Joseph And His Gun…

[Bernard Gui]

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 not in the sense that Jesus is the Savior of mankind.

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.

Taylor was shot from the inside of the jail as he went to the window to escape. As he crawled from the window to a bed in the corner, he was shot 3 more times from the doorway. His body was indeed mutilated. They were certainly trying to kill him. According to Richards, the inside mob continued to shoot balls into Hyrum's body as he lay dead on the floor. That is also mutilation. Richards and Taylor both said they feared for their lives and felt the end had come for them. Richards also said the men at the door aimed their weapons in such a way as to kill everyone in the room and their lives were preserved only by knocking the weapons aside with sticks. When Joseph fell from the window, the mob inside the jail rushed outside. Richards took Taylor into another room and hid him under a bed, both expecting the mob to return and finish the job they had started. Some men rushed the jail again, but retreated when someone shouted, "The Mormons are coming." Another witness said the mob rushed off to Warsaw when they realized the horror of what had just happened.

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.

Did you not read the Warsaw Resolutions?

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.

John Taylor based his "testimony" on hearsay. Notwithstanding the fact that he was a prophet, he did not lie.

Townsend and Mills were not wounded by Joseph Smith. The men he shot were Wills, Voras, and Gallaher. They were among the group who were indicted for murder by a Grand Jury, but fled the county and were never tried. There is no evidence that they died from their wounds. Do you have any? Townsend and Mills were not indicted.

If they had been shot at the jail, especially by Joseph, they would

have been.

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.

What is your good reason for believing he killed someone? Acting in self-defense does not preclude also acting in defense of one's friends.

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.

Probably from "The Fate of the Persecutors of the Prophet Joseph Smith," a book that has been debunked.

http://www.mormonismi.net/pdf/kosto1poulsen.pdf

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?

What is your evidence that Joseph Smith killed anyone?

What was Kimball, Woodruff, and Huntington's source of these last words of Joseph Smith? They were not at the scene. Who told them this?

Bernard

Edited June 23, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[Xander]

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."

Your inability to understand the difference between 1) a targeted shooting through a keyhole and door panel, and 2) blindly shooting into a crowd of people, is clearly a cognitive deficiency you're going to have to deal with on your own.

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.

There you go again misrepresenting what I said. I never said they had "good intentions". The fact that you have to constantly resort to such dishonesty, says as much about the weakness of your position as it does the strength of my own. What I said is that the shot that killed Hyrum was intended to open the door, and this was corroborated by John Taylor who opined that this was probably their intention. This perfectly logical as the first two shots went through the keyhole and door panel. But according to your logic, these men targeted Hyrum by some extrasensory means that allowed them to see through a wooden door.

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.

It is a matter of fact that the Church is careful not to disclose information that would go against thei stated purposes. And creating a video that mentions Joseph Smith's polygamy, aggression towards others, his attack on the Expositor, etc, all go contraary to what they are trying to accomplish with these videos. Your inability to deal with this fact is expressed in your frustrated efforts to poison the well with all this "anti-Mormon" gibberish. Why you put the words original and critical in scare quotes is a mystery.

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

I didn't label the "entire group" here. But I know what frequently passes for apologetics with a certain group within the group. The fact is you cannot reconcile the facts with this so-called "prediction". All you can do is call it anti-Mormon claim, even though I based it on Mormon citations! You just showed why you have no credibility, by insisting I'm an anti-Mormon for simply refusing to believe Joseph Smith had the means to predict his own death. Keep in mind that neither you nor anyone else on this forum has reconciled this myth with the evidence from his masonic distress call. If he really thought he was supposed to die, then why on earth was he trying to save his life? Even after being shot multiple times, his last breath was an attempt to save himself. So at what point did he really believe his own "prediction"?

You seem to be working under the delusion that Mormon apologetics can successfully deal with criticisms by simply pointing out that the same criticisms have been repeated by others. All this proves, however, is that the problems are so obvious to so many people. Yes, of course they will overlap and be repeated. And the reason they are repeated is because apologists have not successfully refuted them. All they can do is whine about the fact that the same problems get raised again and again. So they try all sorts of techniques to avoid having toa ddress the matter intelligently. You know, things like trying to get the person banned for being a sock puppet or what not. The Mormon apologetic method of dealing with problems is often nothing more than a matter of getting rid of the messenger. And this is why the message will always linger. Because you cannot deal with it in a way that would make it go away.

[Calm]

Of the three barrels discharged by Joseph, it is believed he hit three men: .... Wells or Wills.... Voorhees or Voras....and a man named Gallagher or Gallaher (a young Southerner from Mississippi) in the face.

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"?

It seems pretty clear actually that Blake is stating that the two others were not shot by Joseph since he lists the three men that were...and there were only three shots fired by JS due to the three misfires.

PS: It would be helpful in reading your comments if you included quoted material in quotes. It is very easy to do so, simply paste the quote on to the page, select it and then click on the dialogue bubble icon between the letter and the code icons above the reply box. Or type in [ quote ] at the beginning of your quote and [ /quote ] at the end (remove the spacing).

[Calm]

John Taylor was reliable enough as a witness for the apologists, only up until the time he mentioned that Joseph had killed two men?

Are you suggesting that he actually witness the shooting and deaths of these men?

but we'll never really know since the shot that killed him was an accident

He is hit by shots fired directly into the room where there is known to be four men and you see this as an accident?

And just how does a shot that is at face height help to get a wobbly door open?

From mfb's post:

For what it's worth, I have seen the door, and put my finger into the hole as have many others.

The hole is nowhere near the lock- it is in the middle of the upper panel, a little below face height, at least for me. Someone shot through the door without knowing who was on the other side, most likely. It would be impossible for someone to shoot at a door lock and hit someone in the face unless he were peeking through the lock.

Also if someone was concerned about where they were aiming, then why did the bullets start up before the men were even at the door? Why would the attackers not assume the men were behind the door bracing it close when they shot their bullets through the door, thus expecting the bullets to actually hit someone? Why would Joseph open the door to shoot into the crowd knowing there were many on the other side if the door would offer the least bit of resistance (assuming that the door was shut at the time he opened it, the previous account has the gun barrels already protruding through the open door before he shoots from behind the door)? And Taylor was hit from guns that were pointing through an open door as well so the shooters could see where they were shooting.

All sprang against the door, the balls whistled up the stairway, and in an instant one came through the door. Joseph Smith, John Taylor and Dr. Richards sprang to the left of the door, and tried to knock aside the guns of the ruffians...

Elder Taylor continued parrying the guns until they had got them about half their length into the room, when he found that resistance was vain, and he attempted to jump out of the window, where a ball fired from within struck him on his left thigh, hitting the bone, and passing through to within half an inch of the other side. He fell on the window sill, when a ball fired from the outside struck his watch in his vest pocket, and threw him back into the room.^[3]

This was a mob action, not a SWAT team's surgical strike. Mobs aren't known for their restraint when they are intent on killing someone. A driveby shooting with a couple of carloads of idiots with guns spraying their bullets in the direction of the people walking by---if the bullets hit, would you call that an accident simply because the gunner didn't take the time to aim directly at a person before pulling the trigger?

Edited June 23, 2011 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Did you not read the Warsaw Resolutions?

As well as the report of Dan Jones...

What was Kimball, Woodruff, and Huntington's source of these last words of Joseph Smith? They were not at the scene. Who told them this?

Add Pratt to the list as to who told him about the fate of the man JS allegedly shot.

It should be noted that LDS generally have had a history of 'celebrating' the allegedly untimely and painful deaths of those in the mob and others promoters of the violence against the Smith brothers and any leaders who chose to stand with them. The book mentioned above---Fate of the Persecutors, etc.---was quite popular for quite some time, until it was shown to be inaccurate. (see that link for the quote below)

In those early days after the martyrdom, the tales told of the killers' deaths may have had a practical

value foreign to the minds of modern Mormons. They created and reinforced group solidarity in the face

of real as well as imagined dangers. But this does not explain the popularity of such stories among faithful

moderns. Mormons of the twentieth century, as a subculture, are probably as conscious of the past (not

necessarily the historical past) of their forebears, as any other folk group in the United States. They look

with pride to the blood and tears of handcart companies, to privations, winter sufferings, persecutions by

mobs and armies--because through all this the Saints have endured. Besides their obvious appeal to the

macabre and the sensational, the dark stories of suffering and death meted out upon the killers of the

Prophet affirm to a new generation of Mormons that the past is real, that the consequences of the

martyrdom had effects and repercussions that the world still feels and will feel "unto the third and fourth

generation."

Even more important than the viability of the past to modern Mormons is its glorification. One can

believe that the past was real without being enlightened; but if one can trace the benevolence of the Lord

in his acts among ancestors, then the past transcends historical considerations. As stated earlier, these

stories are told and believed to reinforce a cultural norm; thus, in the telling, the horrors accruing to the

ungodly become positive reinforcements of a lifestyle introduced by the Prophet himself. And in the

telling, reading and believing of the legends, the past forever remains the present.

I have yet to hear any LDS protest against Joseph for firing a gun and most only lament the three misfired and that he might not have managed to kill anyone with the three shots that were left him. The only reason I've seen for claiming he did not kill those he shot at (most likely blindly so he would have been fully responsible for their deaths if they occurred) is that the evidence is heavier now that he wasn't successful in his attempt. For example:

However, this point is moot since the attackers who were hit were not killed (as was first reported in some Church publications) but only wounded. They were alive and well at the trial held for mob leaders, and were identified by witnesses. Their good health allowed them to receive gifts because of their role in the assault on Joseph, Hyrum, and the other prisoners. According to Dallin Oaks and Marvin Hill:

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.[Hay, "The Mormon Prophet's Tragedy," 675] According to Hay, Wills, whom the Mormon prophet had shot in the arm, was an Irishman who had joined the mob from “his congenital love of a brawl.”[statement of Jeremiah Willey, August 13, 1844, Brigham Young correspondence, Church Archives.] Gallaher was a young man from Mississippi who was shot in the face.[Hay, "The Mormon Prophet's Tragedy," 669, 675. Another source says Wills was a former Mormon elder who had left the Church. Davis, An Authentic Account, 24.] Hay described Voras (Voorhees) as a “half-grown hobbledehoy from Bear Creek” whom Joseph shot in the shoulder. The citizens of Green Plains were said to have given Gallaher and Voras new suits of clothes for their parts in the killing.[statement of Jeremiah Willey, August 13, 1844]

[5]

http://en.fairmormon...eph_fired_a_gun Edited June 23, 2011 by calmoriah

[Calm]

"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

Pratt also claims that Townsend declared that Joseph was a prophet before he died. (see link for the Dialogue article above) The question remains how Pratt heard of this and how far removed from an original source this story was.

[Calm]

Even after being shot multiple times, his last breath was an attempt to save himself.

Possibly. There is a difference between an intellectual resignation and what goes through the mind under attack with the adrenalin pumping away....There is no reason to not assume that while he believed his own prediction, that he also saw no reason to cease the struggle against evil, to simply give up and die. It is one thing to turn yourself over to a legally designated authority and another to willingly submit to a frenzied mob.

And why is not the alternative suggestion that he was appealing for help on the behalf of those behind him in the cell still alive, even while knowing he was as good as dead as plausible as the claim that he was trying to escape especially considering how they were quite aware of the calls for violence and mob action that had surrounded them since their arrest and rearrest?

Since it is impossible to know what was going through his mind at the time, it seems like if an unexplained behaviour is consistent with other explained behaviours, that it should at least be considered a likely possibility. Based on Joseph's past sacrifices for friends and family, I do not see it as a stretch that his last act might have been based primarily on his concern for his companions, especially if he knew he was going to die himself.

PS: While there may have been a change of perception that religious martyrs must give themselves up and die without a fight, the idea that martyrs in general have to do so does not seem as prevalent. For example, the soldiers who fought to the last trying to take as many of the enemy as they could at the Alamo are referred to as martyrs, the most easily found reference being a movie with the very title of "The Martyrs of the Alamo". http://en.wikipedia....rs_of_the_Alamo Here is another: http://www.news-jour...725e81798b.html

Edited June 23, 2011 by calmoriah

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I was taught that meaning in LDS sunday school and seminary. I only found corroboration after you accused me of inventing the meaning. I could have listed more websites. The fact that I have not slaughtered a single animal in my life does not change what I was taught by LDS instructors.

It's no fun...highly overrated.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Thinking:

I also quoted the Bible particularly Jesus to his followers. I like Lehi think that most 21st Century Americans with our prepackaged foods from all over the world have little to no experience with the slaughter of animals. 19th Century Americans weren't so blessed.

No Temple Grandin

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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

Who knew?

Regards,

Pahoran

To those who seek to kill his name.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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.

Moving the goal posts always reveals the character of the other team. Though I would not put "Thinking" (Screen name) into that category. He was once our brother, I believe he has just succumbed to over thinking the issue of faith. I still hope for his return with all my heart…having been there myself.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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.

You cannot be serious…I do not believe anyone is using the term “savior” in the context of “our Savior”…being Christ. Why don’t you pull back the curtain and tell us who you are, great and powerful OZ? Or do you consider it Christian to break the rules sock-puppet?

Inappropriate. Papa has left the building.

Edited June 23, 2011 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[bookofmormontruth]

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?

Poor little guy still has a chip on his shoulder from being exposed for quote mining, but I am proud of you making a new friend.

Insults with no content at all are an automatic escort out of the building.

Edited June 23, 2011 by Minos

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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.

You tried to claim that we hold JS equal to the Savior. Don't be so coy and obtuse. Lehi never insinuated any such thing.

I belong to the camp where thinking is far more dimensional than what you're probably used to.

Does that include make $tuff up? I think you mean you belong to the camp that is more delusional than what I am used to. You are correct there.

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.

Who said they did? And I am not an apologist. Any one else see the irony of this post?

I have always noticed something about a certain stripe of critic, they love to play victim.

The paranoia here is so thick you can choke on it.

Comming from some one who just said "the well-poisoning apologists who bully those who dare challenge their presuppositions with a CFR".

Paranoid much?

Immediately, I've been called a troll,

Actually this is false, they claim was that you were acting like a troll not that you were one. Do you see the difference there?

an anti-Mormon who condones murder and a sock-puppet...

I don't think this is accurate either. But what ever.

all for what? Because I kindly asked LeSellers if he could support his claims with evidence?

Hardly you did not just issue a CFR, you went to great length do discredit what Lehi sayd with out offering much substance.

Good grief.

Indeed.

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.

That is not all you did. And I am not a supporter of Lehi, I simply think you have many assumptions that are false.

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.

? My claims? My claims are not the same as Lehi's.

It doesn't matter what some Mormons thought the attackers wanted to do.

If you say so. When we look ath their very words that they intended to kill all who were with JS that says something.

[Questing Beast]

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?

Not at all. Jesus had a "body guard" too. Other than one of them, however, they stood by and let him be taken and killed.

Anyone who dies for their cause under any conditions whatsoever is a martyr. The Muslims understand this perfectly well. I don't know why others have trouble with it. I guess it's religious envy: "we don't have a martyr founder like you do, so we will disallow your claim of martyrdom to make ourselves feel better"....

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

pt 2

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.

Only those who don't care about all of the details would say the same thing you did. They intended to do that because they said that is what they wanted to do.

They showed zero interest in killing anyone except Joseph Smith.

This is as false as any thing I have ever heard on this board. For a number of reasons that have already been discussed.

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.

If your intial premise is false then your conclusion is false too.

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.

They intended to kill them all. I cannot answer why they did not kill them all. Just because they did not kill them is not evidence that they did not intended and did not talk about killing them prior to the incident.

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.

And your facts are what? They are not facts, you are ignoring the great context of their intent. You are the on that has ignored a great deal of many facts. Did you not read the numerous articles that Calmoriah posted? Something tells me you did not. I think the rest of this is pointless as you are nothing but fluff and stuff and I don't have time to reeposnd to the rest of your uninformed diatribe.

[frankenstein]

Poor little guy still has a chip on his shoulder from being exposed for quote mining, but I am proud of you making a new friend.

Address xanders claims with facts.

[Bernard Gui]

They intended to kill them all. I cannot answer why they did not kill them all. Just because they did not kill them is not evidence that they did not intended and did not talk about killing them prior to the incident.

Just because you shoot a man 4 times does not indicate you intend to kill him.

Bernard

Edited June 23, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

Address xanders claims with facts.

Been there, done that.

Bernard

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Just because you shoot a man 4 times does not indicate you intend to kill him.

Bernard

But according to Xander that is not a good enough reason to claim that they sought to kill some one.

You just cannot make that crap up. There must be a script or narrative around here some where.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Been there, done that.

Bernard

I am so sick of the claim that we do not address people claims with facts. If any one need to address the facts it is Xander.

[Minos]

This thread is becoming too heated. A couple of flamethrowers have been removed but if the thread gets bogged down with insults it will be closed.

[LeSellers]

This thread is becoming too heated. A couple of flamethrowers have been removed but if the thread gets bogged down with insults it will be closed.

Short of an explicit announcement by the moderators, how does someone tell if anyone else has been banned from a topic? Or even if it is he who has been so treated (until he tries to post again)?

It doesn't show up as a status in the person's account/bio in any message, does it?

Lehi

[Bernard Gui]

But according to Xander that is not a good enough reason to claim that they sought to kill some one.

You just cannot make that crap up. There must be a script or narrative around here some where.

I found it.

It was just dumb luck that Taylor found himself in that room on that day. Since he was very similar

in appearance to Joseph Smith, it is understandable that some of the mob mistook him for Smith

and shot him 4 times. There is every reason to believe that Smith cravenly grabbed Taylor and used him

as a body shield. The weapons the mob used were not as accurate as today's military hardware, so it's

understandable some shots went awry. It's not the mob's fault if Taylor, Richards, and Hyrum hung out

with that wretched Joseph. If Hyrum had not been born into the Smith family, he would not have been

in the jail, and would not have been accidently killed.

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

Pratt also claims that Townsend declared that Joseph was a prophet before he died. (see link for the Dialogue article above) The question remains how Pratt heard of this and how far removed from an original source this story was.

Who was Townsend and why was he not indicted?

Bernard