Chapel Mormons

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Ohhh...but that just shows how blinded the sheeple are! You see, it takes the revolutionaries, such as our friend Markk, to reveal what the Church has been "hiding" in plain sight for all these years. Didn't you know that?

But it ins't about the gun, it is about how it changes we view JS. I guess.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

This still leaves open the question of what was going on during roughly the decade-and-a-half between the time you reached age 16 or 17 and your early 30s when, according to your account, learning about the pistol at Carthage caused you to begin your "exodus" from Mormonism. If, during that time, you were rarely or never participating as a Church member (which failure to advance in the priesthood would seem to indicate), it would help explain why you would not have been exposed to what very clearly is a fact the Church has published long and widely to its membership.

[Deborah]

Mark clearly represents those people who claim to have been long time members, yet never showed sufficient interest to pay attention to whatever lessons they were taught. Furthermore it clearly illustrates that such people show no interest in details such as the gun until they end up leaving the church and all of a sudden become experts in all things Mormon and wonder why they were never informed of such things before. It is clear that such exposure had to be there but honestly how many people let such things go by because at the time they simply aren't interested. It's only later when they seek to continually justify their choices that they make an issue of it.

[tsubotsubo]

In all fairness guys, the gun isn't mentioned EVERY time the martyrdom story is told, however, if you attend church for a few years, and study church books, you should easily find it out after a while.

But there's other things that aren't mentioned every time. Like sometimes, people just briefly relate the story, and leave out the fact that people such as John Taylor were also present. Yet nobody accuses the church of hiding that.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It is clear that such exposure had to be there but honestly how many people let such things go by because at the time they simply aren't interested. It's only later when they seek to continually justify their choices that they make an issue of it.

This is a great point. Most poeple when the here about the gun probably just didn't think anything of it as the gun isn;t a major point. Then later they try to make it this huge issue.

But there's other things that aren't mentioned every time. Like sometimes, people just briefly relate the story, and leave out the fact that people such as John Taylor were also present. Yet nobody accuses the church of hiding that.

This is another good point.

[cinepro]

Interesting that you should mention that. I first learned about that in 1980 as I was listening to a Dramatized Church History tape. Joseph asks Heber Kimball to give his wife Vilate to him. I remember Vilate sounding really ticked off about it.

But just to be clear, those weren't Church productions. They were from Covenant audio, if I remember correctly.

I learned a heck of a lot about polygamy at the age of 10 when I read the "Storm Testament" novels (vols. II and V go into it pretty deeply), but that doesn't mean the Church was being open about it.

[Wiki Wonka]

But just to be clear, those weren't Church productions. They were from Covenant audio, if I remember correctly.

I learned a heck of a lot about polygamy at the age of 10 when I read the "Storm Testament" novels (vols. II and V go into it pretty deeply), but that doesn't mean the Church was being open about it.

Yes, I'm aware that those tapes were not produced by the Church. I'm not attempting to prove anything here, other than to note that this is how I found out about this particular issue. Although the tapes were not produced by the Church, they were available for sale right next to the scriptures at our local Church bookstore. I walked into a Deseret Book in Provo a few months ago and picked up one of those "Joseph and Emma" love story novels. I opened it up and found myself reading a conversation in which Joseph was trying to convince Emma that he was required to take other wives. Again, not Church produced, but not suppressed either.

[Deborah]

In all fairness guys, the gun isn't mentioned EVERY time the martyrdom story is told, however, if you attend church for a few years, and study church books, you should easily find it out after a while.

Truthfully I have no idea when I first heard about the gun; I guess whenever I did it just was never an issue and frankly I have a hard time comprehending why it would be to anyone.

[wenglund]

So for some reason Markk thinks that the gun not being told makes JS claim to being led like a lamb to the slaughter impossible. I

It should be remembered that Joseph's statement: "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 toward God and toward all men. If they take my life I shall die an innocent man, and my blood shall cry from the ground for vengeance, and it shall be said of me 'He was murdered in cold blood!'" (History of the Church, Vol.6, Ch.29, p.555) was made on the road to Carthage, three days pior to being given the pistol in Carthage jail.

I think it also important to disclose how Joseph came to have the pistol and his sentiments regarding the pistol (the later being a point of history that the critics tend to ignore):

"The morning being a little rainy, favored his [Wheelock] wearing an overcoat, in the side pocket of which he was enabled to carry a six shooter, and he passed the guard unmolested. During his visit in the prison he slipped the revolver into Joseph's pocket. Joseph examined it, and asked Wheelock if he had not better retain it for his own protection. This was a providential circumstance, as most other persons had been very rigidly searched. Joseph then handed the single barrel pistol which had been given him by John S. Fullmer, to his brother Hyrum, and said, 'You may have use for this.' Brother Hyrum observed, 'I hate to use such things or to see them used.' 'So do I,' said Joseph, 'but we may have to, to defend ourselves;' upon this Hyrum took the pistol." (History of the Church, Vol.6, Ch.33, p.607-

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Scott Lloyd]

It should be remembered that Joseph's statement: "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 toward God and toward all men. If they take my life I shall die an innocent man, and my blood shall cry from the ground for vengeance, and it shall be said of me 'He was murdered in cold blood!'" (History of the Church, Vol.6, Ch.29, p.555) was made on the road to Carthage, three days pior to being given the pistol in Carthage jail.

I think it also important to disclose how Joseph came to have the pistol and his sentiments regarding the pistol (the later being a point of history that the critics tend to ignore):

"The morning being a little rainy, favored his [Wheelock] wearing an overcoat, in the side pocket of which he was enabled to carry a six shooter, and he passed the guard unmolested. During his visit in the prison he slipped the revolver into Joseph's pocket. Joseph examined it, and asked Wheelock if he had not better retain it for his own protection. This was a providential circumstance, as most other persons had been very rigidly searched. Joseph then handed the single barrel pistol which had been given him by John S. Fullmer, to his brother Hyrum, and said, 'You may have use for this.' Brother Hyrum observed, 'I hate to use such things or to see them used.' 'So do I,' said Joseph, 'but we may have to, to defend ourselves;' upon this Hyrum took the pistol." (History of the Church, Vol.6, Ch.33, p.607-

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think it fair to point out that, although Joseph had a premonition of his own death and clearly expressed it, that does not mean he could predict he would be murdered precisely at that location and time. Also, qualifying as a martyr does not require that one passively accept death. It only requires a refusal to renounce one's principles as a condition for being allowed to remain alive.

Furthermore, that the Prophet knew in advance that he would be killed would not preclude him from endeavoring to protect the loyal companions who were with him. As I've said before, his heroic behavior probably saved the lives of John Taylor and Willard Richards.

[Markk]

Mark clearly represents those people who claim to have been long time members, yet never showed sufficient interest to pay attention to whatever lessons they were taught. Furthermore it clearly illustrates that such people show no interest in details such as the gun until they end up leaving the church and all of a sudden become experts in all things Mormon and wonder why they were never informed of such things before. It is clear that such exposure had to be there but honestly how many people let such things go by because at the time they simply aren't interested. It's only later when they seek to continually justify their choices that they make an issue of it.

Hi Deborah,

Again posts like this show the insecurity of the average saint, it is always everybody's else's fault and the church is never wrong, it lends to the reality that to the saint, at all costs, the church must survive. It's ironic how quick you guys will go after people personally. It is easy here Deborah, with full support of the choir, to receive a reassurance that all is well in zion, but there are a whole lot of ex-members and Christians that see through this, your insecurity is clear in your posts. How on earth do I "represent people who claim to have been life time members", I'm a 52 year old man sitting on a couch with a lap top discussing this with you guys while watching the Yankees win the world series. My story is mine, it's true, and your making such a ridiculous claim really shows again, your insecurity in your faith.

Incredible

Take care

Mark

[Markk]

In all fairness guys, the gun isn't mentioned EVERY time the martyrdom story is told, however, if you attend church for a few years, and study church books, you should easily find it out after a while.

But there's other things that aren't mentioned every time. Like sometimes, people just briefly relate the story, and leave out the fact that people such as John Taylor were also present. Yet nobody accuses the church of hiding that.

Hi ts,

Should it have been taught to all when young growing up in the church? Should it be taught by missionaries so it doesn't take a "few years"?

I appreciate your honesty, and I have know idea how often it is taught in todays church, but I believe it is safe to say that it was not taught anywhere close to as many times as it is now. I have talked to many ex-mormoms and 90% or so of the older ex-members had never heard the story and most of my family members who are TBM hadn't heard it, I have a uncle that was a Bishop who didn't believe me when I told him, but instead of dealing with this as fact, I guess it is easier to just attack me, but I understand.

Mark

[Markk]

I think it fair to point out that, although Joseph had a premonition of his own death and clearly expressed it, that does not mean he could predict he would be murdered precisely at that location and time. Also, qualifying as a martyr does not require that one passively accept death. It only requires a refusal to renounce one's principles as a condition for being allowed to remain alive.

Furthermore, that the Prophet knew in advance that he would be killed would not preclude him from endeavoring to protect the loyal companions who were with him. As I've said before, his heroic behavior probably saved the lives of John Taylor and Willard Richards.

Or, he was just trying to save his own skin, just as likely? Maybe he should have taken a cane and gave the gun to one of the other men if he knew he was going to die. Given that there was windows in the jail and a bunch of men with guns were gathering, he just might have figured out that they weren't coming for tea. Also given his running to the window after his gun misfired and leaving his brother and friends doesn't lend well with him defending anyone but himself.

Mark

[Calm]

=

Again posts like this show the insecurity of the average saint, it is always everybody's else's fault and the church is never wrong

How does trying to blaime the Church for your lack of knowledge exhibit anything but your own personal insecurity?

It is ridiculous to anaylze anyone this way because first, human behaviour is way too complicated and second, the one doing the analysis is too likely to project his own behaviour on others (that's why in psych studies of group behaviour one tries to have a control group for comparisons).

Then there's the generalizations in your comment. You assume rather than demonstrate that the average saint claims it's "everybody's else's fault and the church is never wrong" and yet there is no evidence in this thread that this is even what anyone here is actually claiming***. So you end up baseing your analysis on a false generalization....not good analysis.

***Notice that in the post you are responding to Deborah limits her comment to a certain set of people exhibiting a certain behaviour, not applying it to "everybody" or even the "average" apostate or exmormon, something that you unfortunately do.

[Daniel Peterson]

Again posts like this show the insecurity of the average saint, it is always everybody's else's fault and the church is never wrong

This allegation is really quite ironic, coming (as it does) from a person who claims that it was the Church's fault that he didn't know about Joseph Smith's pistol at Carthage Jail despite the fact that the pistol is on display in the Church's Museum of History and Art and despite the fact that the story of the pistol has been discussed repeatedly in popular, well-known books by Church leaders, seminary films, First Presidency messages, articles in Church periodicals, seminary manuals, Gospel Doctrine manuals, and Institute manuals.

your making such a ridiculous claim really shows again, your insecurity in your faith.

Incredible

See above.

Should it have been taught to all when young growing up in the church? Should it be taught by missionaries so it doesn't take a "few years"?

I appreciate your honesty, and I have know idea how often it is taught in todays church, but I believe it is safe to say that it was not taught anywhere close to as many times as it is now. I have talked to many ex-mormoms and 90% or so of the older ex-members had never heard the story and most of my family members who are TBM hadn't heard it, I have a uncle that was a Bishop who didn't believe me when I told him, but instead of dealing with this as fact, I guess it is easier to just attack me, but I understand.

This afternoon, I asked the fourteen members of the Middle East Studies senior seminar that I'm teaching how many of them had heard that Joseph Smith had a pistol with him in Carthage Jail, and fired it. All fourteen indicated that they were familiar with the story. More than half of them come from areas outside of traditional "Mormon country." One of them is from Mexico.

Incidentally, given your admission that you "have no idea how often it is taught in today's church," I find your certainty that the story of the pistol "was not taught anywhere close to as many times [in your day] as it is now" somewhat puzzling. Moreover, since, as has been demonstrated, the story of the pistol was, among other things, being depicted in seminary films and discussed in seminary manuals and Institute manuals during the period when you would or should have been attending seminary and Institute, your insinuation that it wasn't being taught back then seems to lack convincing support.

Or, he was just trying to save his own skin, just as likely? Maybe he should have taken a cane and gave the gun to one of the other men if he knew he was going to die. Given that there was windows in the jail and a bunch of men with guns were gathering, he just might have figured out that they weren't coming for tea. Also given his running to the window after his gun misfired and leaving his brother and friends doesn't lend well with him defending anyone but himself.

Having signally failed to make his case in an easily tested matter relating to modern history, Markk now turns to speculative defamation of the dead.

[WalkerW]

This allegation is really quite ironic, coming (as it does) from a person who claims that it was the Church's fault that he didn't know about Joseph Smith's pistol at Carthage Jail despite the fact that the pistol is on display in the Church's Museum of History and Art and despite the fact that the story of the pistol has been discussed repeatedly in popular, well-known books by Church leaders, seminary films, First Presidency messages, articles in Church periodicals, seminary manuals, Gospel Doctrine manuals, and Institute manuals.

See above.

This afternoon, I asked the fourteen members of the Middle East Studies senior seminar that I'm teaching how many of them had heard that Joseph Smith had a pistol with him in Carthage Jail, and fired it. All fourteen indicated that they were familiar with the story. More than half of them come from areas outside of traditional "Mormon country." One of them is from Mexico.

Incidentally, given your admission that you "have no idea how often it is taught in today's church," I find your certainty that the story of the pistol "was not taught anywhere close to as many times [in your day] as it is now" somewhat puzzling. Moreover, since, as has been demonstrated, the story of the pistol was, among other things, being depicted in seminary films and discussed in seminary manuals and Institute manuals during the period when you would or should have been attending seminary and Institute, your insinuation that it wasn't being taught back then seems to lack convincing support.

Having signally failed to make his case in an easily tested matter relating to modern history, Markk now turns to speculative defamation of the dead.

Markk,

Allow me to sum up what Dr. Peterson and others have been saying in some detail regarding your accusation:

You fail.

I would say stop while you're ahead, but you aren't. You are way behind. A speck in the distance. This is probably an even better reason to just stop. A simple "I was wrong" will do.

[Calm]

Also given his running to the window after his gun misfired and leaving his brother and friends doesn't lend well with him defending anyone but himself.

You really think he was running for cover? In an open window? After you yourself drew attention to how he must have seen the mob outside?

And exactly how would he have defended his friends once the gun was no longer useful? He could have certainly attempted to shield them with his body, but one man trying to cover 2 tends to leave some skin exposed. Plus he would have been familiar enough with guns to know that bullets can go through one body into another so simply throwing oneself in front of the bullet might not suffice for a 'rain of gunfire'.

OTOH, since he was the primary target (and his brother now dead the secondary), it just might have occurred to him to draw fire away from the remaining prisoners, that the mob's bloodlust might be sated with his death and leave off the bloodbath if his call for help (if one assumes he is using the Masonic distress call) failed.

[Daniel Peterson]

Cal, if evidence meant anything to Markk he would have surrendered his ludicrous accusation against the Church several days ago. Plainly, it doesn't.

[Mordecai]

Cal, if evidence meant anything to Markk he would have surrendered his ludicrous accusation against the Church several days ago. Plainly, it doesn't.

[Calm]

Cal, if evidence meant anything to Markk he would have surrendered his ludicrous accusation against the Church several days ago. Plainly, it doesn't.

The onesidedness of his attitude is quite odd if his purpose coming to the board is to show others the error of their beliefs. Demonstrating a reasonable attitude of "well, I don't believe he was in general a good guy but JS did show he could be a loyal friend or loved his brother" or anything positive to show that he holds a realistic view of the man Joseph Smith---a mix of good and bad like most people even if he personally thinks it's weighted strongly into the 'bad'---would have readers giving his views more thought.

Instead the extreme nature of his portrayal of JS---because JS used a gun in defense of himself and others it negates any personal sacrificial act on his part---especially given that once he found much to idealize in the man, is more likely to cause readers to discount his experiences and his beliefs much as he has done in his dismissal due to his belief in the alleged onesidedness of the "average saint's" response of 'the Church is never wrong" etc.

Now it is possible that he does see some good in JS, but the determination in this thread and others like it with which he's holding on to his position in the face of trememdous evidence that he got it wrong and his rebuttal here consisting of jumping to something else that he sees as discrediting JS further---which can also be read to be completely opposite of how he interprets it---makes me wonder why it is so important to him to paint JS in such a black colour.

And if he's extreme in painting pictures of something that does not personally involve him, that in reality isn't going to have much effect on how people believe about JS relatively speaking, it makes me doubt the balance of his paintings of his own life and issues that is near and dear to him. He is his own worse enemy in trying to prove his arguments here.

****add-on: that JS's move toward the window was a rational thought and not just the instinctive reaction of a cornered animal is demonstrated by what he did when he got there.....

[Somebodyz]

Hi Deborah,

Again posts like this show the insecurity of the average saint, it is always everybody's else's fault and the church is never wrong, it lends to the reality that to the saint, at all costs, the church must survive. It's ironic how quick you guys will go after people personally. It is easy here Deborah, with full support of the choir, to receive a reassurance that all is well in zion, but there are a whole lot of ex-members and Christians that see through this, your insecurity is clear in your posts. How on earth do I "represent people who claim to have been life time members", I'm a 52 year old man sitting on a couch with a lap top discussing this with you guys while watching the Yankees win the world series. My story is mine, it's true, and your making such a ridiculous claim really shows again, your insecurity in your faith.

Incredible

Take care

Mark

Mark,

I disagree with you.

You appear to ignore what is said to you over and over again. Clinging to facts that have been proven wrong, over and over again.

I don't see Deborah as insecure at all, while you do appear insecure to me (it's not a crime).. What you are watching and what sort of computer you are on, and your age is not the point.

What you ignore is.

Fact, the pistol has been talked about in church. In is in many manual. Is taught in seminary and institue (did you go often to either?)

Time for you to prove it isn't in any manuals in the years you bothered to go to classes.

As for JS going to his death like a lamb. He wasn't captured. He stated, if he turned himself in, he'd die. He listened to his friends and family, knowing by doing so, he'd die. He turned himself over.

He could of left the state, even the country. But you'll probably ignore the facts, they don't suit your fixed mind set.

You love to represent others, whether they want you to or not. You pull the un-named to support your view, with no facts. Claim other feel like you, so this some how makes you right. While dismissing/ignoring the facts put before you.

What church would you join, because of it's history?

It's a silly reason to join or leave a church......ie because of a piece of history, written by mere men. It's the spirit that converts and by feeding, nourishing that testimony.

Those who leave because of a fact, they claim about history, were not in the Church completely and wholey.

Again posts like this show the insecurity of the average saint, it is always everybody's else's fault and the church is never wrong,

Tosh!

One poster, (misunderstood by you) in your fantasy, now represents the average saint. (most who aren't even American ) and what projection!

Where did she say the Church was never wrong? What is the Church, in your world.......brick, or members?

You blame others for what you didnt' know, it's the churches fault, that YOU didn't know, what was on the book shelves, what was in the manuels. It's everyone elses fault but YOURS.

You seem to be working very hard to justify leaving and staying gone from the Church, the carpet must be getting quite a lump under it, with all that you sweep under it. Ignoring the facts is hard work, isn't?

You said in one post you didn't want to be spoon fed, yet blame the church, for failing to teach you everything, you feel it should of, about it's history. Even when it teaches you to get educated and study YOURSELF.

To me, you come across as someone desperate to cling to the reasons and excuses for leaving the church, bits of history. Just my opinon, as little as it's worth.

What are you looking for?

[Deborah]

Again posts like this show the insecurity of the average saint, it is always everybody's else's fault and the church is never wrong, it lends to the reality that to the saint, at all costs, the church must survive. It's ironic how quick you guys will go after people personally.

LOL. Others here have adequately responded to this but I just have to add that the church will survive no matter what accusations you or others make about it, and despite the weaknesses of its members. It is ironic that you make accusations about going after people personally, when it is you who are making personal accusations about a man's character when he is no longer here to defend himself.

I assure you I am not insecure about the church, even though I see the faults of the many humans who have been called to run it. The miracle to me is how God trusts us in spite of our faults to do his work. He obviously isn't insecure about his church standing even when faulty human beings are called to do his work.

[Deborah]

It is both sad and amusing how so many continue to attack the church and think they will somehow bring it down. It didn't happen when they drove the saints from place to place. It didn't happen when they killed the Prophet Joseph. It didn't happen when the church faced financial ruin, on more than one occasion.

The church has been on the edge of the precipice more than once, and it was pulled back to become stronger still. As a church we have faced persecution, death of a beloved prophet, the expulsion from state to state, near financial ruin and imprisonment of those who were just practicing their religion. Yet all these things we have overcome. If I have questions or doubts, all I have to do is look at the fruits of what a young boy started when he uttered a simple prayer. Everything then falls into place.

I find it very sad that there are those who let the little things, like for example the presence of a gun, determine whether or not they will be true to a faith which has overcome such petty arguments again and again. None of us who are staunch defenders of the prophets have failed to see their very human weaknesses. But what we do see, that others apparently miss, is how magnificent are their accomplishments in spite of such weaknesses. God takes ordinary men and women and with his power helps them to do extraordinary things. How very tragic that those who once professed the faith will throw it all away because they are so focused on the minor details and miss the big picture of the greatness that has become Christ's church, as summarized in D&C 65:2 The keys of the kingdom of God are committed unto man on the earth, and from thence shall the gospel roll forth unto the ends of the earth, as the stone which is cut out of the mountain without hands shall roll forth, until it has filled the whole earth.

[Jeff K.]

I guess people like Markk will always vainly be searching for the smoking gun.

[Markk]

Mark,

I disagree with you.

You appear to ignore what is said to you over and over again. Clinging to facts that have been proven wrong, over and over again.

I don't see Deborah as insecure at all, while you do appear insecure to me (it's not a crime).. What you are watching and what sort of computer you are on, and your age is not the point.

What you ignore is.

Fact, the pistol has been talked about in church. In is in many manual. Is taught in seminary and institue (did you go often to either?)

Time for you to prove it isn't in any manuals in the years you bothered to go to classes.

As for JS going to his death like a lamb. He wasn't captured. He stated, if he turned himself in, he'd die. He listened to his friends and family, knowing by doing so, he'd die. He turned himself over.

He could of left the state, even the country. But you'll probably ignore the facts, they don't suit your fixed mind set.

You love to represent others, whether they want you to or not. You pull the un-named to support your view, with no facts. Claim other feel like you, so this some how makes you right. While dismissing/ignoring the facts put before you.

What church would you join, because of it's history?

It's a silly reason to join or leave a church......ie because of a piece of history, written by mere men. It's the spirit that converts and by feeding, nourishing that testimony.

Those who leave because of a fact, they claim about history, were not in the Church completely and wholey.

Tosh!

One poster, (misunderstood by you) in your fantasy, now represents the average saint. (most who aren't even American ) and what projection!

Where did she say the Church was never wrong? What is the Church, in your world.......brick, or members?

You blame others for what you didnt' know, it's the churches fault, that YOU didn't know, what was on the book shelves, what was in the manuels. It's everyone elses fault but YOURS.

You seem to be working very hard to justify leaving and staying gone from the Church, the carpet must be getting quite a lump under it, with all that you sweep under it. Ignoring the facts is hard work, isn't?

You said in one post you didn't want to be spoon fed, yet blame the church, for failing to teach you everything, you feel it should of, about it's history. Even when it teaches you to get educated and study YOURSELF.

To me, you come across as someone desperate to cling to the reasons and excuses for leaving the church, bits of history. Just my opinon, as little as it's worth.

What are you looking for?

Hi,

Give me the "many manuals" (teaching) with the dates used, and who it was intended for, humor me?

Mark