Skip to main content

Heroism at the Martyrdom

Just a short post today (funny how even when I say that I end up pushing 1500 words)…

I found it incredibly odd that in the account of Joseph Smith's martyrdom PBS chose not to include a detail that they could have exploited to great effect to forward their framing of the man as a power-hungry con artist: at the time of his martyrdom he was in possession of a handgun. Of course it is highly illegal to have smuggled a pistol into the jail where he was being held when he was shot, so this could have been good incriminating evidence not only to frame JS as fundamentally unethical, but also to frame the church leadership (who never mention this detail in the official account either) as secretive, exploitative, and cult-like.

On the other hand, however, they do miss a great opportunity to understand the man via analysis of his last act in mortality. They DO correctly state, and surprisingly word-for-word from the official account, that JS died exclaiming "O Lord, my God" falling out of the window, struck by multiple balls. What they didn't think much of, apparently, was how incredibly heroic an act that was. An armed mob in blackface was milling around the jail from the outside, and elements of it had climbed the stairs and forced gun barrels through the door opening as the cell's four occupants scrambled to either hide or keep the door shut and/or knock the barrels away to as harmless a trajectory as possible. Hyrum Smith, brother to Joseph was one at the door. He was hit first, through the door, in the head. In the milliseconds that intervened, Joseph Smith moved to the most visible location in the room both to the bloodthirsty eyes assembled outside, and to those peering in room the now opening door. From there he did not fall, but rather LEAPED out the window. The Church never trumps these facts up either, but it seems quite clear that JS was seeking to spare the others as much as it were possible by sacrificing himself to the violence of the throng. In an effort to save friends, family, and community, JS leapt from a second story window and was dead before he hit the ground from multiple shots. Besides his already dead brother, the two cellmates were spared their lives.

Given the hypothesis that JS was a megalomaniac, such heroic self-sacrifice would tend to be disproving evidence. The hypothesis might be recuperated slightly by claiming that he must have known how his martyrdom would solidify the power of his memory in the hearts of his deluded followers, and therefore this evidence could be seen as one last grab for power. But you and I can both see how this is now pushing verisimilitude slightly beyond the boundaries of impartiality.

On the other hand, given the hypothesis that he was who he said he was--a Prophet; a witness; a spokesperson for the Most High--such an act of heroism is completely confirmatory.

Interesting Multimedia presentation on the events of the day with zoomable photos and text at this link.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Beyond the term “identity”

I didn't want to become one of those grad students who takes forever to find out what he wants to study, so I entered the Masters program at PITT with an idea what I wanted to do as a dissertation: national identity in the Ivory Coast. It sounds like a straightforward enough concept, but I encountered an article while I was taking a history course which looked at several case studies of the construction of racial, ethnic, and gender identities over a variety of geographical locations and historical periods that made me radically re-think the entire concept of identity . It's a concept that makes intuitive sense to most people, I would imagine. It means who you are, right? The layperson could also probably understand quite readily that there seem to be many different levels at which our "identity" can be determined or constrained. A black person may feel more of a racial component to identity than a white person, for example. My religious identity takes primacy over my...

Abortion "Complexities" and Morality

It's just not that hard, folks.  Unless we're dealing with the context of a justified war, there's simply no moral defense for killing innocent humans if there are any other options, let alone for the convenience of the living.  And while both sides may exaggerate to make a point, only one side of the argument does insane logical backflips to hide the true and morally repugnant nature of the acts, their numbers, their consequences, and the assumptions underlying their "justifications". Ever since the leaked Alito draft hinting that Roe v. Wade was about to be overturned, pro-abortion activists have had their day.  I suppose I can understand a certain need to defend against what they perceive as a threat on their liberties and rights.  So now that they've had their time to externalize their fears and put out ad campaigns, and fake being handcuffed at protests in unlawful locations, let's stand back from the emotions and just examine the core moral argument...

Historical Malpractice

  Heather Cox Richardson is a favorite among some of my leftist friends.  Her position as an academic offers imprimatur for her wanton partisanship and her acumen as a historical researcher helps her find the cherry-picked details she needs to cover a false narrative with a veneer of historicity.  I don't usually engage because her posts are long enough that it would take too much unpacking to deal with, but I wanted to take a crack at just a part of this one. Keep in mind that her schtick consist mostly of framing modern Republicans as morally corrupt and modern Democrats as knights in shining armor for all that is good and right, by peppering her argument with so much actual historical facts that you have the feeling of "context" so you don't notice the logical sleight of hand by which her narrative escapes reason and reality.  With that said, here's my summary, responding in snarky kind to her own partisan framing, but faithful to the content of her...