Joseph Smith Died In A "shoot-out"

[Scott Lloyd]

No wonder "jaybear" has become a metaphor for what you do. How much more brazenly counterfactual could you get?

Regards,

Pahoran

To the extent he frequently and prolifically comments on matters on which he clearly lacks background and understanding, the metaphor is proving to have staying power.

[consiglieri]

I have to agree with that, Prophets are human and subject to being sinners. Even the Apostles of Christ would lash out in anger and violence against others, and deny Him.

And I think that, perhaps, we should not automatically exclude Jesus himself from lashing out in anger against others.

There is that pesky reference to the fig tree that managed to slip its way into the New Testament.

Not to mention that early variation in the text of Mark (?) where Jesus is said to have gotten angry at a leper asking to be healed. (Per Professor Bart Ehrman.)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Pahoran]

I think defending friends and family is a good thing?

If the cause was hopeless....then defense is useless.... Im not questioning the actions of JS in the Carthage Jail.

The question has always been in my mind of the intent of his actions.

...was JS firing into the mob as a hopeless act of defense (was he basically trying to draw the enemy fire upon himself and hopefully spare the remaining two friends in the jail)?

....or was JS firing into the mob because (even though his situation was hopeless) they had killed his brother and he wanted to exact some sort of vengance upon those who murdered his brother?

....I don't think we can trully ascertain the intent of his actions....but their are those on this post that have declared what his intent was....on both sides of this issue.

As to wether JS should have surrendered to the mob (and his slaughter) ...or he should have fought back. I don't know.

To me, I would think if he had surrendered himself, his brother might have lived as well as the other two. The argument has been made that all four in jail could have died if that happened...maybe so.

My original quote

Striking out in an act of vengance is not a good thing.

No reasonable person would look at one man shooting back at two hundred people shooting at him, and accuse him of "striking out in an act of vengance" [sic.] The accusation is ridiculous and desperate. To anyone who does not hate the doomed man, his actions are clearly self-defense and nothing else.

Your real beef in all this is that you are an anti-Mormon, and can't stand the thought that a religion you despise should have authentic Christian martyrs for its cause.

The fact is that nothing Joseph did in Carthage Jail that day was anything other than reasonable and just. And the fact that the proto-CARMites who murdered him and his brother--and against whom he defended himself and his friends--were your kind of "Christians" does nothing to diminish the morality of his actions.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Zakuska]

I think the reason the apostles were armed was not so that Peter could cut a guys ear off.

If that was the case...then Christ wouldn't have healed the wounded man.

It is much more likely that presence of those armaments were a deterent to the opposing force, so that Christ would not be seized prematurely...how many OT prophecies would not have been fullfilled by Jesus had he been taken at that point?

Peter took liberty with the weapon...and it was never implied in Scripture that Christ wanted him to use it.

However, perhaps EV's do unfairly hold JS to the standard of Christ (I am an EV that has done so) on his use of the revolver (and for the record I don't believe Christ would have fired randomly into a mob of armed men with a revolver). JS was just a man after all (like you or me)...not the only begotten Son of God. To hold him to such a comparison would be like a sinful man casting the first stone at another.

On the contrary... Some one needs to read up on the Politics in play that got Christ killed.

It was in direct concordance with the Prophecy. What was it that the Jews were expecting? A military leader that would lead them in victory in a revolt against the Romans. (Think Masada in 70 AD ) Judas played his part perfectly. Betraying the Lord when he marched with a now armed possy.

So Christ gave them what they wanted he armed his men and marched to take the throne of Israel. He had been anointed as King, just like David and Solomon. Thus he was being charged with treason for making himself "the king of the Jews". He wasnt going to take the trone by Physical force though. He was going to do it by paying the price for sin in the "Olive Press".

PS. The very act of telling Peter to buy a sword implies "use" of said side arm. "Hey Peter, quickly, as fast as you can go sell everything you have and buy a sword, but hey... I'll be dambed if your going to use it."

This also sets the back drop for Peter denying the Lord 3 times. Thus the story Luke tells us informs us that the people who recognized Peter and to whom he denied the Christ where the people who had witnessed him cutting off the Police officers ear. He was guilty of asulting an officer of the law. And you thought we only had Police Brutality in our day and age. I cant blame Peter. Can you?

[Pahoran]

Incidentally, the folks on CARM, who are one group of the heirs and successors of the Carthage murderers, in promulgating the evil (and therefore in-character) lie that the Saints worship Joseph, like to cite snippets from the old hymn, "The Seer, Joseph the Seer." There is one passage from that hymn that I remember at times like this:

Let fiends now rage in their dark hour;

No matter, no matter;

He is beyond their power.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Scott Lloyd]

Incidentally, the folks on CARM, who are one group of the heirs and successors of the Carthage murderers, in promulgating the evil (and therefore in-character) lie that the Saints worship Joseph, like to cite snippets from the old hymn, "The Seer, Joseph the Seer." There is one passage from that hymn that I remember at times like this:

Let fiends now rage in their dark hour;

No matter, no matter;

He is beyond their power.

Regards,

Pahoran

Yeah. And "Praise to the Man" as well is a target of contempt from the typical anti-Mormon.

I take their derision as a mark of honor.

[Calm]

The quote cited in the D&C seems to me to have a specific focus:

“I am going like a lamb to the slaughter; but I am calm as a summer’s morning; I have a conscience void of offense towards God, and towards all men. I SHALL DIE INNOCENT, AND IT SHALL YET BE SAID OF ME—HE WAS MURDERED IN COLD BLOOD.”

It seems to be a specific proclamation of his innocence. The last two phrases are focused on his innocence, it makes logical sense that the first of the three is for the same sole purpose.

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/135/4#4

[Zakuska]

Well... Inocent until proven Guilty in a Court of Law... at least by the constitution of the United States and contra the Constitution they the Mob both Modern and in the 1830's lived by. JS never saw his day in court. So yes... he was innocent at the time.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Yeah. And "Praise to the Man" as well is a target of contempt from the typical anti-Mormon.

I take their derision as a mark of honor.

Agreed.

Parenthetically, does anyone know where one might obtain a recording of "The Seer?" I haven't heard it since the Nauvoo Temple dedication.

The quote cited in the D&C seems to me to have a specific focus:It seems to be a specific proclamation of his innocence. The last two phrases are focused on his innocence, it makes logical sense that the first of the three is for the same sole purpose.

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/135/4#4

This is a key point. Thanks.

[Scott Lloyd]

Parenthetically, does anyone know where one might obtain a recording of "The Seer?" I haven't heard it since the Nauvoo Temple dedication.

In 1996, when the Mormon Youth Chorus and Symphony was still in existence they put out an album in commemoration of the Pioneer Sequicentennial called "Nauvoo Brass Bands." On the album was a very nice recording of "The Seer, Joseph, the Seer."

I have the album on both CD and cassette tape somewhere at home.

Alas, it is now out of print. And the Mormon Youth organization was disbanded several years ago prior to formation of the Orchestra at Temple Square.

[Scott Lloyd]

The quote cited in the D&C seems to me to have a specific focus:It seems to be a specific proclamation of his innocence. The last two phrases are focused on his innocence, it makes logical sense that the first of the three is for the same sole purpose.

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/135/4#4

Agreed. At the same time, it is a very nice scriptural allusion to all the prophets and apostles who have gone before who have died as martyrs -- and to the Savior Himself.

[MormonMason]

...

As far as it being "end of story", I'd appreciate you commenting on the other points I raised regarding your conclusion. No offense, but you make it sound like anyone who fights, flees, is captured, and executed can be said to be killed as a defenseless "lamb to the slaughter" because their ammo is spent and they are injured past running.

That's still one of the biggest issues I have with accepting your viewpoint.

Thanks all for the discussion! I appreciate you helping me understand where you're all coming from, and how different Mormons think about this subject.

Whether or not you really accept our viewpoint or not is irrelevant. In all seriousness, Jesus himself did not fulfill to the letter the lamb to the slaughter prophecy that was spoken concerning him in Isaiah. It is interesting to note that it did not appear to have been applied to him until a little later on, until Acts 8:32. It is also of interest that he by no means remained silent during the trial and execution. There were a couple points where he spoke in spite of the fact that the particular prophecy stated that he would remain silent as a lamb before its shearers and while being led to the slaughter. That he spoke several times in between times of silence is clear from the Bible itself. He also spoke while on the cross before his death and spoke some words just before he died. So, it is obvious to me that he was not exactly silent the whole time as seems to be implied by the Isaiah version as you want to hold it out to us.

But, as to the Jeremiah version where Jeremiah claimed to be led to the slaughter when he did not end up slaughtered (Jeremiah 11:9), it was a better fit to Joseph Smith as has been maintained above. There are two "lamb to the slaughter" statements in the Old Testament. What makes us have to choose Isaiah's for Joseph Smith? And how about Jeremiah 51:40? Do you honestly think that everyone who was covered under this prophecy really remained "like a lamb to the slaughter" when the events that were prophesied began to take place? Or, is there yet another meaning to this phrase than you are willing to admit?

Fact is, not every single element has to apply to apply, in spite of the claims of those who insist that we must apply the "lamb to the slaughter" analogy to Joseph Smith precisely as it has been applied to Jesus Christ. Otherwise, we might have to reject the prophecy regarding Jesus as well if we want to get into all sorts of technicalities as to when he was supposed to remain silent and when he was not, in spite of the fact that the prophecy seems to allude to the entire time in which Jesus was to remain silent, at least until Jesus was slaughtered. Fact is, Jesus did not remain silent the entire time, having spoken at certain times in the process that led up to his death. I would venture to say that he probably even cried out when being flayed alive and having his teeth broken out by the soldiers who tortured him beforehand. Early New Testament manuscripts also do have him crying out when he was stabbed with the spear while on the cross, at any rate.

Something to think about, is it not? Of will you not think about it at all and continue to insist what you do for your own amusement?

At any rate, in keeping with the subject of the thread, did Joseph Smith did in a shoot-out? Answer: No. He died outside of the prison walls, unarmed and defenseless.

[truebeliever]

I think the reason the apostles were armed was not so that Peter could cut a guys ear off.

If that was the case...then Christ wouldn't have healed the wounded man.

It is much more likely that presence of those armaments were a deterent to the opposing force, so that Christ would not be seized prematurely...how many OT prophecies would not have been fullfilled by Jesus had he been taken at that point?

Peter took liberty with the weapon...and it was never implied in Scripture that Christ wanted him to use it.

However, perhaps EV's do unfairly hold JS to the standard of Christ (I am an EV that has done so) on his use of the revolver (and for the record I don't believe Christ would have fired randomly into a mob of armed men with a revolver). JS was just a man after all (like you or me)...not the only begotten Son of God. To hold him to such a comparison would be like a sinful man casting the first stone at another.

We might also note the physical environment in which Jesus and the apostles were living in. You've got muggers, theives, not to mention wild animals. I believe these weapons were on their persons for self defense of several reasons.

[Aquilifer]

We might also note the physical environment in which Jesus and the apostles were living in. You've got muggers, theives, not to mention wild animals. I believe these weapons were on their persons for self defense of several reasons.

Yes, as opposed to the benign frontier of mid-nineteenth century America.

[truebeliever]

This also sets the back drop for Peter denying the Lord 3 times. Thus the story Luke tells us informs us that the people who recognized Peter and to whom he denied the Christ where the people who had witnessed him cutting off the Police officers ear. He was guilty of asulting an officer of the law. And you thought we only had Police Brutality in our day and age. I cant blame Peter. Can you?

Come on...Peter denied Jesus because he was afraid of suffering a similar fate.

[Mudcat]

No reasonable person would look at one man shooting back at two hundred people shooting at him, and accuse him of "striking out in an act of vengance" [sic.] The accusation is ridiculous and desperate. To anyone who does not hate the doomed man, his actions are clearly self-defense and nothing else.

Your real beef in all this is that you are an anti-Mormon, and can't stand the thought that a religion you despise should have authentic Christian martyrs for its cause.

The fact is that nothing Joseph did in Carthage Jail that day was anything other than reasonable and just. And the fact that the proto-CARMites who murdered him and his brother--and against whom he defended himself and his friends--were your kind of "Christians" does nothing to diminish the morality of his actions.

Regards,

Pahoran

Pahoran,

I may have strong opinions. It is obvious that you disagree with them.

That is your perogative.

However, you assume to much.

You can not read my thoughts, you don't know what my beef is, or whom I affiliate myself with.

In this above argument over JS's intended thoughts and his martyrdom...I have not assumed that I knew his thoughts, as you do me. I have questioned them.

Your response to me on the subject...has definitley been one of assertion...not of questioning.

It is ill placed and ill received.

I think it was men who assumed to much, judged to much and asserted to much.... that killed your Prophet.

If you think that Im glad that, "my kind of Christians", as you so thoughtfully put it, killed him...you are mistaken and out of place.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[PacMan]

Well, he was, of course. But the article doesn't say he was not in jail. It just doesn't mention it.

After the mob assembled in the square and a large body of them overwhelmed the guard and rushed up the stairs to the room Joseph and his associates were in; and after a number of volleys were fired by them through the wooden door; and after one of those rounds hit Hyrum in the head and killed him; Joseph Smith took out a small pistol that had been smuggled into him and blindly fired about three shots around the door into the mob on the landing.

After that, Joseph Smith rushed to the window where he was hit from rounds both inside and outside.

So technically, it could be said that Joseph Smith died in a "shoot-out."

This is part of what I meant when I said I found the spin to be breathtaking.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Consig,

I thought the jail-keeper gave him the gun because he knew what was going to happen. Am I wrong?

PacMan

[Zakuska]

Come on...Peter denied Jesus because he was afraid of suffering a similar fate.

Aaa... isnt that exactly what I just said?

And why would he suffer a similar fate? Because he was the one who had assualted the officer at the command of his superior.

[truebeliever]

Aaa... isnt that exactly what I just said?

And why would he suffer a similar fate? Because he was the one who had assualted the officer at the command of his superior.

guilt by association. Same fate.

police brutality, i don't think, would not have got you crucified. perhaps thrown into a pit, or something

[Zakuska]

Well lets see... we have two "mere theifs" being crucified along side the politicising Christ and his rabble rousers and yet Peter would just be thrown in a pit for his assualt on a Government official?

What planet are you living on anyways? People where being fed to lions for merely mentioning the name Christ during this time.

[Mudcat]

This has gotten off thread and pointless

Wake me up when we get back on topic...or I when get randomly attacked by a wild pack of mormons

[Zakuska]

Well lets see... we where talking about side-arms being used just before Joseph Smith was murdered. I fail to see how comparing that to a similar situation... (Ie side arms being used to defend the Savior) is " Getting off Topic"?

[truebeliever]

Well lets see... we have two "mere theifs" being crucified along side the politicising Christ and his rabble rousers and yet Peter would just be thrown in a pit for his assualt on a Government official?

What planet are you living on anyways? People where being fed to lions for merely mentioning the name Christ during this time.

The accusations made by those who saw peter in public after jesus had been arrested was that he was one of the ones that followed Jesus, or he was with jesus. would they not have done the same thing to any of the others whom they recognized? All of them ran and hid, but not all of them assaulted the roman official, so why did the others hide?

besides, where's the proof that he did anything? Jesus healed the man.

[Mudcat]

Well lets see... we where talking about side-arms being used just before Joseph Smith was murdered. I fail to see how comparing that to a similar situation... (Ie side arms being used to defend the Savior) is " Getting off Topic"?

Hmmm...I see someone has stirred up the pack.

Well.....

Because JS wasn't defending the Saviour. Peter was.

Are we comparing JS to the Saviour, if so, you need to prove a solid case that Christ would have fired a revolver on a mob or armed men that were going to kill him.

If you're comparing JS to Peter....whats the point. They were both men.

[Zakuska]

truebeleiver,

You need to pay better attention...

John 18

10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priestâ??s servant, and cut off his right ear. The servantâ??s name was Malchus.

11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the acup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?

12 Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him,

13 And led him away to Annas first; for he was father in law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same year.

14 Now aCaiaphas was he, which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people.

15