So given the economic nature of the basic threat discussed in my last post, and given that perceived threats on both sides led both sides to "defend" (whether that be preemptively or purely defensively depended heavily on the context, which itself was perceived differently by either side) quite vigorously and with arms as they felt necessary, is it really contextually appropriate to depict Joseph Smith as some sort of American religious Napoleon wannabe "obsessed with power" as they claim, and trying to set up a very martial sort of theocracy? PBS played a bit of a contextual dance of bait and switch when they moved from discussing the persecution of the Saints as a whole, to the frame of Joseph Smith as architect and directing authority of societal experiments each requiring greater centralization of power and each successively failing ever more miserably.
(I just watched the segment one more time, and I am frankly continually awestruck at how easily learned historians can make the same kinds of interpretive mistakes that I'm sure they teach their undergrads never to make: the one guy talking about the great "mystery" of why the Saints were persecuted as being grounded in some fear of the unknown without ever mentioning the real-world economic motivations that should have been so obvious to him [and so KNOWN to the persecutors]; another taking an obviously biased persecutor's word for it when he claimed "we got along fine with the Mormons until…X, Y, and Z". Doesn't the very position of the witness beg for his testimony NOT to be taken ONLY at its face value? I wonder if this last historian accepts excuses for late homework as readily…)
If you want to re-frame the context and center on Joseph Smith's role as central figure opposed by the persecutors, fine, but let's be fair and open about it--let's try to imagine HIS perspective. What would YOU do if you were already accepted as a dynamic leader over a group of 5000+ people who you knew would be persecuted? Would it be power-hungry of you to make yourself mayor (to better direct the political affairs of the city as well as to better consolidate yourself as the target rather than diffuse responsibility among all the people, thereby making them equal targets with you of the persecutions to come)? How about the militia-head (to better organize defense, to better maintain discipline where armed hot-heads would otherwise be more likely to act alone, vigilante-style, and thereby incur more just wrath from the persecutors, and again to better focus hatred against your person, thereby removing at least some other of your brethren as potential targets)? In other words, what's the BEST way to protect your people? Pretty much what JS DID!
Now, of course there should be facts to back up this perspective, and I have NOT done that work--but I don't really see that as my job, yet. What I'm trying to point out to you is that an entire and NECESSARY perspective for understanding the actions of Joseph Smith in relation to the persecution of the early saints is both entirely logical (and if not easily imagined from its own point of view, at least not as far-fetched as depicted by PBS) and entirely missing.
But of course to open up the possibility that JS's actions were not evidence of hunger for power, but were rather evidence of true leadership, courage, and mercy for his "flock", would be contrary to the spirit of "controversy" PBS was hoping to inspire (and hoping would inspire good ratings).
Comments