. As a result of the action by the mayor and city council, Illinois authorities brought an unfounded charge of riot against the Prophet, his brother Hyrum, and other Nauvoo city officials. The governor of Illinois, Thomas Ford, ordered the men to stand trial in Carthage, Illinois, the county seat, and promised them protection. Joseph knew that if he went to Carthage, his life would be in great danger from the mobs who were threatening him. Believing that the mobs wanted only them, Joseph and Hyrum decided to leave for the West to preserve their lives. On June 23, they crossed the Mississippi River, but later that day, brethren...

View the full article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the following subsection title needs correcting:

Quote

It Wasn’t Their Anti-Abolition Stance

Followed by:

Quote

Lots of people were abolitionists and weren’t run out of town or murdered for it. Especially in a free state like Illinois.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some interesting factoids, but I’m  not particularly impressed with this particular line of argument.  (“It couldn’t have been A, because John Doe #1 did the same thing and was fine.  Couldn’t have been B, because John Doe #2 did that too.  Couldn’t have been C, because John Doe #3 also did that.”  Well, great work, Sherlock; but did anyone do A and B and C,  like Joseph Smith did; and what was their fate? )

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I believe the following subsection title needs correcting:

Followed by:

They must have corrected it because what I see is:   It Wasn’t Their Abolitionist Stance

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Some interesting factoids, but I’m  not particularly impressed with this particular line of argument.  (“It couldn’t have been A, because John Doe #1 did the same thing and was fine.  Couldn’t have been B, because John Doe #2 did that too.  Couldn’t have been C, because John Doe #3 also did that.”  Well, great work, Sherlock; but did anyone do A and B and C,  like Joseph Smith did; and what was their fate? )

As far as the printing press, you should at least appreciate Legal Precedent being an appropriate defense for Joseph's actions.

As for the others, it underscores the fact that the people of the time didn't really care about any of their purported excuses to hate Mormons. They just hated us.  Consider the parallels to Democrats feeling things were perfectly ok for Obama to do X, Y, & Z.  But they throw a tizzy fit when Trump does the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

[1]As far as the printing press, you should at least appreciate Legal Precedent being an appropriate defense for Joseph's actions.

[2]As for the others, it underscores the fact that the people of the time didn't really care about any of their purported excuses to hate Mormons. They just hated us.  Consider the parallels to Democrats feeling things were perfectly ok for Obama to do X, Y, & Z.  But they throw a tizzy fit when Trump does the same thing.

1.  Sure; but I also appreciate some of the differences; such as that the act was fine by the City Council under color of law, in peacetime.  

2.  Yes, to a point; but denying that there were sincerely-held concerns underlying the fear and mistrust just shows our sloppiness as historians and ultimately makes us less-effective emissaries of our faith.  It’s not like Joseph Smith was the only person to die of mob violence in antebellum America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

1.  Sure; but I also appreciate some of the differences; such as that the act was fine by the City Council under color of law, in peacetime.  

I'm not sure if I understand this statement as currently worded.

56 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

2.  Yes, to a point; but denying that there were sincerely-held concerns underlying the fear and mistrust just shows our sloppiness as historians and ultimately makes us less-effective emissaries of our faith.

I can understand that.

56 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

 It’s not like Joseph Smith was the only person to die of mob violence in antebellum America.

So, what other examples can you think of?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

[1] I’m not sure if I understand this statement as currently worded.

. . .

[2]So, what other examples can you think of?

1.  Sorry, that should have said “done”.

2.  Well, to respond to the question as-asked, I can’t think of any off the top of my head.  But mob violence/vigilanteism in the antebellum US has been the subject of numerous academic treatments, some of which I’ve read and mostly forgotten decades ago.  😊  I can do a Google search, if you insist . . .

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/19/2019 at 5:23 PM, Carborendum said:

I believe the following subsection title needs correcting:

Quote

It Wasn’t Their Anti-Abolition Stance

Followed by:

Quote

Lots of people were abolitionists and weren’t run out of town or murdered for it. Especially in a free state like Illinois.

 

20 hours ago, pam said:

They must have corrected it because what I see is:   It Wasn’t Their Abolitionist Stance

The "Anti-Abolitionist" heading was present in the original Quora article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

1.  Sorry, that should have said “done”.

I'm not sure how that changes anything.  I get the impression you have something in mind.  But I can't quite discern it from here.

22 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

2.  Well, to respond to the question as-asked, I can’t think of any off the top of my head.  But mob violence/vigilanteism in the antebellum US has been the subject of numerous academic treatments, some of which I’ve read and mostly forgotten decades ago.  😊  I can do a Google search, if you insist . . .

I think here is where you'll find the original article in congruence with your position.  The author was basically saying that there didn't appear to be any "reasonable" explanation for the violent behavior towards Joseph or the Saints in general.  He couldn't figure out what would explain such behavior.

But simple human mob mentality isn't "reasonable" and it would indeed be an adequate explanation for the behavior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I'm not sure how that changes anything.  I get the impression you have something in mind.  But I can't quite discern it from here.

What I’m saying is that it’s one thing for an anonymous mob to come out of the darkness, destroy a press, and then melt away under cover of night.  It’s quite another thing for a city council to dictate an order, countersigned by the mayor and executed by the city marshall, doing the same thing.  

Obviously it’s tricky business trying to get inside the collective “head” of a mob.  But I know that as Latter-day Saints, we’d be much more fearful if the Houston Temple were sacked and burned by Texas Rangers as opposed to a bunch of rowdy Rockets fans celebrating a win.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

What I’m saying is that it’s one thing for an anonymous mob to come out of the darkness, destroy a press, and then melt away under cover of night.  It’s quite another thing for a city council to dictate an order, countersigned by the mayor and executed by the city marshall, doing the same thing.  

Obviously it’s tricky business trying to get inside the collective “head” of a mob.  But I know that as Latter-day Saints, we’d be much more fearful if the Houston Temple were sacked and burned by Texas Rangers as opposed to a bunch of rowdy Rockets fans celebrating a win.  

Apparently, I have no idea what you're trying to say.  I'll just leave it alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share