Joseph And His Gun…

[Bernard Gui]

From what I gather from the FAIR essay is that they showed up at the trial not that they participated in the trial. I may have misunderstood what you were saying here though.

That may be more recent research than the Oaks/Hill book. Seems to me if they were indicted, they would not

show up at the trial just to watch.

Allen, Wills, Voras, and Gallaher were never arrested and never appeared for trial...Wills, Voras, and Gallaher were probably named in the

indictment because their wounds, which testimony showed were received at the jail, were irrefutable evidence that they had participated

in the mob. They undoubtedly recognized their vulnerability and fled the county. A contemporary witness reported these three as saying

that they were the first men at the jail, that one of them shot through the door killing Hyrum, that Joseph wounded all three with his

pistol, and that Gallaher shot Joseph as he ran to the window.

Dallin Oaks and Marvin Hill, Carthage Conspiracy: The Trial of the Accused Assassins of Joseph Smith. University of Illinois Press, 1975, p.52.

Bernard

Edited June 22, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[LeSellers]

It is a problem in our modern society that most people have no clue what it takes to put meat on the table.

While circumstances don't always permit them to do so themselves, those who claim I'm some sort of ogre or cruel, heartless beast for killing rabbits, chickens, goats, calves, and other animials, even fish, but who then go to the grocer's and buy a steak or to M^cDonald's for a Big Mac or Fillet-o'-fish sandwich are nothing but hypocrites. They say they would never harm an animal with their mouths full of beef jerkey or while chewing on a buffalo wing. Anyone who would refuse to kill to eat, but who employs killers to do it for him and then levels a charge of cruelty at me has no ground to stand on.

My mother-in-law once told us of a boy who responded to the question, "Which one is the man-made thing" from the list that included his selection, "A tree". His rationale? Men had to come, rip up the sidewalk, dig a hole and put the tree in the ground: obviously, this means that the tree was man-made.

Lehi

Edited June 22, 2011 by LeSellers

[LeSellers]

Are you referring to this?

"Statements like this in conjunction with the oft repeated 'I am going like a lamb to the slaughter…' give the impression that Joseph did not fight back."

The meaning, as taught to me by my LDS instructors, was obvious to me and apparently to much of the world.

"Obvious", but wrong!!!

You cannot legitimately use a XXI context to determine the meaning of a XIX statement. It does not matter how many XXI USmericans you talk to, nor what their backgrounds are.

The meaning of the phrase is, in Latin, alea jacta est, Caesar's words when he crossed the Rubicon: the die is cast.

Lehi

Edited June 22, 2011 by LeSellers

[Jeff K.]

“So certain was he of the cause he led, so sure of his divinely-given calling, that he placed them above the value of his own life. With prescient knowledge of his forthcoming death, he surrendered himself to those who would deliver him defenseless into the hands of a mob. He sealed his testimony with his life’s blood.” (Gordon B. Hinckley, October 1981 General Conference)

Statements like this in conjunction with the oft repeated “I am going like a lamb to the slaughter…” give the impression that Joseph did not fight back.

And yet most members of the chruch were well aware that he did fight to survive, but he also knew he was going to be killed. I seems you anti Mormons keep moving the goal posts in order to save some sort of face in the whole fiasco regarding your views on Josephs murder by a mob.

[Questing Beast]

I said: "The film is just barely over one hour. So there is even less justified criticism in pointing to things that the editors left out. I am impressed how well they did the job of portraying Joseph Smith as a real person. His character in the film is completely believable. And all positive - which is the rub when we are talking about his full character, personality and history.

But in so short a film the focus must be on "The Prophet", not the militia leader; not the candidate for POTUS; not the polygamist; not the mayor of Nauvoo who ordered the destruction of a libelous newspaper; not even the father of many children, biological as well as foster...."

Can you help me figure out where you are going with this?

I was making an observation about the limitations imposed by a one hour long film. Earlier I said that the Church never shows the pistol in films it makes dramatizing the Carthage murders. And the reason is obvious; the agenda for such a film is to show The Prophet as such, not a holistic view of the minutia making up the history of his life. If even advantageous content gets omitted, e.g. his role as a father and foster father - one feature of his life that shows him at his best - there is certainly not going to be room for a depiction of a confusing element of the Carthage murders story. As someone already observed, the detail of Joseph Smith seen shooting a smuggled pistol would make no sense in such a film. I also agree that showing any details at all of the mob assault was probably not a good idea. If it had been my project, I would have had a more tender final moment with Emma and his mother and children, then ended it with her/them watching him ride off with his brother and friends. Either a voice-over or text would tell the terse outcome of that ride. That way, the whole dramatization with all the left out details doesn't get shown. Boring? Compared to flying bullets and shattering glass, I guess so. But the whole point of the film was to show his life as a prophet, not as a climax asserting martyrdom as the focal point of that climax. In reality, Carthage jail was an inevitable anticlimax. It should be treated as such....

[thesometimesaint]

Questing Beast:

Recent Benazir Bhutto was assasinated becoming a martyr to her cause. Was the fact that she had a bodyguard make her any less a martyr?

[thesometimesaint]

Questing Beast:

Recently Benazir Bhutto was assasinated becoming a martyr to her cause. Was the fact that she had a bodyguard make her any less a martyr?

[Pahoran]

In reality,

Has anyone ever told you that you have a really annoying habit of asserting your highly disputable opinions as "reality?"

Carthage jail was an inevitable anticlimax. It should be treated as such....

So a prophet sealing his testimony with his blood is an "anticlimax," is it?

Who knew?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Jeff K.]

Apparently it is an anti climax to anti Mormons

[bookofmormontruth]

Apparently it is an anti climax to anti Mormons

Apparently like the mob, death doesn't satisfy their obsessive detestation of a Prophet of G-d.

[Xander]

Who said anything about a "savoir of sorts"? No one considers JS equal to Christ or even portrayed him as such. Nice straw man. Try to pay attention

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.

What happens in threads like this is some tough guy comes along and tries to claim that because JS had a gun he is either not a martyr or that the church was some how lying because they did not teach about the gun JS had ever other Sunday. Which camp do you belong to?

I belong to the camp where thinking is far more dimensional than what you're probably used to. For example, a person doesn't need to fit neatly into one of two categories simply because that makes things easier for the well-poisoning apologists who bully those who dare challenge their presuppositions with a CFR. The paranoia here is so thick you can choke on it. Immediately, I've been called a troll, an anti-Mormon who condones murder and a sock-puppet... all for what? Because I kindly asked LeSellers if he could support his claims with evidence? Good grief. This is all I did, and the responses are disappointing. In the past 24 hours, LeSellers failed to present evidence for his claims, and his supporters have decided to turn this thread into a dog-pile against me.

Lehi made no "untenable claims". I said, erroneously, that each of the Smith brothers was shot four times after being killed. In fact, I must admit, that each was shot only twice more.

But I never took issue with this statement. I think if you review my initial response, you'll quickly see which of your claims I challenged with a CFR.

But it was clear that the Carthage Yellows wanted to mutilate the bodies. As PaPa implied, the Saints were convinced of it, so much so that they buried the bodies in hidden, unmarked graves and even moved them to prevent that happening.

It doesn't matter what some Mormons thought the attackers wanted to do. What matters is what the attackers actually did do].Not only did they not mutilate the bodies of Richards and Taylor, they didn't even bother to kill them. They showed zero interest in killing anyone except Joseph Smith. So to say they intended from the outset to mutilate the bodies of those they had no intention of killing in the first place, really makes no sense whatsoever. There was absolutely nothing stopping them from killing Richards and Taylor. They were armed and in the same room with these two defenseless Mormons who had tried to fight them off. So if they were looking for the opportune moment, well that was it.

Everything else is fact as far as I have been able to determine.

Your "facts" aren't based on evidence then? I assumed they were, which is why I asked for the evidence. I am genuinely curious what evidence you're basing this on, but so far you haven't provided any.

This is false. Xander your colors are showing.

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. 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.

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.

JS fired 3 shots and hit 3 men all of which appeared at the trial for JS murder. None were killed by JS.

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. It was of course all romanced with a faith-promoting twist, similar to LeSeller's version.

You don't like the anti-Mormon label? Tough!

Personally, I don't care if you call me an anti-Mormon. This is probably because I know folks here well enough to know that most are going to say this to those who don't tow the party line. Some folks don't know how to respond to anyone without calling them anti-Mormon. It is a popular red herring and well-poisoning technique which gives the appearance that you've actually scored rhetorical points, when in reality all you did was illustrate your failure to address the argument. But back on point, what I resent is this ridiculous notion that anyone who challenges these hagiographic versions of Joseph Smith's life and death, must be full supporters of those who committed murder. This is the epitome of binary thinking; you either have to be for one extreme view or else you're guilty of supporting another extreme view. I say nonsense to that.

You are all the same with the same talking points (Joseph Smith was no martyr, Joseph Smith had it coming and the mob "accidentally/unintentionally" killed Hyrum, You guys worship Joseph Smith & etc..). The same regurgitation - no original thoughts.

I hate to rain on your pity parade - OK, maybe not - but the fact is I don't care if you call Joseph Smith a martyr. I know that totally disrupts your strawman, but the truth is I don't care. To make matters worse for you, here is another humdinger: I don't think he "had it coming" and I think anyone who would say this is just as despicable as the people who accuse me of supporting murder. I never said "you guys worship Joseph," but I did point out that this video doesn't exactly make it easier for apologists who choose to deal with those Evangelicals who claim that you do. The irony in your response is that it is you who seems to have no original thought on this matter. All you did was regurgitate the standard knee-jerk response to anyone who refuses to take for granted everything an apologist on this forum opines. If a critic had made such assertions to the contrary, many of you would be joined together in protest demanding a call for references. But when a critic asks an apologist to back up baseless assertions, that critic is accused of having a bad tone, being a troll, sock puppet, etc! Look, opinions are fine, so long as you make the distinction between history based on evidence and personal opinion based on intuition, relevation, or whatever..

Point of order: since Christians do not bear false witness against their neighbours, it follows that no "Christians accuse [the Latter-day Saints] of worshiping Joseph, or at the very least, consider him equal to Christ."

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. Personally I don't think Mormons worship Joseph Smith per se, but I can understand why some Evangelicals would conclude otherwise. For them, it is simply anathema to treat anyone with the kind of devotion Mormons typically express for their Prophet. The recent movie certainly didn't do the apologists any favors on this matter. Smith was compared to Christ on numerous occasions (i.e. washing the feet of servants, attracting folks from hundreds of miles away who were apparently just following the spirit in his direction, rebuking naysayers with the power of God, healing an entire community from sickness, etc). With all the apologetic talk about how prophets are fallible human beings with weaknesses just like any other person, the Joseph Smith represented in this film would strongly suggest otherwise. From being a loving and devoted husband to only one wife, to being a perfect neighbor with endless words of wisdom and inspiration for all members in the community, to his ability to do so many chores and still get along so well with children, to his humility and charity even to those who sought to do him harm, to his divine ability to silence anti-Mormons with the raise of his hand and apparent his faith in God, etc. How could you complain about such a man, ever? He was a perfect human being in that movie. At least, by comparison to that rascal of a Protestant Minister who was always whispering sweet satanic nothings in his ear.

And yet most members of the chruch were well aware that he did fight to survive, but he also knew he was going to be killed. I seems you anti Mormons keep moving the goal posts in order to save some sort of face in the whole fiasco regarding your views on Josephs murder by a mob.

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." 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. 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?

[Xander]

Apparently like the mob, death doesn't satisfy their obsessive detestation of a Prophet of G-d.

So not only do I support murder, but Joseph Smith's death is something that works to gratify our "detestation"?

How is this not attacking the poster and not adding substance to a discussion?

I wonder if Pahoran would call this person a non-Christian for bearing false witness? Critical minds want to know.

[Jeff K.]

I belong to the camp where thinking is far more dimensional than what you're probably used to. For example, a person doesn't need to fit neatly into one of two categories simply because that makes things easier for the well-poisoning apologists who bully those who dare challenge their presuppositions with a CFR. The paranoia here is so thick you can choke on it. Immediately, I've been called a troll, an anti-Mormon who condones murder and a sock-puppet... all for what? Because I kindly asked LeSellers if he could support his claims with evidence? Good grief. This is all I did, and the responses are disappointing. In the past 24 hours, LeSellers failed to present evidence for his claims, and his supporters have decided to turn this thread into a dog-pile against me.

Chuckle. Dimensional or dementional?

There is no paranoia only your assertion that you aren't anti Mormon while taking the normal anti Mormon approach. The typical, I know people so well I know what they are going to say,,,,, chuckle, no that isn't paranoid, well, maybe just a wee bit, but certainly judgemental. It would be easy for anyone here to say they know exactly what you are going to say. Toss out a bit of inflammatory anti Mormon claims (while ignoring all the earlier posts... protest your innocense, then impress us with your vapid and self congratulatory...look at me, I am multi demented.. or something like that...

[Jeff K.]

Quote

And yet most members of the chruch were well aware that he did fight to survive, but he also knew he was going to be killed. I seems you anti Mormons keep moving the goal posts in order to save some sort of face in the whole fiasco regarding your views on Josephs murder by a mob.

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." 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. 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?

Oh yes, the goal posts have been moved. They have been moved from "The church will never admit Joseph had a gun" to "OK the church says he has a gun, but they don't teach it" to "Ok they teach it, but they don't teach it enough"

Goal posts moved... oh yes.

But wait, he tried to save his own life? Does this matter? Does it change his martyrdom? Whether he did or not is entirely irrelevant to martyrdom since people in the past have been martyred even as they fought. So the issue doesn't matter. Why challenge the issue if the issue is irrelevant? Not sure. But anti Mormons seem to think it is important. So the question is, if it smells like a dog, barks like one, and bares its fanes like one, and even has the appropriate genetic make up, does that mean it is a dog? Or does it merely make it an anti Mormon? Who is to say?

Edited June 23, 2011 by Jeff K.

[Jeff K.]

Quote

You are all the same with the same talking points (Joseph Smith was no martyr, Joseph Smith had it coming and the mob "accidentally/unintentionally" killed Hyrum, You guys worship Joseph Smith & etc..). The same regurgitation - no original thoughts.

I hate to rain on your pity parade - OK, maybe not - but the fact is I don't care if you call Joseph Smith a martyr. I know that totally disrupts your strawman, but the truth is I don't care. To make matters worse for you, here is another humdinger: I don't think he "had it coming" and I think anyone who would say this is just as despicable as the people who accuse me of supporting murder. I never said "you guys worship Joseph," but I did point out that this video doesn't exactly make it easier for apologists who choose to deal with those Evangelicals who claim that you do. The irony in your response is that it is you who seems to have no original thought on this matter. All you did was regurgitate the standard knee-jerk response to anyone who refuses to take for granted everything an apologist on this forum opines. If a critic had made such assertions to the contrary, many of you would be joined together in protest demanding a call for references. But when a critic asks an apologist to back up baseless assertions, that critic is accused of having a bad tone, being a troll, sock puppet, etc! Look, opinions are fine, so long as you make the distinction between history based on evidence and personal opinion based on intuition, relevation, or whatever..

You seem awfully interested in dicounting it. Your actions belie your words.

By the way, anyone who uses one movie that did not capture every detail, and say, see hiding something, one is force to conclude, anti Mormon. So when you bring up the tired old excuses, like the old dog showing his same old fangs.... do we conclude troll? Or do we say, oh, it is not the same old thing...

If you had paid attention, if you had read this discussion you would have known that people did indeed use historical information. But you are too busy being multi dementional.

[bookofmormontruth]

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.

I belong to the camp where thinking is far more dimensional than what you're probably used to. For example, a person doesn't need to fit neatly into one of two categories simply because that makes things easier for the well-poisoning apologists who bully those who dare challenge their presuppositions with a CFR. The paranoia here is so thick you can choke on it. Immediately, I've been called a troll, an anti-Mormon who condones murder and a sock-puppet... all for what? Because I kindly asked LeSellers if he could support his claims with evidence? Good grief. This is all I did, and the responses are disappointing. In the past 24 hours, LeSellers failed to present evidence for his claims, and his supporters have decided to turn this thread into a dog-pile against me.

But I never took issue with this statement. I think if you review my initial response, you'll quickly see which of your claims I challenged with a CFR.

It doesn't matter what some Mormons thought the attackers wanted to do. What matters is what the attackers actually did do].Not only did they not mutilate the bodies of Richards and Taylor, they didn't even bother to kill them. They showed zero interest in killing anyone except Joseph Smith. So to say they intended from the outset to mutilate the bodies of those they had no intention of killing in the first place, really makes no sense whatsoever. There was absolutely nothing stopping them from killing Richards and Taylor. They were armed and in the same room with these two defenseless Mormons who had tried to fight them off. So if they were looking for the opportune moment, well that was it.

Your "facts" aren't based on evidence then? I assumed they were, which is why I asked for the evidence. I am genuinely curious what evidence you're basing this on, but so far you haven't provided any.

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. 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.

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.

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. It was of course all romanced with a faith-promoting twist, similar to LeSeller's version.

Personally, I don't care if you call me an anti-Mormon. This is probably because I know folks here well enough to know that most are going to say this to those who don't tow the party line. Some folks don't know how to respond to anyone without calling them anti-Mormon. It is a popular red herring and well-poisoning technique which gives the appearance that you've actually scored rhetorical points, when in reality all you did was illustrate your failure to address the argument. But back on point, what I resent is this ridiculous notion that anyone who challenges these hagiographic versions of Joseph Smith's life and death, must be full supporters of those who committed murder. This is the epitome of binary thinking; you either have to be for one extreme view or else you're guilty of supporting another extreme view. I say nonsense to that.

I hate to rain on your pity parade - OK, maybe not - but the fact is I don't care if you call Joseph Smith a martyr. I know that totally disrupts your strawman, but the truth is I don't care. To make matters worse for you, here is another humdinger: I don't think he "had it coming" and I think anyone who would say this is just as despicable as the people who accuse me of supporting murder. I never said "you guys worship Joseph," but I did point out that this video doesn't exactly make it easier for apologists who choose to deal with those Evangelicals who claim that you do. The irony in your response is that it is you who seems to have no original thought on this matter. All you did was regurgitate the standard knee-jerk response to anyone who refuses to take for granted everything an apologist on this forum opines. If a critic had made such assertions to the contrary, many of you would be joined together in protest demanding a call for references. But when a critic asks an apologist to back up baseless assertions, that critic is accused of having a bad tone, being a troll, sock puppet, etc! Look, opinions are fine, so long as you make the distinction between history based on evidence and personal opinion based on intuition, relevation, or whatever..

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. Personally I don't think Mormons worship Joseph Smith per se, but I can understand why some Evangelicals would conclude otherwise. For them, it is simply anathema to treat anyone with the kind of devotion Mormons typically express for their Prophet. The recent movie certainly didn't do the apologists any favors on this matter. Smith was compared to Christ on numerous occasions (i.e. washing the feet of servants, attracting folks from hundreds of miles away who were apparently just following the spirit in his direction, rebuking naysayers with the power of God, healing an entire community from sickness, etc). With all the apologetic talk about how prophets are fallible human beings with weaknesses just like any other person, the Joseph Smith represented in this film would strongly suggest otherwise. From being a loving and devoted husband to only one wife, to being a perfect neighbor with endless words of wisdom and inspiration for all members in the community, to his ability to do so many chores and still get along so well with children, to his humility and charity even to those who sought to do him harm, to his divine ability to silence anti-Mormons with the raise of his hand and apparent his faith in God, etc. How could you complain about such a man, ever? He was a perfect human being in that movie. At least, by comparison to that rascal of a Protestant Minister who was always whispering sweet satanic nothings in his ear.

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." 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. 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?

After that whiney post (with countless "I don't cares", but enough to care to create an account to post anti-Mormon talking points) - a box of tissues is definitely needed. Another clear sign of an anti-Mormon.

[bookofmormontruth]

So not only do I support murder, but Joseph Smith's death is something that works to gratify our "detestation"?

How is this not attacking the poster and not adding substance to a discussion?

I wonder if Pahoran would call this person a non-Christian for bearing false witness? Critical minds want to know.

It would be great if you would take your own advice. You know, not bear false witness and blatantly attack Joseph Smith with the ad nauseam anti-Mormon talking points?

Let me guess, as the self professed "critical" thinker, you thought you were being "original"?

[Xander]

You seem awfully interested in dicounting it. Your actions belie your words.

My only actions have been represented by my words. I explicitly stated that I do not care if Joseph Smith is considered a martyr. Your inability to accept this speaks volumes of your desire to poison the well, and your willingness or inability to actually engage the discussion in a substantive way.

By the way, anyone who uses one movie that did not capture every detail, and say, see hiding something, one is force to conclude, anti Mormon.

Don't kid yourself. You began with that conclusion before I ever said two words about the movie. The simple fact of the matter is this. The movie provides a hagiographical rendition of Joseph Smith's life that can only be understood as intentionally faith-promoting, which means it was intentionally careful to skip over controversial aspects of his life. It is not intended to be educational. The Church knows well that the more information a person has, the less likely they are to convert to their religion. I never said it had to "capture every detail." I simply noted that it was careful to avoid all the details that could possibly put the Prophet in a negative light. Saying it was only an hour is a bad cop out. Within that hour they managed to squeeze in all sorts of glorifying "details," some of which were based on scant or questionable evidence.

So when you bring up the tired old excuses, like the old dog showing his same old fangs.... do we conclude troll? Or do we say, oh, it is not the same old thing...

Saying it is the same old thing is just a standard knee-jerk response by the apologetic amatuers who do not know how to adequately respond to the critical issues. You want to keep yoru echo chamber where a few faith promoters rant endlessly with baseless theory and assertion, while anyone who dares to challenge their presuppositions is immediately categorized and dismissed. I only wish I had a nickle for every time you and a few of the usual suspects, used this "tired, canard, anti-mormon" rhetoric instead of engaging the evidence.

If you had paid attention, if you had read this discussion you would have known that people did indeed use historical information. But you are too busy being multi dementional.

I was responding to LeSellers and I have read every post he has made in response. He has not supported his claims with evidence. Not one. So now you're saying the lot of you work together as a monolithic conscience ? And if "people" did in fact support LeSeller's baseless claims with "historical information" (which sounds like a vague reference to another baseless assertion), then why not cite them? You're posturing again, as usual. But be rest assured, that by calling me an anti-Mormon for the fifth time, that this will make up for your inability to argue effectively - in the eyes of a few anyway.

After that whiney post (with countless "I don't cares", but enough to care to create an account to post anti-Mormon talking points) - a box of tissues is definitely needed. Another clear sign of an anti-Mormon.

Now you're just backpeddling. First I am accused of being an anti-Mormon who regurgitates the same ole stuff by arguing XYZ. After making you look foolish for pointing out that I never argued XYZ and that I never argued XYZ, theonly response you can come up with is to say this is a "whine"!?!?! You then proceed with the original apologetic tactic (which failed miserably) by accusing me of dishing out teh usual stuff, even though it was already established that I never agreed with what you accused me of believing. A clear sign of an echo chamber if there ever was one.

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.

[Xander]

It would be great if you would take your own advice. You know, not bear false witness and blatantly attack Joseph Smith with the ad nauseam anti-Mormon talking points?

Let me guess, as the self professed "critical" thinker, you thought you were being "original"?

I know Pahoran has no intention of operating outside his preferred double-standard, as the question was rhetorical. But you are free to take another wild shot at pin-pointing my "ad nauseam anti-Mormon talking points" if you so choose. You look sillier and sillier the more you try, because all you're left with is misrepresentations of what I've said and what I believe. Kinda unexpected from a group that self-identifies "persecuted" and "misrepresented." Well, maybe not.

[frankenstein]

After that whiney post (with countless "I don't cares", but enough to care to create an account to post anti-Mormon talking points) - a box of tissues is definitely needed. Another clear sign of an anti-Mormon.

xander assessment of how he/she has been treated is fairly accuarate. You are prone to label someone anti because that person does not share a 110% Go LDS attitude, you did the same to me, you made claims that I was just reposting someone elses anit-mormon work, and even after being shown context, page number and links to the Dalin H Oaks himself you continued in your false claims.

Please try something different, and I offer the same to Jeff k who has very biting and substance lacking posts towards Xander - point of interest, I do not think Xander claimed "not enough" concerning the Church "teaching" about Joseph Smith having a gun whether he acquired it from someone else or had it on his person.

try this if you can....

PROVE XANDER WRONG WITH FACTS.

its all too easy to shout "anti-mormon anti-mormon" If xander is wrong then you must know xander is wrong because you have a FACTUAL basis know xander is wrong. So where are your facts? Did any of the men hit by the shot from the pepper box die at some later time and the cause of death is attributable to the wound? I would like point out that Xander makes effort to state "killed" as opposed to "murdered".

Lehi, at least had the foresight and gumpshun to say that none of the men hit by the pepper box shot died from their wounds. Xander just recently posts otherwise.

So how about poeple address the facts of the issue and stop with the labels. If any knows Xander is wrong, then please show it with facts. Bernard GUI posted a lenghty transcript which uses the term exterminate; thank you for factual information Bernard.

So my challenge to you Bookofmormontruth is prove Xander wrong with facts.

Did any of the 3 men shot by Joseph Smith die from the wounds?

Did Joseph Smith get the pistol from someone else in the jail cell?

Did Joseph Smith say "Oh God have mercy on a widows son" - or whatever the Masonic statement is?

Do you accept the challenge to provide facts on any those 3 questions?

[frankenstein]

from a Ensign article written by Reed Blake:

The Prophet dropped to his brother. “Oh! my poor, dear brother Hyrum,” he groaned. The deep look of sympathy on Joseph’s face fastened itself to Elder Taylor’s mind. The Prophet then stood, and with a firm step he went to the door, pulled the pepperbox from his pocket, and, reaching around the door casing, fired blindly into the hallway. He snapped all six shots. Half discharged, striking three men. see footnote 26

foot note 26: See Thomas Ford, History of Illinois, p. 212. Of the three barrels discharged by Joseph, it is believed he hit three men: an Irishman named Wells or Wills (who was in the mob because of his love of a brawl) in the arm, Voorhees or Voras (an oversized youth from Bear Creek known for his lack of good sense) in the shoulder, and a man named Gallagher or Gallaher (a young Southerner from Mississippi) in the face. Two other men were said to have been shot in the jail: one a man named Townsend from Fort Madison (Iowa Territory) who died nine months later from an arm wound that wouldn’t heal, and another named Mills who was shot in the arm. It is assumed they were shot in the confusion of men and arms jammed in the hallway and on the landing.

what is not clear even from the footnote is whether the "two other" are claimed to be shot by Joseph Smith or by someone else during the "confusion of men and arms". Does Reed state in 24 hours to Martrydom that Joseph Smith also shot the "two other"?

see not so hard to tackle the substance of a claim

[Xander]

xander assessment of how he/she has been treated is fairly accuarate. You are prone to label someone anti because that person does not share a 110% Go LDS attitude, you did the same to me, you made claims that I was just reposting someone elses anit-mormon work, and even after being shown context, page number and links to the Dalin H Oaks himself you continued in your false claims.

ROFL! Yes, this does appear to be a classic case of de ja vue. The historical references I provided came from a FAIR wiki page, and he claims it is just the usual anti-Mormon talking points!

Please try something different, and I offer the same to Jeff k who has very biting and substance lacking posts towards Xander - point of interest, I do not think Xander claimed "not enough" concerning the Church "teaching" about Joseph Smith having a gun whether he acquired it from someone else or had it on his person.

Correct.

its all too easy to shout "anti-mormon anti-mormon" If xander is wrong then you must know xander is wrong because you have a FACTUAL basis know xander is wrong.

Not when one's "knowledge" is based on spiritual testimony, or emotional feelings. And this is the biggest hurdle when trying to reason with LDS apologists. They're stuck on this notion that reason = "reasoning of men" which is universally referenced in the most negative context in LDS scripture/teaching.

So where are your facts? Did any of the men hit by the shot from the pepper box die at some later time and the cause of death is attributable to the wound? I would like point out that Xander makes effort to state "killed" as opposed to "murdered".

Correct. However, it works so much more in their favor if I had said he was a murderer, so he's content to keep pretending that's what I said. My statements to the contrary don't matter, because Jeff tells me my "actions" go against my words!!

Lehi, at least had the foresight and gumpshun to say that none of the men hit by the pepper box shot died from their wounds. Xander just recently posts otherwise.

And more importantly, I posted my reasons for believing this, and none of those reasons include a reliance upon "anti-Mormon" sources. John Taylor was reliable enough as a witness for the apologists, only up until the time he mentioned that Joseph had killed two men? Someone wants to have their cake and eat it too.

So how about poeple address the facts of the issue and stop with the labels. If any knows Xander is wrong, then please show it with facts. Bernard GUI posted a lenghty transcript which uses the term exterminate; thank you for factual information Bernard.

I missed this post by Gui, thanks for pointing it out. However I don't know that he has presented anything that validates anything LeSeller's said. I conceded the point that some of them might have wanted Hyrun dead as well, but we'll never really know since the shot that killed him was an accident.

So my challenge to you Bookofmormontruth is prove Xander wrong with facts.

I'm afraid that would require a total disruption of the general modus operandi here. However I'm always happy to be surprised.

Did any of the 3 men shot by Joseph Smith die from the wounds?

According to John Taylor, my mission President and a few other LDS authorities, yes. Of course they might all be anti-Mormons in disguise. Who knows?

Did Joseph Smith get the pistol from someone else in the jail cell?

Yes, he was asked "who wants this" and Joseph immediately responded "give it to me." But then again, this is according to John Taylor, a plausible candidate for anti-Mormon in disguise.

Did Joseph Smith say "Oh God have mercy on a widows son" - or whatever the Masonic statement is?

No, he didn't get that far into it. He started it out with "Oh Lord my God.." before hitting the ground. Kimball argued that this was very unlike any kind of prayer Joseph Smith would have said, and given the circumstance, made perfect sense if he were saying the Masonic distress call. Then again, maybe Kimball was an anti-Mormon too. You just caan't ignore these "sure signs"!

[Xander]

from a Ensign article written by Reed Blake:

The Prophet dropped to his brother. “Oh! my poor, dear brother Hyrum,” he groaned. The deep look of sympathy on Joseph’s face fastened itself to Elder Taylor’s mind. The Prophet then stood, and with a firm step he went to the door, pulled the pepperbox from his pocket, and, reaching around the door casing, fired blindly into the hallway. He snapped all six shots. Half discharged, striking three men. see footnote 26

foot note 26: See Thomas Ford, History of Illinois, p. 212. Of the three barrels discharged by Joseph, it is believed he hit three men: an Irishman named Wells or Wills (who was in the mob because of his love of a brawl) in the arm, Voorhees or Voras (an oversized youth from Bear Creek known for his lack of good sense) in the shoulder, and a man named Gallagher or Gallaher (a young Southerner from Mississippi) in the face. Two other men were said to have been shot in the jail: one a man named Townsend from Fort Madison (Iowa Territory) who died nine months later from an arm wound that wouldn’t heal, and another named Mills who was shot in the arm. It is assumed they were shot in the confusion of men and arms jammed in the hallway and on the landing.

what is not clear even from the footnote is whether the "two other" are claimed to be shot by Joseph Smith or by someone else during the "confusion of men and arms". Does Reed state in 24 hours to Martrydom that Joseph Smith also shot the "two other"?

see not so hard to tackle the substance of a claim

"Two other men were known to get hit in the hall, one a man named Townsend from Fort Madison, Iowa Territory, who died nine months later from the arm wound that wouldn't heal, and another named Mills, who was shot in the arm." - Elder Reed Blake, 24 Hours to Martyrdom, p. 129

It should be pointed out that these kinds of wounds were typically fatal in those days.

[bookofmormontruth]

my "ad nauseam anti-Mormon talking points"

Xander already knows he exposed himself with his first post, (just couldn't contain himself), but these are the following ant-Mormon talking points that are used ad nauseam.

Post #73 - Xanders demands evidence for a claim, but arrogantly states: "even the death of Hyrum was probably unintentional. It happened when a bullet was shot through the panel of the door for the purpose of unlocking it."

Xander apparently knows the intentions of the mob, they were just there to "unlock" the door and the killing of Hyrum, well that was "unintentional". Yet states in post # 162 in regards to Joseph Smith's intentions: "You don't fire wildly into a crowd at close range without expecting to kill someone."

Classic anti-Mormon mentality. Mob had good intentions and were just there to "unlock" the door with bullets and unintentionally killed Hyrum, but Joseph Smith had evil intentions to kill.

Post # 74 - Apparently, Xander's "original" and "critical" mind forgot not to use this anti-Mormon talking point: "that the Lord's Church is covering up its history once again". With Post #91 and Post #162 emphasizing this overused rhetoric.

The ever so infamous "The LDS faithful worship Joseph Smith" lie.

Oh, me (Xanders)? No, I am not directly saying it, just saying it in a round about way.

Xanders states: "But turning him into a savior of sorts does no credit to the apologetic position, because the available data simply do not support these claims. If Mormons wonder why some Christians accuse them of worshiping Joseph, or at the very least, consider him equal to Christ, then look no further than this thread along with that film depicting his life"

Hey Xanders, at least those "Christians" aren't afraid to say it directly.

And finally the clssic jab at Joseph Smith and at the LDS faithful.

Xanders states: "Which makes you wonder, at which point did Joseph Smith really believe his so-called prediction that he was going to die that day? Kinda unexpected from a group that self-identifies "persecuted" and "misrepresented."

As typical anti-Mormons do, they whine when labeled, but have no problems labeling an entire group.

Can't wait to see more of your anti-Mormon regurgitation at its finest. Wouldn't expect anything less from an apostate right?

Edited June 23, 2011 by bookofmormontruth

[Xander]

"A man named Townsend; living in Iowa, near Fort Madison, was one of the mob who assaulted and forced in the jail door. The pistol discharged by Joseph Smith wounded him in the arm, near the shoulder, and it continued to rot without healing until it was taken off, and even then it would not heal. bout six months after he was shot Mrs. Lawn saw his arm and dressed it. He was then gradually rotting and dying with the wound. He staid over night with Mrs. Lawn's father, and groaned through the night without sleeping....He died two or three months afterwards, having literally rotted alive." - Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt, pp.475-476

Just more anti-Mormon regurgitation at its finest!

Incidentally, the source used by Blake is Thomas Ford's History of Illinois,p 212. But after looking at that page, and the surrounding pages, it makes no mention of any of this.