Joseph And His Gun…

[KevinG]

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

The darn Illinois Bureau of Investigation ballistics lab was in on the conspiracy! (A little presentist humor for those so inclined).

[Calm]

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.

Many people who would go to see the movie in Temple Square would also visit the museum and be able to see the pistol on display as well (my husband for one did this)....before as well as after the movie so it would be a stupid conclusion to think this would be an effective way of hiding the fact that the pistol was used.

[KevinG]

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

Thank you, That was a new one to me - and plausable.

[AddamS]

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

DaddyG gets it.

[KevinG]

DaddyG gets it.

Record this moment in your journals folks!! It may be a first for me.

[Calm]

Thank you, That was a new one to me - and plausable.

I love FAIR, it is rare I have to go do much searching beyond its domain these days as they've collected so much material and quotes. It usually comes up on top or close to the top of Google, don't know why I just don't go to it in the first place, lol.

http://www.fairwiki....emoved_garments

Joseph said before taking his garments off, that he was going to be killed. . . "was going as a lamb to the slaughter" and he did not want his garments to be exposed to the sneers and jeers of his enemies.

Other quotes suggest the possibilities they did so for comfort. The idea that they did so out of fear makes no sense as they were already well known as LDS and there would have been no need for the mob or anyone else to confirm this by the presence of garments...and it is unlikely that the garments would somehow incite the mob to a higher pitch of violence just by their presence as opposed to Joseph and the others being just who they were (church leaders).

This looks like the likely beginnings of the LDS folklore of garments offering physical protection.

Edited June 23, 2011 by calmoriah

[Jaybear]

Jaybeared again!

Are you actually capable of responding to one of my posts in a civil manner?

[KevinG]

Are you actually capable of responding to one of my posts in a civil manner?

I think if you look into your heart you alread know the answer to that.

[Pahoran]

Are you actually capable of responding to one of my posts in a civil manner?

Feel free to comment upon the substance of my post.

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited June 23, 2011 by Pahoran

[Jaybear]

Feel free to comment upon the substance of my post.

Regards,

Pahoran

As soon as you edit your post, I would be glad to do so.

[altersteve]

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.

I've actually always wanted to see a biographical drama film about Joseph that contains all the details that "official" Church films do not include, a film aimed at both LDS and non-LDS audiences. 'Twould be awesome.

[KevinG]

I've actually always wanted to see a biographical drama film about Joseph that contains all the details that "official" Church films do not include, a film aimed at both LDS and non-LDS audiences. 'Twould be awesome.

...and as with an accurate portrayal of the Book of Mormon probably R rated.

[altersteve]

...and as with an accurate portrayal of the Book of Mormon probably R rated.

They could make it PG-13 easily.

[Bernard Gui]

I've actually always wanted to see a biographical drama film about Joseph that contains all the details that "official" Church films do not include, a film aimed at both LDS and non-LDS audiences. 'Twould be awesome.

Agreed, if it were well done. Something along the line of the John Adams series. It could lend itself to all kinds of defects, though.

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

Do Church movies portray Moses killing the Egyptian or the penalty paid by Hamor and Shechem for a moment of pleasure?

Would the Church be praised for producing something like Mel Gibson did?

Bernard

[AddamS]

What about the story of Lot? I'm guessing most Bible-Pics are going to leave this one on the editing room floor.

[Pahoran]

The Church knows well that the more information a person has, the less likely they are to convert to their religion.

Xander,

You ought not to suppose, merely because the mods are being kind to you, that you have carte blanche to make these kinds of egregiously provocative libels without their being challenged.

"The Church" is not a "hive mind," such that it can "know" something. The leaders of the Church have proved, through long years of mostly volunteer service, that they believe in its truth claims. They believe in those claims at least as genuinely as you believe your anti-Mormon ideology.

And they have seen people join the Church with many different levels of knowledge; and if they "know" anything, it is that the more information a person has, the more likely they are to join the Church.

I realise that is contrary to your assumptions, but it is true nonetheless.

None of the details omitted from the one hour film, as relating to the martyrdom, have any relevance whatsoever to the Church's truth claims. Your assumption that they were omitted in order to make the film more "faith promoting" is exactly that -- an assumption of your own.

To cut to the point again, LeSellers is welcome to back up his numerous and baseless claims whenever he so chooses. In the meantime, the cackling detractors aren't doing their side any favors by attacking me. It is a clear sign that they cannot attack the arguments.

I am aware that this faithfully represents the dominant ideology of your home board. Perhaps you'd like to explain how this relates to the recent gang-attack on Will Schryver; but in your case at least, Xander, it is false. The real reason people respond to you by expressing their annoyance is that your posts are annoying. They are annoyingly superior and condescending, annoyingly provocative, and annoyingly wrong in the "facts" you assert.

And your arguments are faulty and have been well dealt with. Your repeated, stubborn insistence that "Joseph Smith killed two men" looks like an attempt at proof by repeated assertion. I have yet to be persuaded that you genuinely believe it yourself.

It was believed by others, including Parley P. Pratt and John Taylor, and no fault to them, given the quality of the information they were relying upon. The better information now available means that those who rely upon those outdated assumptions are wrong. Falling back on the fallacy of argument from authority is an illegitimate rhetorical trick that looks remarkably like the sort of tactic that might be resorted to by someone who knows that the facts do not support him.

I know Pahoran has no intention of operating outside his preferred double-standard, as the question was rhetorical.

I have no double standard, "preferred" or otherwise. My actual position, if you really want to know, is that the word "Christian" simply means "one who follows Christ," and of course includes those whose discipleship is less than perfect. I was merely highlighting that your artfully constructed sentence:

If Mormons wonder why some Christians accuse them of worshiping Joseph...

Implies that "Mormons" and "Christians" are two discrete, non-intersecting categories.

Which, of course, they are not.

By challenging your assertion as I did, I got you to back away from your attempt at exclusion by definition. In so doing, you effectively surrendered to what you called "the LDS apologetic on the definition of Christian," even though you tried, as a rearguard shot, to claim that I had "unwittingly illustrated the weakness" thereof.

If there is any such weakness, it has yet to be demonstrated.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Ares]

Xander,

You ought not to suppose, merely because the mods are being kind to you, that you have carte blanche to make these kinds of egregiously provocative libels without their being challenged.

"The Church" is not a "hive mind," such that it can "know" something. The leaders of the Church have proved, through long years of mostly volunteer service, that they believe in its truth claims. They believe in those claims at least as genuinely as you believe your anti-Mormon ideology.

And they have seen people join the Church with many different levels of knowledge; and if they "know" anything, it is that the more information a person has, the more likely they are to join the Church.

I realise that is contrary to your assumptions, but it is true nonetheless.

None of the details omitted from the one hour film, as relating to the martyrdom, have any relevance whatsoever to the Church's truth claims. Your assumption that they were omitted in order to make the film more "faith promoting" is exactly that -- an assumption of your own.

I am aware that this faithfully represents the dominant ideology of your home board. Perhaps you'd like to explain how this relates to the recent gang-attack on Will Schryver; but in your case at least, Xander, it is false. The real reason people respond to you by expressing their annoyance is that your posts are annoying. They are annoyingly superior and condescending, annoyingly provocative, and annoyingly wrong in the "facts" you assert.

(careful this is getting personal - stick to the facts. -mod)

And your arguments are faulty and have been well dealt with. Your repeated, stubborn insistence that "Joseph Smith killed two men" looks like an attempt at proof by repeated assertion. I have yet to be persuaded that you genuinely believe it yourself.

It was believed by others, including Parley P. Pratt and John Taylor, and no fault to them, given the quality of the information they were relying upon. The better information now available means that those who rely upon those outdated assumptions are wrong. Falling back on the fallacy of argument from authority is an illegitimate rhetorical trick that looks remarkably like the sort of tactic that might be resorted to by someone who knows that the facts do not support him.

I have no double standard, "preferred" or otherwise. My actual position, if you really want to know, is that the word "Christian" simply means "one who follows Christ," and of course includes those whose discipleship is less than perfect. I was merely highlighting that your artfully constructed sentence:

Implies that "Mormons" and "Christians" are two discrete, non-intersecting categories.

Which, of course, they are not.

By challenging your assertion as I did, I got you to back away from your attempt at exclusion by definition. In so doing, you effectively surrendered to what you called "the LDS apologetic on the definition of Christian," even though you tried, as a rearguard shot, to claim that I had "unwittingly illustrated the weakness" thereof.

If there is any such weakness, it has yet to be demonstrated.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Xander]

Interesting, because the implication is cowardice.

I never said Joseph Smith was a coward. I don't think that he was. I just don't think he was trying to save anyone's life but his own when he jumped from the window. That doesn't make him a coward. It isn't cowardice for an unarmed man to run away from a barage of bullets and he wasn't obligated to save anyone's life; I see no reason to believe he was in any position to do so anyway.

And yet you can't seem to think such a issue would not diminish the death, perhaps make Joseph a lesser martyr? Indeed, seems to be anti Mormons would be rushing for such low hanging fruit. If it were viable.

Sorry to disappoint you. Maybe your anti-Mormon compass is out of whack, or maybe your assumptions about all disaffected members are baseless.

So when someone states anti Mormon things as fact, are they then anti Mormon or just incredibly ignorant of what they are writing?

Do you really find much success with these kinds of loaded questions?

It is certainly not a pro or even neutral statement of opinion. Or will you spin it that way?

I simply do not believe Joseph Smith was trying to save anyone's life but his own when he jumped out of the window. That doesn't make him a bad person and it doesn't take an anti-Mormon to realize this. I don't believe this because I'm an anti-Mormon; I believe it because that is what the evidence suggests. Now, it is certainly possible that saving the lives of his friends is what was going through his mind at the time, but there is no way we can ever know that, which is why I asked for CFR when I was told this is precisely what he thought he was doing. I assumed there was some evidence aside from psychoanalytical projectionss, but apparently I was wrong.

[Vance]

I never said Joseph Smith was a coward.

One wonders if the meaning of "implication" isn't understood by some.

Edited June 24, 2011 by Vance

[Ares]

Maybe your anti-Mormon compass is out of whack, or maybe your assumptions about all disaffected members are baseless.

I assumed there was some evidence aside from psychoanalytical projectionss, but apparently I was wrong.

In case it wasn't clear in my warning to Pahoran... all arguments consisting of amateur diagnosis of another posters psychologial state will be considered a personal remark and therefore cause for warning and banning.

Play nice.

[Xander]

He don't need no stinkin' details, man! He already knows evertying important about the events that day.

To wit:

Joseph Smith was a coward.

Joseph Smith deserved to die.

The Carthage Yellows did the world a great service by killing him.

The Carthage Yellows were a loving and peaceful group whose only problem was with the coward and traitor Joseph Smith. Anyone who got in their way deserved to die, too, because he was trying to protect Joseph Smith (who deserved to die).

What else is there?

Lehi

Wow. Is this really what you've been reduced to?

I agree with none of those statements.

None.

[Xander]

One wonders if the meaning of "implication" isn't understood by some.

Or in your case, the meaning of "inference."

What you choose to infer doesn't necessarily prove what I implied.

[Xander]

I have no double standard, "preferred" or otherwise. My actual position, if you really want to know, is that the word "Christian" simply means "one who follows Christ," and of course includes those whose discipleship is less than perfect. I was merely highlighting that your artfully constructed sentence

Excellent!

So you must agree that when Evangelicals generalize and say Mormons aren't Christians, they are at least, by your own definition, partly right.

Meaning, not all Mormons avoid the sin of bearing false witness. Not all Mormons follow Christ. Hence, not all Mormons are Christians.

Unless of course you think Mormons always follow Christ.

This kind of word game does not elevate the discussion. You have received a warning. Stay on topic! - mod

[Xander]

No. It's about something you said. See the quote I was responding to

But "savior of sorts" hardly conveys the "sense that Jesus is the Savior of mankind." I don't even know how anyone would leap to that understanding of the context.

The gunmen were far enough into the room to turn their weapons to the left to fire on the men on that side of the door.

Sure, they might have stuck their hand around the corner and pulled a trigger, but if that were so, then we'd expect Richards to have been wounded since he was the one behind the door. Also, how is it that neither of the three men were hit by bullets until they started to run towards teh window? My point is, these men were shooting blindly. According to eye-witness testimony when Joseph Smith fired his three shots, the room immediately filled with smoke. And once we consider the added smoke coming from the guns of the attackers, you're really left with little to no visibility. So you're having a very difficult time making a case that these men took aim at Taylor with an intent to kill him. In all liklihood, they saw was a figure in a smokey room running towards the window and assumed it was the man they were after.

None of Taylor's wounds were mortal, so obviously they only wanted to scare him, even though they continued to fire on him when he was down?

Your statement assumes what you have yet to prove. 1) That these men knew Taylor was there, 2) that they could shoot Taylor at will before he ran through a smokey room towards the window, and 3) that they could determine that he was not in fact Joseph Smith.

But you just said they were firing blindly through a small opening (a couple of inches, according to you).

Right. That is what the evidence suggests.

How would they know Richards and Taylor were still alive if they didn't enter the room?

Because up until the point of their depature, they were still trying to force their way into the room. They knew someone was on the other side of the door pushing back and swatting the guns. But following your own logic, if these men had completely entered the room as you insist, then they must have been in a position to murder the defenseless Richards. But they didn't. So....? You can't seem to make up your mind what you want to argue. Were they in the room or weren't they?

Especially Taylor, since he was hiding under the bed. How could anyone standing in the hall see what was going on in the room?

I already explained this. If you look at a graphic image of the room, you'll notice that the bed and the window is in the line of sight from the door opening. This means both were also within the line of fire. The fact that Taylor's wounds were sporadic is clear evidence that these were not well aimed shots. Richards was swatting up and down, but he could not swat them side to side.

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?

I think you just made my case for me. Do you not see how?