Joseph Smith Died In A "shoot-out"

[Scott Lloyd]

I must say that I find this whole exercise rather distasteful. To sit comfortably in negative judgment of the tactics employed by someone during the last few seconds of his life who was facing a heavily armed and plainly murderous mob strikes me as simply too morally complacent and self-congratulatory for words.

Agreed.

Its like the historical fact of murder at the hands of a bigoted mob is not enough to assuage their hatred for him. They have to try to disparage his memory more 160 years later.

The angel Moroni was dead-on in his prophecy (see Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smithâ??History 1:33).

[Bernard Gui]

but he did use it(injured one and killed two)...so it isnt a moot point.

None of those in the mob who were wounded died from their wounds.

Nor were they convicted of killing the Smiths, even though the evidence

was obvious.

Bernard

[urroner]

Suppose some well known and very righteous Evangelical is sitting at home with his family and all of a sudden he is attacked by a mob of crazy anti-Christians who attack him and his family simply because they are offended by his beliefs and teachings.

1. Should he defend his family or should he just let the Antis have they way with his family after he exposes his bare chest to the mob so they can have a clear shot at him? what should he do?

2. If he defends his family and resists the mob, should he be considered a martyr or should he be denied this title because he simply defended his family like the Lord would probably wanted him to do?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Praise to his memr'y he died as a martyr!

Traitors and tyrants now fight him in vain!

Death cannot conquer the hero again!

[Scott Lloyd]

Suppose some well known and very righteous Evangelical is sitting at home with his family and all of a sudden he is attacked by a mob of crazy anti-Christians who attack him and his family simply because they are offended by his beliefs and teachings.

1. Should he defend his family or should he just let the Antis have they way with his family after he exposes his bare chest to the mob so they can have a clear shot at him? what should he do?

2. If he defends his family and resists the mob, should he be considered a martyr or should he be denied this title because he simply defended his family like the Lord would probably wanted him to do?

Or, consistent with how HanClinto thinks things should have gone re: Joseph and his brethren, should our hypothetical Evangelical step outside the house and give himself up to the mob, trusting that they will leave his family alone?

[MormonMason]

...

Im not saying he was a martyr....Im not saying he wasnt. Im saying his martyrdom is debatable. Had he not used the sidearm ...it would be a moot point (at least in my mind)...but he did use it(injured one and killed two)...so it isnt a moot point.

...

The death of two people at the time is a myth started from a rumor account. Testimony in the case is different, not only naming the three who were wounded but showing their survival after the fact. None were killed at the time by the shots they received.

See Carthage Conspiracy, pp. 52-53, or see my post above containing the relevant portions from those pages.

But, none of this changes the fact that Joseph Smith did not die during a "shoot-out." That ended after his shots were spent. He jumped out the window. Then, he died outside, being shot to death while he was sitting there quietly, unarmed. That makes him a martyr in the fullest sense and that is how he died--quietly and unarmed. And, he did it for his beliefs. That especially makes him a martyr in the fullest sense.

None of those in the mob who were wounded died from their wounds.

Nor were they convicted of killing the Smiths, even though the evidence

was obvious.

Bernard

The three were never brought to trial because all three of them fled the area because their wounds would have proved their being there in court. Two of them did get new suits for doing the deed, though.

[Mudcat]

None of those in the mob who were wounded died from their wounds.

Nor were they convicted of killing the Smiths, even though the evidence

was obvious.

Bernard

"Elder Cyrus H. Wheelock came in to see us, and when he was about leaving drew a small pistol, a six-shooter, from his pocket, remarking at the same time, 'Would any of you like to have this?' Brother Joseph immediately replied, 'Yes, give it to me,' whereupon he took the pistol, and put it in his pantaloons pocket.... I was sitting at one of the front windows of the jail, when I saw a number of men, with painted faces, coming around the corner of the jail, and aiming towards the stairs.... (Hyrum was shot in the face and was killed instantly, John Taylor continued)

I shall never forget the deep feeling of sympathy and regard manifested in the countenance of Brother Joseph as he drew nigh to Hyrum, and, leaning over him, exclaimed, 'Oh! my poor, dear brother Hyrum!' He, however, instantly arose, and with a firm, quick step, and a determined expression of countenance, approached the door, and pulling the six-shooter left by Brother Wheelock from his pocket, opened the door slightly, and snapped the pistol six successive times; only three of the barrels, however, were discharged. I afterwards understood that two or three were wounded by these discharges, two of whom, I am informed died." (History of the Church, Vol. 7, p. 100, 102 & 103)"

I assume you hold this as heresay....

and would prefer documents outside of the LDS church to make your case.

By Webster's definition..JS was a martyr.

The real question...I think everyone has been dancing around is this.

Did he set an example..with the sidearm and at the very least wounding 3 before his death..that is Christ-like?

[urroner]

Did he set an example..with the sidearm and at the very least wounding 3 before his death..that is Christ-like?

So Mudcat, if a mad mob attacked you and your friends, would you defend yourself and your friends or would you just let them kill you and your friends? Is it at all Christ-like to defend yourself or others?

How Christ-like is it for Christ to wipes out most of Earth's population when he returns or to send billions of people to an eternity of suffering in Hell?

[Daniel Peterson]

The real question...I think everyone has been dancing around is this.

Did he set an example..with the sidearm and at the very least wounding 3 before his death..that is Christ-like?

Defending innocent people against bloodthirsty murderers is a righteous act and a good thing.

(I don't dance.)

[Greg Smith]

Let me make absolutely clear, Joseph Smith was unjustly murdered in a horrible fashion. The question for us here is would most people define Joseph Smith as a Martyr.

The common definition of a religious martyr includes willingly suffering or dying for a religious cause. Since Joseph fought back, many people would commonly discount his death as a martyrdom. This is compounded by the fact that Joseph was being held for violating the secular law, namely the destruction of the Nauvoo press.

Let me use an example for illustration. Joan of Arc is generally considered to be a martyr because she willing submitted to the will of the Church in her execution. If she had died in battle or had fought her captors to try to escape, she still might be considered a hero but most people would not consider her a martyr.

I seem to have hit a nerve on this one. I am just trying to point out a lexical disconnect between Mormons and non-Mormons.

John

I think you will find that your "leixcal disconnect" is more between you and even traditional Christian usage. This is why it is a "nerve" is because it betrays either an ignorance of much Christian usage, or a desire not to admit that such usage exists.

To wit:

The classic Protestant work on martyrs is John Foxe, Fox's Book of Martyrs, Or A History of the Lives, Sufferings, and Triumphant Deaths of the Primitive Protestant Martyrs (First published 1563). (italics added in all cases)

"An account of the Persecutions of Calabria"...

These authorized persons came to St. Xist, one of the towns built by the Waldenses, and having assembled the people told them, that they should receive no injury or violence, if they would accept of preachers appointed by the pope;[108] but if they would not, they should be deprived both of their properties and lives; and that their intentions might be known, mass should be publicly said that afternoon, at which they were ordered to attend.

The people of St. Xist, instead of attending mass, fled into the woods, with their families, and thus disappointed the cardinal and his coadjutorsâ?¦

The cardinal having gained his point by deluding the people of one town, sent for troops of soldiers, with a view to murder those of the other. He, accordingly, despatched the soldiers into the woods, to hunt down the inhabitants of St. Xist like wild beasts, and gave them strict orders to spare neither age nor sex, but to kill all they came near. The troops entered the woods, and many fell a prey to their ferocity, before the Waldenses were properly apprised of their design. At length, however, they determined to sell their lives as dear as possible, when several conflicts happened, in which the half-armed Waldenses performed prodigies of valour, and many were slain on both sides. The greatest part of the troops being killed in the different rencontres, the rest were compelled to retreat, which so enraged the cardinal, that he wrote to the viceroy of Naples for reinforcements. [107â??109]

So, here we have a case where the "martyrs" mentioned by Foxe:

* tried to flee to escape capture (doesn't sound very willing)

* determined to sell their lives as dearly as possible

* killed most of the people coming to kill THEM for their religious belief

Yet, they're still martyrs.

Or:

"Further Persecutions in the Valleys of Piedmont, in the seventeenth Century"â?¦

A soldier, attempting to ravish a young woman, named Susanna Gacquin, she made a stout resistance, and in the struggle pushed him[129] over a precipice, when he was dashed to pieces by the fall.

[126, 128â??129.

There are, of course, dozens more.

I've put some here for those who are interested:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Martyrdom_in_Christian_history

And, you can read the whole book on-line at your leisure:

http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/22400

If Foxe's usage of "martyr" doesn't reflect Christian (especially Protestant Christian) norms, then language has no meaning. (Which is, of course, the whole point--one cannot even allow Joseph Smith to be a deluded man who was, nevertheless, a martyr. One can be a martyr and still be wrong. But, the critics are willing to play silly semantic games because they will not even grant him that much.)

Best,

Greg

[urroner]

Greg, how dare you bring facts into this discussion.

[Mudcat]

Defending innocent people against bloodthirsty murderers is a righteous act and a good thing.

(I don't dance.)

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

The fact of the matter...is that you..nor I ...can ascertain the intent of JS when he fired.

[urroner]

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

The fact of the matter...is that you..nor I ...can ascertain the intent of JS when he fired.

But is striking out to defend oneself and ones family a good thing or a bad thing?

Also, why is it that in the eyes of several Evangelicals on this board that Joseph Smith was not righteous in any way when he attempted to to defend his friends and himself in what seemed to be a hopeless cause? They all seem to believe that he should have just let the mob kill himself?

[Daniel Peterson]

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

The fact of the matter...is that you..nor I ...can ascertain the intent of JS when he fired.

Then there is nothing to be said.

And no grounds for anyone to condemn Joseph on this point, nor even to insinuate wrongdoing on his part.

[Zakuska]

"Elder Cyrus H. Wheelock came in to see us, and when he was about leaving drew a small pistol, a six-shooter, from his pocket, remarking at the same time, 'Would any of you like to have this?' Brother Joseph immediately replied, 'Yes, give it to me,' whereupon he took the pistol, and put it in his pantaloons pocket.... I was sitting at one of the front windows of the jail, when I saw a number of men, with painted faces, coming around the corner of the jail, and aiming towards the stairs.... (Hyrum was shot in the face and was killed instantly, John Taylor continued)

I shall never forget the deep feeling of sympathy and regard manifested in the countenance of Brother Joseph as he drew nigh to Hyrum, and, leaning over him, exclaimed, 'Oh! my poor, dear brother Hyrum!' He, however, instantly arose, and with a firm, quick step, and a determined expression of countenance, approached the door, and pulling the six-shooter left by Brother Wheelock from his pocket, opened the door slightly, and snapped the pistol six successive times; only three of the barrels, however, were discharged. I afterwards understood that two or three were wounded by these discharges, two of whom, I am informed died." (History of the Church, Vol. 7, p. 100, 102 & 103)"

First mudcat... If you took the time to notice... this "Report" was given almost SIX years after the fact in Salt Lake City. Of course two of the drunk'n ruffians had died by then.

I assume you hold this as heresay....

and would prefer documents outside of the LDS church to make your case.

But as someone already pointed you to the court documents documented in Carthage Conspiracy... perhaps you would like to tell us why the US government indited the 3 wounded men to court for the Murder? I was unaware that the US government exercised... Necro-judication?

By Webster's definition..JS was a martyr.

The real question...I think everyone has been dancing around is this.

Did he set an example..with the sidearm and at the very least wounding 3 before his death..that is Christ-like?

Also... can you tell us Mudcat... was it "Christ-Like" for Peter to use the "side-arm" that Jesus told him to buy?

Luke 22

36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the atransgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.

38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

Is that Christ-Like?

[Mudcat]

Then there is nothing to be said.

And no grounds for anyone to condemn Joseph on this point, nor even to insinuate wrongdoing on his part.

nor is there anygrounds to defend him on this point, or insinuate righteous doing on his part.

but....you say this and I say that...so there must be something to say.

So tell us Mudcat... was it "Christ-Like" for Peter to use the "side-arm" the Jesus told him to buy?

Luke 22

The real question would be do you?

[Zakuska]

No... the bigger question IS... Did Christ?

He told him to buy it after all...

He also knew the Authorities where coming to get him... so why the need to Arm his men?

[Daniel Peterson]

nor is there anygrounds to defend him on this point, or insinuate righteous doing on his part.

There is the simple principle that a man is innocent until proven guilty.

When certain anti-Mormons depict him as having gone to his death in a gun-fight, they're trying to portray him as guilty and as unworthy of respect as a good man. It is, accordingly, entirely appropriate for others to respond to that attack on his reputation -- which, as you have now acknowledged, is baseless.

[urroner]

nor is there anygrounds to defend him on this point, or insinuate righteous doing on his part.

but....you say this and I say that...so there must be something to say.

The real question would be do you?

Was it Christ-like for the ancient Jews to utterly destroy cities after God told them to utterly destroy them?

[MormonMason]

And, none of the above changes the fact that Joseph Smith was NOT killed in a "shoot-out" as claimed by the quote in the original post. He jumped the window and afterward was shot to death, unarmed, without a fight, while sitting there quietly. He died a martyr in the fullest sense. Evangelicals seem to like to ignore these facts.

[Mudcat]

There is the simple principle that a man is innocent until proven guilty.

When certain anti-Mormons depict him as having gone to his death in a gun-fight, they're trying to portray him as guilty and as unworthy of respect as a good man. It is, accordingly, entirely appropriate for others to respond to that attack on his reputation -- which, as you have now acknowledged, is baseless.

He died shortly after he discharged a pistol into a crowd that was firing upon him. They fought with guns and he fought back with a gun. What pray tell...do you define as a gunfight..that does not fit within that parameter.

your defense of his reputation is no less baseless and no more credible..than my "percieved" attack.

[Zakuska]

Christ died shortly after arming his men and letting one of them attack an armed officer of the Law, who brought him to the leaders of a mob.

So are we to conclude that Christ died in a Sword fight?

No wonders he and Joseph Smith where being charged with Treason! "King of the Jews"... and all.

[urroner]

Mudcat, are you ever going to answer any of my questions about what is or isn't Christ-like when it comes to defending ones family or oneself?

[Mudcat]

And, none of the above changes the fact that Joseph Smith was NOT killed in a "shoot-out" as claimed by the quote in the original post. He jumped the window and afterward was shot to death, unarmed, without a fight, while sitting there quietly. He died a martyr in the fullest sense. Evangelicals seem to like to ignore these facts.

I've always understood that their were differing reports.... he was dead when he fell out, he was shot down after. Im sure you believe which ever side reinforces your previous beliefs about JS.

[Mudcat]

Mudcat, are you ever going to answer any of my questions about what is or isn't Christ-like when it comes to defending ones family or oneself?

No Im not.

You are asking me a question based on my previous question.

That's anwering a ? with a ?

I don't respond to those.

But I could ask you a ? then you could..instead of answering, ask me a ?....then I could instead of answering, ask you a ? and so on.

If you would prefer that...lemme know, and I'll ask you the same one again.