Chapel Mormons

[Daniel Peterson]

I shouldn't have to be an adult Mormon, fighting attacks from "outsiders" that know more facts about the church I was raised in then I do!

I couldn't agree more.

No Latter-day Saint should remain ignorant. I hope all members of the Church will try to learn more about the scriptures, Church history and doctrine, and the like.

[Daniel Peterson]

Well, I acknowledge your right to think that those men individuals you named are honest. . . just as it is my right to admire the intellects that I do.

The people I cited are professional historians, respected and published far beyond Mormondom, honored in academia and professional societies, even, in many cases, beloved. For you to suggest, or even to quote the suggestion, that they're all dishonest -- particularly when you don't appear to be familiar with even their names, let alone with their historical work -- is . . . well, it's the kind of thing, sadly, that anonymous people feel free to do on the Internet.

But it's pretty low, nonetheless.

[wenglund]

Frankly, my upbringing didn't cultivate anything but naivety. Call me a very trusting and willing child. . . there were so many like me out there. I feel like everyone wants to say, "look at the fool!" HAHAHA what an idiot. . . but I guess I am an advocate for all of us "idiots" that didn't get it.

I, too, am an advocate for the so-called "idiots". But, rather than griping and pointing the finger of blame, endulging the ignorance, or feeding the inanity, I chose instead to empower people with an edifying sense of responsibility and a bit of direction as to where and how to "get it".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

The people I cited are professional historians, respected and published far beyond Mormondom, honored in academia and professional societies, even, in many cases, beloved. For you to suggest, or even to quote the suggestion, that they're all dishonest -- particularly when you don't appear to be familiar with even their names, let alone with their historical work -- is . . . well, it's the kind of thing, sadly, that anonymous people feel free to do on the Internet.

But it's pretty low, nonetheless.

And indicative of a carelessness to historical details and accuracy that could lead to a view of history that was full of gaps and inaccuracies.

[Markk]

I am sure Markk will be in to defend himself, which of course, he is entightled to do.

But that is my thinking that just these little bits of info seem to me to think that Markk was not all that active. Of course I will wait to see what he says. And if Markk was not all that active in the church, that might explain why he thinks it was such a big deal to find some of these things out from sources other than what the church provides. And if this is the case then it is totally Markks issue and it is his fault. And he should stop blamming the church. Lets wait and see how it unfolds.

Hi Mola,

I'm amazed at what I am reading as I am catching up.

In summmary no one here knows at least so far, in my catching up with this thread, if this was ever printed in a teaching manual of the church. Has it actually ever been taught from the pulpit? It's come down to personal attacks on me and it's my fault even though know one here actually knows whether or not it is in a teaching manual pre 2000.

I only made it to priest because of reasons that had nothing to do with my faith in God or my trust in the LDS church, if you choose to make this the reason, then go ahead it really doesn't matter. I grew up in a ver loving LDS family, with VERY loving LDS parents, and I had very loving LDS grand parents(both sides), 5 brothers and sisters, and by going to church every Sunday to all available meetings, MIA, boy scouts, church ball,,etc for the first 16 or 17 years of my life. By having everyone in my family on both sides of the family being very TBM, and having a very loving grandfather who was for a lack of a better term a "legend" in the So Cal Church. If you were raised in the church you would understand this, and you most likely wouldn't even have asked such a stupid question, if you are a convert you really wouldn't have a clue and the question is understandable. Again I could care less either way.

Mola, one thing is clear from this thread and from threads in the past, your just winging your way through this stuff. Whether you agree with what I say, or whether I agree with someone like a DP or Bluebell, we have at least done our home work and understand what we believe and why we believe it ( well, maybe not Bluebell and Grace... a joke), I suggest a little more reading and less typing.

Take care

Mark

[Markk]

I never said that I don't know if the Church has taught this.

I know for a fact that it has, in periodicals and displays and presentations and books by Church leaders and lesson manuals and official histories and so on and so forth. Since 1844. I've said this several times before. I've said it for several days. I say it again now. I hope I won't need to repeat it any more.

Your statement would be more accurate and objective, and much less prejudicial, if you simply said "I never learned this."

Did anybody actually claim that?

What pre 2000, or so, lesson manuals? We have already discussed that the very most of these publications were not practically available to saints, if at all,before the Internet, the context is teaching Dan. I am trying to figure out why this is my fault if I never had it taught to me growing up in the church?

Were you ever taught this by a teacher in church when being taught the martyrdom on Sunday growing up in the So Cal Church?

Your statement would be more accurate and objective, and much less prejudicial, if you simply said "I never learned this."

OK, I never learned this because I was never taught this by LDS teachers in the LDS church, nor was my parents, or many many other relatives and members...how's that, it seems as if you believe I'm the first one to make this statement...why?

Mark

[Markk]

You have some catching up to do: Post Link 1, Post Link 2, Post Link 3

I addressed this yesterday ttribe, go back and read a little.

Mark

[Markk]

Here's a news flash: Joseph having a gun in the Carthage jail, isn't the "meat" of the gospel, or the "desert", or an "Hors d'

[Calm]

In summmary no one here knows at least so far, in my catching up with this thread, if this was ever printed in a teaching manual of the church.

Only if you choose to ignore the example given of the Institute manuals.

[Danzo]

You just never read any detailed accounts of the incident. It is obvious that for you, the fact that joseph had a gun is very important. For other, including, myself, it just adds a bit of suspense to the story and makes it more interesting. Although it appears that you were never taught of the existance of the all important gun, You should not argue that the church was hiding the information. There has been enough evidence presented here to show that the informations was available to anyone who was interested in details about Joseph Smith.

BTW, it may shock you to know that Joseph Smith also went to the bathroom occasionally, I know, It probibly was not taught to you in primary. Perhaps the church didn't want you to know, perhaps there should be a book on it

[Calm]

What pre 2000, or so, lesson manuals? We have already discussed that the very most of these publications were not practically available to saints, if at all,before the Internet, the context is teaching Dan.

The Barrett (first published in 1967) and then more recent Church History in the Fullness of Times Institute manuals would have been available at minimum to all college age kids who lived near an institute which counts for the majority of colleges and universities in the States and Canada. This was also published generally for anyone else who wanted to read it. The manuals have been available to all members through the Church Distribution center at least since the oldest copy of the catalogue that I have which is in the 80s.

The current Sunday lesson manuals have been around since at least the early 90s IIRC.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

What it is Wade is the truth, it's what happened and a important part of what happened, if it wasn't a big deal so many wouldn't be disillusioned by the lack of teaching by the church on the subject.

Mark

So the fact that JS had a gun was the important part, but the fact the JS was a martyr is what? Just icing on the cake? Disillusioned? I say it is an poor excuse to try and beat the church with.

[wenglund]

What it is Wade is the truth, it's what happened and a important part of what happened, if it wasn't a big deal so many wouldn't be disillusioned by the lack of teaching by the church on the subject. Mark

Wrong. So many of you are spiritually disillusioned by spiritual irrelevancy--things that have nothing of significance to do with coming to Christ and becoming like Christ (i.e. the mission of the Church)...and that is the one truth you dare not open your minds to and face up to. Your choice, your loss.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Wiki Wonka]

OK, I never learned this because I was never taught this by LDS teachers in the LDS church, nor was my parents, or many many other relatives and members...how's that, it seems as if you believe I'm the first one to make this statement...why?

Mark

Well, I don't know what time frame you are talking about, but I certainly knew about the gun and Joseph firing it as I was growing up in the 70s. Its an integral part of the story. Hyrum gets shot in the face through the door, and Joseph reaches around the door and shoots. And there's the matter of the Church produced filmstrip "The Martrydom" that I mentioned earlier. It told about how Cyrus Wheelock gave Joseph a gun while in the jail and told how Joseph used it. This was a filmstrip we showed all the time while I was on my mission.

[Markk]

So the fact that JS had a gun was the important part, but the fact the JS was a martyr is what? Just icing on the cake? Disillusioned? I say it is an poor excuse to try and beat the church with.

Hi Mola,

I believe with all my heart that JS is a martyr, anyone who says different hasn't been in or around the LDS church, we can debate as to what "fashion" of a martyr Smith is, but oh boy he is definitely a martyr. The fact that he had a gun is simply the truth, and by using the gun sheds a different light on him and of his character as compared to the teaching that was pounded into me that he went to his death in a similar fashion as Christ did. If you do not understand this, you have no clue what my argument is. It's not about the gun Mola, please try to understand this it's about the story of his martyrdom and how the use of the gun changed it

Mark

[Markk]

Well, I don't know what time frame you are talking about, but I certainly knew about the gun and Joseph firing it as I was growing up in the 70s. Its an integral part of the story. Hyrum gets shot in the face through the door, and Joseph reaches around the door and shoots. And there's the matter of the Church produced filmstrip "The Martrydom" that I mentioned earlier. It told about how Cyrus Wheelock gave Joseph a gun while in the jail and told how Joseph used it. This was a filmstrip we showed all the time while I was on my mission.

How did you learn this story?

[Markk]

Wrong. So many of you are spiritually disillusioned by spiritual irrelevancy--things that have nothing of significance to do with coming to Christ and becoming like Christ (i.e. the mission of the Church)...and that is the one truth you dare not open your minds to and face up to. Your choice, your loss.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Is the JS martyrdom story important at all, or just the gun part...help me out here I'm trying to understand you here.

Mark

[Daniel Peterson]

In summmary no one here knows at least so far, in my catching up with this thread, if this was ever printed in a teaching manual of the church. Has it actually ever been taught from the pulpit?

I don't have all that many teaching manuals from ten years ago and more sitting right by my elbow. Do you?

Do you know that the mysterious unknown gun that was known to so very many wasn't in teaching manuals before 2000?

We've demonstrated that the unheard of, never discussed gun was mentioned in the basic, widely known works on Church history that everybody (who read) read, continuing through multiple editions. We've shown that it was covered in periodicals, in books by Church leaders, in displays, in traveling exhibits, and the like.

If you want to demonstrate that it never appeared in instruction manuals, do so. The claim is yours. Justify it. But I think you're going to have a hard time with the project.

It's come down to personal attacks on me and it's my fault even though know one here actually knows whether or not it is in a teaching manual pre 2000.

Based solely on books sitting on the shelf to my left at home, I've demonstrated that it was in two editions (1967 and 1973) of the manual (Ivan J. Barrett's Joseph Smith and the Restoration) that was used for Church history courses at BYU-Provo, Ricks College, the Church College of Hawaii, and all of the Institutes of Religion throughout the Church. In 1994, that manual was replaced by another one, entitled Church History in the Fulness of Times, which also discussed it.

Somewhere between 1966 and 1970, when I was enrolled in seminary in southern California, in our year studying the history of the Church, we used William E. Berrett's official textbook The Restored Church. On page 267, that seminary textbook reprints Willard Richards's "Two Minutes in Jail," which includes the following passage:

"As he [Hyrum] struck the floor he exclaimed emphatically, 'I'm a dead man.' Joseph looked towards him and responded, 'Oh, dear Brother Hyrum!' and opening the door two or three inches with his left hand, discharged one barrel of a six shooter (pistol) at random in the entry, from whence a ball grazed Hyrum's breast and entering his throat passed into his head, while the other muskets were aimed at him, and some balls hit him."

So the never-taught story of the pistol was contained in official seminary and Institute manuals from at least 1967 to the present.

Furthermore, as is demonstrated in the list to which I provided you a link, the secret unknown pistol was depicted in a 1967 film from the Church's Department of Seminaries and Institutes of Religion entitled The Last Days at Carthage that was subsequently re-released as a segment in the 1990 Church Educational System video Moments from Church History. In 1969, it was discussed in the Church's official magazine, the Improvement Era. In 1994, it was mentioned in two different articles (one of them the First Presidency message) within the same issue of the Church's renamed official magazine, the Ensign.

It's simply ridiculous for you to suggest that the existence of the gun was somehow kept from you based on the simple fact that, apparently, nobody tied you down and forced you to listen to the story.

[ttribe]

I addressed this yesterday ttribe, go back and read a little.

Mark

Ummm...I don't think so...if that was the case, why are you still asking if the story was in any "teaching manuals" when calmoriah and Scott Lloyd plainly stated that it is and was?

[Daniel Peterson]

It seems appropriate:

Black Knight: 'Tis but a scratch.

Arthur: A scratch?! Your arm's off!

Black Knight: No it isn't.

Arthur: Well what's that then?

Black Knight: I've had worse.

[wenglund]

Is the JS martyrdom story important at all, or just the gun part...help me out here I'm trying to understand you here. Mark

The way to understand me is by learning to ask the right questions. For starters, here is a key question to ask yourself: "What aspects of history ought I to focus on in order to come to Christ and better become more like Christ?"

If your answer in any way involves fussing over the possible lack of mention of the gun in Sunday lesson materials prior to 2000, then you need some serious help that goes well beyond what can be provided on a message board such as this.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Hamba Tuhan]

If you do not understand this, you have no clue what my argument is.

OK, I'll bite. After 30 pages, I have NO CLUE what your argument is.

[Markk]

I don't have all that many teaching manuals from ten years ago and more sitting right by my elbow. Do you?

Do you know that the mysterious unknown gun that was known to so very many wasn't in teaching manuals before 2000?

We've demonstrated that the unheard of, never discussed gun was mentioned in the basic, widely known works on Church history that everybody (who read) read, continuing through multiple editions. We've shown that it was covered in periodicals, in books by Church leaders, in displays, in traveling exhibits, and the like.

If you want to demonstrate that it never appeared in instruction manuals, do so. The claim is yours. Justify it. But I think you're going to have a hard time with the project.

Based solely on books sitting on the shelf to my left at home, I've demonstrated that it was in two editions (1967 and 1973) of the manual (Ivan J. Barrett's Joseph Smith and the Restoration) that was used for Church history courses at BYU-Provo, Ricks College, the Church College of Hawaii, and all of the Institutes of Religion throughout the Church. In 1994, that manual was replaced by another one, entitled Church History in the Fulness of Times, which also discussed it.

Somewhere between 1966 and 1970, when I was enrolled in seminary in southern California, in our year studying the history of the Church, we used William E. Berrett's official textbook The Restored Church. On page 267, that seminary textbook reprints Willard Richards's "Two Minutes in Jail," which includes the following passage:

"As he [Hyrum] struck the floor he exclaimed emphatically, 'I'm a dead man.' Joseph looked towards him and responded, 'Oh, dear Brother Hyrum!' and opening the door two or three inches with his left hand, discharged one barrel of a six shooter (pistol) at random in the entry, from whence a ball grazed Hyrum's breast and entering his throat passed into his head, while the other muskets were aimed at him, and some balls hit him."

So the never-taught story of the pistol was contained in official seminary and Institute manuals from at least 1967 to the present.

Furthermore, as is demonstrated in the list to which I provided you a link, the secret unknown pistol was depicted in a 1967 film from the Church's Department of Seminaries and Institutes of Religion entitled The Last Days at Carthag, never with the gune that was subsequently re-released as a segment in the 1990 Church Educational System video Moments from Church History. In 1969, it was discussed in the Church's official magazine, the Improvement Era. In 1994, it was mentioned in two different articles (one of them the First Presidency message) within the same issue of the Church's renamed official magazine, the Ensign.

It's simply ridiculous for you to suggest that the existence of the gun was somehow kept from you based on the simple fact that, apparently, nobody tied you down and forced you to listen to the story.

Hi Dan,

You just don't get it, I was taught over and over in church the story w/o the gun, never with the gun. I asked about the lesson books because I really don't think it was taught, if it was, not very often. Try to focus on this Dan. I could care less about Berrett, or a guy with paintings running around the country. Did the church teach it or not? Your saying you have no way of knowing how many teaching manuals have it, yet you link cf's of dutch,french, and who knows what other languages, and you don't know if the church did?

O'well

take care

Mark

[Markk]

It seems appropriate:

Black Knight: 'Tis but a scratch.

Arthur: A scratch?! Your arm's off!

Black Knight: No it isn't.

Arthur: Well what's that then?

Black Knight: I've had worse.

I'll just gum you to death

[Wiki Wonka]

How did you learn this story?

Prior to my mission, I can't recall exactly when I first heard it (it was over a quarter of a century ago). I know that I heard it as a teenager. It was likely in Seminary. Unfortunately, the only Seminary manual I still have is the Book of Mormon one. It would have been in the D&C one if it was there at all. I do know that by the time of my mission, I already knew about it. Back then we used filmstrips. We loved to show filmstrips to the investigators, and they loved to see them. We had "The First Vision," "Christ in America" and "The Martyrdom." I really liked watching "The Martyrdom." It really evoked some feelings in me and with the investigators. The filmstrip talked of the gun, but like I said, that wasn't where I first learned of it. It has just always been part of the story for as long as I can remember knowing it. Sorry I can't be more specific.

I just went to my shelf and pulled down a book called "Joseph Smith and the Restoration" by Ivan J. Barrett just to see what it had. This book appears to have been first published in 1910, and my copy is dated 1982 (11th printing). On page 614 it says:

Finding the cell door firm, a member of the mob fired a ball through the key hole. Joseph, John, and Willard sprang to the left side of the door and tried to knock down the guns of the mob. Hyrum backed away from the door to the center of the floor and snapped his pistol. A ball tore through the upper door panel and struck Hyrum on the left side of the nose. He fell on his back crying, "I am a dead man!" Bending over his lifeless brother, Joseph sobbed, "Oh dear brother Hyrum!" With a quick step the Prophet was at the door, opened it slightly and pulled the trigger of his revolver. Three barrels discharged.