Joseph And His Gun…

[LeSellers]

a rather nasty post since, he has not made any of those claims. And has disavowed at least one of accusations you list.

You may discern that I really do not like his approach to LDS hisatory.

His "disavowal" notwithstanding, his posts reveal his true intent.

Lehi

[Bernard Gui]

Regarding the Church hiding the revolver part of the story and John Taylor's recollection of the events:

The Gospel Kingdom: Selections from the Writings and Discourses of John Taylor. G. Homer Durham, ed.,

Bookcraft, 1943.

p. 358-361"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. The pistol was a six-shooting revolver, of Allen's patent; it belonged to me, and was one that I furnished to Brother Wheelock when he talked of going with me to the east, previous to our coming to Carthage. I have it now in my possession...he (Smith) approached the door, and pulling the six-shooter left by Brother Wheelock from his pocket, opened the door slightly, and snapped the pistol ix 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...

"It would seem that immediately after my attempt to leap out of the window, Joseph also did the same thing, of which circumstance I have no knowledge only from information.'

The church was not making historical movies in the 1940s, but books were published with the proper information.

Bernard

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Well of course they were afraid. But their fears of what might have happened don't outweigh the reality of what did happen. What happened is these men fled the scene, knowing perfectly well that Richards was unharmed and Taylor was probably still alive on the floor.

But you just said they were firing blindly through a small opening (a couple of inches, according to you). How would they know Richards and Taylor were still alive if they didn't enter the room? Especially Taylor, since he was hiding under the bed. How could anyone standing in the hall see what was going on in the room? Franklin Worrell, commander of the Carthage jail guards, testified in court there was "so much noise and smoke that I could not see or hear anything what was said or done." (Oaks, 120) How do you know what they could see and what they knew?

Bernard

So much for the "knowing perfectly well that Richards was unharmed and Taylor was probably still alive on the floor."

What an untenable position to be in, this seems to be a constant with Xander.

I love Xander's spin, it is about as much fun as the merry-go-round at the park.

One more time, I am removing posters who talk about other posters instead of the topic.

Edited June 23, 2011 by Minos

[Bernard Gui]

I got lost in the nit picking a few pages back.

I ain't pickin' no nits here, sir. We have some serious disinformation going on.

Bernard

[altersteve]

What's really funny is when people say that Joseph Smith died in a "gun battle." Yeah, as if 150+ men armed with rifles vs. 2 unarmed men and 2 men armed with six-shooters constitutes as a "gun battle." Please.

[Jaybear]

What's really funny is when people say that Joseph Smith died in a "gun battle." Yeah, as if 150+ men armed with rifles vs. 2 unarmed men and 2 men armed with six-shooters constitutes as a "gun battle." Please.

Yeah, I agree, but is that really any worse than making a film, where he is unarmed?

Both cross the line of artistic license into the arena of misleading propaganda.

[KevinG]

Yeah, I agree, but is that really any worse than making a film, where he is unarmed?

Both cross the line of artistic license into the arena of misleading propaganda.

The same films failed to show the whole mob, failed to show the bloody wound in Hyrums face and failed to show the mob dragging Joesph to the well and filling his body with lead shot.

Do you really think the pepper box pistol was left out for faith promiting propaganda reasons?

[Pahoran]

LeSellers claimed, with absolutely no evidence, that Joseph Smith saved the lives of those in the room, as was his intention. That makes him a "savior" by definition. "Try to pay attention," indeed.

But as you know -- and intend -- to call someone a "savior" in religious terms is to say something considerably more than that they saved someone's life. You are equivocating, and you know it.

Snip self-serving tripe.

It doesn't matter what some Mormons thought the attackers wanted to do. What matters is what the attackers actually did do].

Yes.

They fired indiscriminately into the room; they murdered two people; they shot Joseph again after he was already dead; and they only fled like the typically worthless anti-Mormon cowards they were when someone shouted, "The Mormons are coming!"

That's what they did do.

I should hope so. I know how to back up my claims with evidence. Let me show you how it is done. Joseph Smith killed two people.

And this is you demonstrating how to back up your claims with evidence, is it?

Not a very good start, Xander.

Joseph Smith killed no-one. His gun only fired three times; the three men he wounded are identified, and they all survived.

This is supported by John Taylor's testimony who said he was informed that two men had died from their wounds. It is also supported by Elder Reed Blakes', 24 Hours to Martyrdom, p. 129. He documents the names of two men who were shot in the arm by Joseph Smith. Their names were Townsend and Mills. One didn't die until nine months later, but the point is he died because Joseph Smith shot him, which means he killed him.

John Taylor is a witness -- and a very good witness -- to what he saw and heard there in the upper room. When he repeats hearsay from others, he's not really functioning as a witness at all. As I'm sure you realise.

Townsend and Mills were not wounded by Joseph. They were wounded by "friendly fire."

That said, if Joseph had killed them -- or any others -- he would be entirely justified in so doing, and it would not detract from his rightful status as a martyr.

But it just so happens that he didn't.

In any event, it should be obvious that Joseph Smith certainly tried to kill some of them. You don't fire wildly into a crowd at close range without expecting to kill someone. So I don't see the apologetic value in insisting he didn't really kill anyone, simply because no one died "instantly." There is very good reason to believe he did kill someone. But I don't think this really matters, at least not to me. It only matters to someone foolish enough to argue that Joseph Smith wasn't acting in self defense. I'm unaware of anyone who has ever argued such a thing.

Again, there is no good reason to believe that he killed anyone. However, when it comes to intent: the clear intent of a body of armed men storming a position and shooting at (what they believed were) unarmed men is to kill. By contrast, the equally clear intent of someone who is occupying a position from which he cannot retreat, shooting at attackers he did not seek out, is to drive them away.

So now you want to move the goal posts? I never said they were killed "instantly." When I was on my mission, our Mission President loved to tell stories about how the two men Joseph Smith shot suffered years of excrutiating pain before they died from their mortal wounds.

Yes, those legends were popular for a while. But you can't have your cake and eat it too. The sole reason why you can safely discount those legends is that better research has established the real fact in view: Joseph. Smith. Didn't. Kill. Anyone.

Accept that fact and move on.

Snip more self-serving tripe.

I'm pretty sure you just unwittingly illustrated the weakness of the LDS apologetic on the definition of Christian. For instance, you guys will fight tooth and nail to maintain that Mormons are Christians by definition, simply because they believe such and such, and yet without hesitation you'll gladly strip that label from other Christians simply because they, according to your judgment, committed a single sin? Wow.

Malicious, premeditated deception isn't just any sin, Xander; but of course, there is a tiny little germ of truth in the above outburst. It is true that everyone who genuinely professes to follow Jesus Christ is a Christian. So if you will agree to expand your restrictive definition of "Christian" to include those who actually follow him, I will agree that that definition does also capture some who oppose him. Including anti-Mormons.

Snip even more self-serving tripe.

No, moving the goal posts would be like saying Joseph Smith didn't kill anyone, and then revert to saying he didn't kill anyone "instantly."

Which is unnecessary, since he didn't kill anyone at all.

Anyway, I notice that no one has addressed the issue of Joseph Smith's Masonic distress call, which appears to be the reason why he jumped from the window, knowing Masons were among those on the ground.

I'm sorry, but that's a ridiculous claim. He had to jump from the window to make the distress call? He couldn't make it by leaning out of it? Is it your understanding that the call can only be made while in free fall?

The obvious reason to jump from the window is to leave the room. If Joseph believed that the mob would concentrate on him -- and there is every reason to suppose that he did believe it -- then it is reasonable to conclude that he hoped that his action would save the lives of his friends. The established historical facts are that the mob did concentrate on him, and his friends did survive. It is pure mean-spiritedness to insist, in the entire absence of any supporting evidence, that Joseph had any intention other than to bring about the result that actually followed.

FAIR refers to this as just something the "critics claim," but the critics only claim this because that is what evidence supports. For instance, this was also asserted by several contemporary Mormons. Heber C. Kimball, Wilford Woodruff and Zina Huntington all three argued that Joseph Smith's last words were an attempt to save his own life. No one in their day appeared to challenge this understanding of his final words. Which makes you wonder, at which point did Joseph Smith really believe his so-called prediction that he was going to die that day?

His "so-called prediction" is as well attested as the martyrdom itself, and it is clear that he believed it at every point.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Jaybear]

Do you really think the pepper box pistol was left out for faith promiting propaganda reasons?

Yes, I sincerely and honestly do.

But if you tell me they kept in any of the following facts, I will reconsider my position.

Drinking wine while in custody;

Taking off his garments;

the masonic cry for help;

the fact that he sent for the Navouu militia;

[altersteve]

Yeah, I agree, but is that really any worse than making a film, where he is unarmed?

Both cross the line of artistic license into the arena of misleading propaganda.

Well, you know, there is the chance that kids will be watching these movies. Some parents don't like their children watching movies were people shoot guns at other people. Gotta keep it G-rated.

[KevinG]

Yes, I sincerely and honestly do.

But if you tell me they kept in any of the following facts, I will reconsider my position.

Drinking wine while in custody;

Taking off his garments;

the masonic cry for help;

the fact that he sent for the Navouu militia;

Obviously Church films on the martyrdom aren't comprehensive investigations into the crime scene.

Regarding the pepper box pistol being left out for propaganda reasons... it could have been left out for the same reason other graphic details were left out. Then again it could have been a conscious decision to portray Joseph as a peaceful man in light of contemporary sensitivities.

No one will know until the script writer and producer are asked.

The other details you mention would be a distraction and not germane to the martyrdom. The wine ( a whole other discussion about how the Word of Widsom was seen as counsel before commandment in the early days of the Church) The garment (who knows why?) and the masonic cry for help (Joseph was a mason, a cry for mercy from masonic brothers seems pretty natural especially when it contains an appeal to God).

The bottom line... If you were to produce a film on Josephs death for public consumption- that was meant to tell the central story at what point do details become clutter and a distraction vs. too important to omit? I'm not too convinced there is any conspiracy to hide facts when they are on public display in our museums (first exhibit on the right from the front door) and all over our study publications.

[KevinG]

Nauvoo by the way.

I've sat in the room and heard the history portrayed by several missionaries- one of which was a historian by profession. They don't omit details. They even debunk myths like the "blood stain on the floor" etc.

[Calm]

Did you not read the numerous articles that Calmoriah posted? Something tells me you did not.

Thank you for mentioning my posts as from the lack of response I was wondering if I was delusional and hadn't actually posted anything.

[KevinG]

Thank you for mentioning my posts as from the lack of response I was wondering if I was delusional and hadn't actually posted anything.

Citations! We don't need no stinking citations!!

[Calm]

Who was Townsend and why was he not indicted?

Bernard

Don't know why he wasn't indicted, he was reported as being in the hallway and being hit, looks like it was likely 'friendly fire' if the report of who else was hit was accurate.

[Vance]

Citations! We don't need no stinking citations!!

Yeah, calmoriah just muddied up the thread by introducing facts and citations.

[AddamS]

I'm not LDS but I love American history, particularly LDS history because it is such a large part of the framing of the Western US that isn't often taught in school and I enjoy learning about the faith and history of my wife's family.

As a fairly objective (I'm working on it) observer, I don't have a dog in this fight but I do think the idea that Joseph Smith Jr. should not be respected as a prophet because of his use of a firearm to defend himself and/or the lives of his friends and colleagues within the church is ridiculous.

Personally, I think he was either deluded or fradulant and I think it's reasonable to attempt to understand why these opinions are valid or not based on his actions and reactions to circumstances in life that were not in moments where he and his loved ones were being threatened.

What you cannot do is discredit any person's faith or worthiness based on how he acts when cornered by an angry mob that is clearly there to kill him. Humans, like any other animal, are conditioned for fight or flight. Joseph Smith Jr. didn't have much option to run so he did what we are all genetically disposed to do. He fought.

He was a man, which means by definition he was not the perfect picture of grace and divinity. I don't think LDS folks believe he was infallible. Why should you? Just give it a rest already.

[Jaybear]

I'm not LDS but I love American history, particularly LDS history because it is such a large part of the framing of the Western US that isn't often taught in school and I enjoy learning about the faith and history of my wife's family.

As a fairly objective (I'm working on it) observer, I don't have a dog in this fight but I do think the idea that Joseph Smith Jr. should not be respected as a prophet because of his use of a firearm to defend himself and/or the lives of his friends and colleagues within the church is ridiculous.

I am not aware of anyone having faulted Smith for shooting those who stormed the jail.

Can you cite a specific quote that you have in mind for this observation.

[AddamS]

I am not aware of anyone having faulted Smith for shooting those who stormed the jail.

Can you cite a specific quote that you have in mind for this observation.

The original post presents the idea that some believe JSJ couldn't be a martyr based on his actions in the jail.

I'm referring to the idea of judgement against him for those actions.

[KevinG]

I am not aware of anyone having faulted Smith for shooting those who stormed the jail.

Can you cite a specific quote that you have in mind for this observation.

I got that you were critical of the Church public relations portrayal of the event (not showing as much detail as you felt appropriate) and not arguing about Joseph's status as prophet.

Expositor was addressing those who feel Joseph's self defense would negate claims of martyrdom or status as prophet.

[Calm]

You don't fire wildly into a crowd at close range without expecting to kill someone.

Just to be clear, why does this not apply to the mob firing into the room where Joseph and the others are? If it does apply, then how does the expectation that they were going to "kill someone" align with the claim that Taylor (and possibly Hyrum) were victims of an accident?

[Bernard Gui]

Don't know why he wasn't indicted, he was reported as being in the hallway and being hit, looks like it was likely 'friendly fire' if the report of who else was hit was accurate.

How and when was this reported? His name never comes up at the trial. If it was known he was in the hallway, he would have been indicted. The problem for the

prosecution was proving anyone was there at all. They didn't succeed.

Bernard

[Calm]

Well, you know, there is the chance that kids will be watching these movies. Some parents don't like their children watching movies were people shoot guns at other people. Gotta keep it G-rated.

I have not watched the movie. Are you saying that there are no guns shown at all the movie? That Joseph's death is shown without showing the guns that shot at him?

[Pahoran]

Yes, I sincerely and honestly do.

But if you tell me they kept in any of the following facts, I will reconsider my position.

Drinking wine while in custody;

Taking off his garments;

the masonic cry for help;

the fact that he sent for the Navouu militia;

Jaybeared again!

The Word of Wisdom was not considered to be a commandment in Joseph's time.

It wasn't just Joseph; Willard Richards was the only one in the upper room who was wearing his garments. He was also the only one who received no wounds to his body. That's something that could be included for "faith-promoting" reasons.

It is not a "fact that he sent for the Navouu[sic] militia." That is an old unsubstantiated rumour that Brodie tried to dress up as fact. The only evidence for this claim was a letter from Joseph Smith to Jonathan Dunham, the scribe for which was Mark W. Hofmann.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Calm]

The garment (who knows why?)

My understanding was that they were afraid of the garments being desecrated. I will try and find the reference where I read this.