Joseph And His Gun…

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I found it.

Bernard

Ugh. I suppose he should go get a degree in History. He could write some good history books.

[Questing Beast]

@Bernard: What in heck is that about?...

[Bernard Gui]

@Bernard: What in heck is that about?...

I made it up. Any one of those "facts" are possible, though, wouldn't you agree?

Bernard

[Questing Beast]

I'm a bunny ....

[Bernard Gui]

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.

I would like to see Xander's response to my posts. I think they were substantial and non-confrontational.

Bernard

[Xander]

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

Of course not. Is that what all this hoopla is about? Something I never said?

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. 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.

This doesn't make any sense. If they were trying to kill him, they would have. The reason he was shot up and Richards wasn't, is easily explained by the fact that taylor was positioned the guns and Joseph Smith. Gun fire continued throughout the ordeal up until the time Joseph Smith keapt out the window. You make it sound like these men were "inside" the room and taking clear aim when Taylor was shot up, but this isn't what Taylor said. While he was going to the window, Josesph and Richards were blocking them from entering. What they were doing was shoving their barrels through the crack of the door and shooting blindly into the room at awkward angles. If you look at an image of the room, you'll see that the window is directly in the line of fire if men are shoving their guns into the small door opening. Taylor was shot four times. twice in the leg, once in the finger, once in his firearm and once in his hip. What evidence do you have to suggest these shots were intended to kill him?

Richards and Taylor both said they feared for their lives and felt the end had come for them. Richards

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

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.

Again, this makes no sense. With people pushing up against a door, allowing only a couple inches to squeeze through a gun barrel, the only liberty they had as far as "aiming" went, was to either aim up or down. Can you cite the portion of Taylor's account that makes this case for you?

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.

But they didn't.

Some men rushed the jail again, but retreated when someone shouted, "The Mormons are coming."

What was the name of this witness? The exact citation you're alluding to says that the men were on their way back down the stairs when someone screamed "the Mormons are coming." This means they abandoned any attempt to hunt down the two men who were in another room on the same floor. Also, as soon as they realized the Mormons weren't really coming, there is no reason for them not to return to finish the job... unless of course that was never their intention. Taylor's was the most complete and reliable eye-witness account, and he says nothing about a group of men rushing back up the stairs. You'd think he'd be precisely the person who would be aware of such a thing, given his fear that they wanted him dead.

Another witness said the mob rushed off to Warsaw when they realized the horror of what had just happened.

What was his/her name?

Did you not read the Warsaw Resolutions?

Yes, but was this the precise group of people who rushed the jail? It doesn't sound to me like a group of people preparing for a war of "extermination" would flee when finding out that those they intend to exterminate were coming to the fight. In any event, the fact that Richards and Taylor were spared is all the evidence I need to make the point. Your argument that they abandoned their goal because some mysterious unnamed "witness" scared them away, is really quite weak.

[Xander]

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

Huh? Half of what you're basing your argument on is hearsay. But you didn't deal with the autobiagraphy of Parley P. Pratt. Was he deluded as well, or was he a closet anti-Mormon easily given to false reporting?

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.

The source for this is Thomas Ford's History of Illinois, according to Elder Reed Blakes, but I just looked it up and page 212 says nothing of the sort. In fact, I couldn't find any mention of this anywhere in the book. You can search Google books to see for yourself. So where exactly does this information come from? I don't know.

There is no evidence that they died from their wounds. Do you have any? Townsend and Mills were not indicted.

Just plenty of Mormon testimony that has bragged about it and continues to brag about it to this day.

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

Based on what evidence? Do you really think everyone involved was indicted?

What is your good reason for believing he killed someone?

Several testimonies, along with the vivid details of Townsend's excuritiating death, as outlined in Pratt's autobiography.

Acting in self-defense does not preclude also acting in defense of one's friends.

Of course, but you're simply basing this on a faith-promting article in the Times and Seasons that bases this on nothing but an apparent desire to exalt their Prophet in teh wake of his martyrdom. But what is the actual source you're relaying on to argue his intentions were to save his friends? You see, the apologists can't have it both ways. If Joseph Smith really knew this was going to be the day he died at the hands of his enemies, and he really wanted to protect them then he would have simply ordered them to leave. It is also worth mentioning that the guard got nervous when he heard the mob approaching, but when later interviewed, said that Joseph Smith told him "don't worry" because what he heard was his Mormon friends who had come to resuce him.

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

But the details of Townsend's death, as provided by Pratt, were not "debunked." Calling it hearsay doesn't debunk it, and the Church is willing to accept plenty of hearsay as history, so long as it is faith promoting. In your link Hill and Oaks addressed the myth that those involved with Smith's death all suffered gruesomely. They pointed out that some involved in the murder went on to live successful lives, but never debunked the claimed death of Townsend.

What is your evidence that Joseph Smith killed anyone?

I already told you. What is your evidence that a witness scared away a mob of bloodthirsty animals by simply saying "the Mormons are coming"?

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?

They are probably basing it on John Taylor's account, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were others who testified to the same thing. Are you disputing that these were his last words? If so, what evidence do you have that John Taylor was making this stuff up?

I'll be back online late tonight to discuss this further.

[Jeff K.]

Anti Mormons use hyperbole in dialogue .

Huh? Half of what you're basing your argument on is hearsay. But you didn't deal with the autobiagraphy of Parley P. Pratt. Was he deluded as well, or was he a closet anti-Mormon easily given to false reporting?

Do you really believe that is the only option?

Again, for someone who claimed he "didn't care" you seem to put an awful lot of effort into this. Were you being completely honest with us when you said you "didn't care"?

Quote

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

But the details of Townsend's death, as provided by Pratt, were not "debunked." Calling it hearsay doesn't debunk it, and the Church is willing to accept plenty of hearsay as history, so long as it is faith promoting. In your link Hill and Oaks addressed the myth that those involved with Smith's death all suffered gruesomely. They pointed out that some involved in the murder went on to live successful lives, but never debunked the claimed death of Townsend

Are you implying it is undisputable fact? Why isn't hearsay used in court?

You have apparently made you conclusion of inconclusive evidence the standard by which you will attack the issue, but it appears you wanted Oaks to confirm what could not be confirmed one way or another. Do you think such a standard is applicable? How can Oaks say something did not occur if he isn't sure whether it did or not?

[Jeff K.]

Quote

What is your evidence that Joseph Smith killed anyone?

I already told you. What is your evidence that a witness scared away a mob of bloodthirsty animals by simply saying "the Mormons are coming"?

It would make logical sense. Or do you believe a mob, after killing the leader of another group, will not feel vulnerable if there were a large battalion that potentially could descend upon them en mass?

[Xander]

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 claimed no such thing.

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.

Sorry, but you're not going to get away with misrepresenting what I have said.

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

Paranoid much?

Except my remark was in direct response to the clear paranoia exhibited by several posters here. You're more worried about who I am and what loyalties I hold, than you are in what I have to say. This is a textbook example of a closed mind. In short, my remark was justified, whereas yours is not.

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?

A distinction without a difference really. You can split all teh hairs you wish, but don't think for a second you're impressing anyone.

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

Then you're not dealing with the context of the responses to me.

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

The fact that LeSellers hasn't been able to support his assertions with evidence, only goes to justify my suspicion that he didn't have any. But a CFR is not tolerated by some folks, unless it is directed towards a critic.

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

My assumptions were false? Then demonstrate it, don't just assert it. My assumption was that LeSellers was wrong, and I have provided ample evidence for that assumption. All you have done is attack me for daring to CFR one of your own.

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

Who is "they"? It seems you don't even know. So essentially you don't care what the mob did, because what some other anti-Mormons said they wanted to do better serves the apologetic attempt to turn Joseph Smith into a savior. I'm just revealing this for what it is. It is weak because it rests on too many psychoanalytical assumptions about a group of people who lived 150 years ago. Remember, the claim that he intended to save their lives was based on the assumption that he believed they were all going to be killed and their bodies mutilated. This is logically incoherent given the fact that he never once told them to leave before the mob arrived. It seems to me that this would have been the best way to secure their safety, if that were really what he were concerned with.

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.

You heard it right here folks. Action is not evidence of intention. Amazing. I'm guessing I can quote you on this?

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

Well since you're arguing that action isn't evidence of intent, why would you have aa problem with this? You can't have it both ways. As I already explained, the context of this events suggests a situation very different from what you imagine. You seem to believe the men walked in the room, aimed directly at Taylor, and shot him in the finger, the leg, the arm, and hip, thinking they successfully killed him.

The event described by Taylor flies in the face of such a possibility. Their guns were aimed in the only direction available. Taylor just happened to be in the direct line of fire because he was headed towards the window. His wounds were the result of a mob blindly shooting into a room through a small door opening. That's it. There is little evidence they believed there were four men in the room to begin with.

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.

The only person who has made this attempt is Bernard, but this came only after a huge wave of subterfuge and ad hominem.

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

Again, this isn't rocket science. You cannot assume they intended to kill Taylor unless you can first establish that his wounds weren't the result of what Taylor described. They were't the result of careful aim because the men couldn't see through wood. As far as they knew, they were shooting at Joseph Smith. Taylor wasn't supposed to be there.

[Xander]

Again, for someone who claimed he "didn't care" you seem to put an awful lot of effort into this. Were you being completely honest with us when you said you "didn't care"?

And maybe if you understood context, you'd know that my comment about not caring, was in reference to your desire to call Smith a martyr. Try to pay attention, because that isn't the issue here. The issue is whether Smith was trying tos ave the lives of his friends by jumping out the window. The data doesn't support that conclusion.

[Jeff K.]

And maybe if you understood context, you'd know that my comment about not caring, was in reference to your desire to call Smith a martyr. Try to pay attention, because that isn't the issue here. The issue is whether Smith was trying tos ave the lives of his friends by jumping out the window. The data doesn't support that conclusion.

There are several issues involved. So you don't care if he is a martyr, you just don't want it to be shown that maybe, just maybe he would try and save his friends too.

Amazing, I am sure you are sooooo neutral with that issue. I have been paying attention, but apparently you don't even pay attention to what you write or how you are writing it.

[Jeff K.]

Quote

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.

The only person who has made this attempt is Bernard, but this came only after a huge wave of subterfuge and ad hominem.

So says the person who claims he is an educated multi dementional thinker.

[Xander]

"The reason he was shot up and Richards wasn't, is easily explained by the fact that taylor was positioned the guns and Joseph Smith."

should read, "The reason he was shot up and Richards wasn't, is easily explained by the fact that Taylor was positioned between the guns and Joseph Smith."

[LeSellers]

And maybe if you understood context, you'd know that my comment about not caring, was in reference to your desire to call Smith a martyr. Try to pay attention, because that isn't the issue here. The issue is whether Smith was trying tos ave the lives of his friends by jumping out the window. The data doesn't support that conclusion.

Only if you decide, in advance, that it does not. As I read it, it does.

You will recall that Joseph did not begin firing those three fateful shots until after Hyrum had been mortally wounded. He did not jump from the window until the pistol was useless (or even more than it was by nature).

You (or someone) tried to portray Joseph as using John Taylor as a shield: that is unsuported by the facts. Joseph had tried to get Hyrum (at least, and I believe the others, as weel) to stay behind or leave.

Hyrum, just as much as Joseph, was under indictment. The others were not. Hyrum had no portion in the Expositor abatement. Why was he there? The only answer is that he was the second president of the Church. Because of that, he was slated for slaughter on that basis alone.

Lehi

Edited June 23, 2011 by LeSellers

[Xander]

There are several issues involved. So you don't care if he is a martyr, you just don't want it to be shown that maybe, just maybe he would try and save his friends too.

Amazing, I am sure you are sooooo neutral with that issue. I have been paying attention, but apparently you don't even pay attention to what you write or how you are writing it.

If you were paying attention, then why did you just misrepresent what I said with the "I don't care" remark? Your problem is that I keep up with what I have said, and I'm not going to let you get away with misrepresenting me. I know this is standard protocol for you, but I'm on top of it. The issue is not "maybe, just maybe Smith would try and save his friends too." But nice try at moving the goal posts, yet again. My initial post explains very clearly what I take issue with. It was several of LeSellers' remarks which he presented as factual, when there is really no evidence to support them.

[Jeff K.]

If you were paying attention, then why did you just misrepresent what I said with the "I don't care" remark? Your problem is that I keep up with what I have said, and I'm not going to let you get away with misrepresenting me. I know this is standard protocol for you, but I'm on top of it. The issue is not "maybe, just maybe Smith would try and save his friends too." But nice try at moving the goal posts, yet again. My initial post explains very clearly what I take issue with. It was several of LeSellers' remarks which he presented as factual, when there is really no evidence to support them.

I did not misrepresent, but merely showed the implications. A man who wasn't trying to save his friends life or wasn't attempting to do the right thing while defending himself, is much easier to implicate as not being a martyr than someone who does try to do the rights things.

Call it mulitdimensional thinking. Really feel free, I heard it somewhere.

[Jeff K.]

I know this is standard protocol for you, but I'm on top of it. The issue is not "maybe, just maybe Smith would try and save his friends too." But nice try at moving the goal posts, yet again. My initial post explains very clearly what I take issue with. It was several of LeSellers' remarks which he presented as factual, when there is really no evidence to support them.

Standard protocol for me? Well, I will have to look at the standard manual for "me" and read the portion under Jeffk. standard protocol.

[Xander]

You will recall that Joseph did not begin firing those three fateful shots until after Hyrum had been mortally wounded.

Of course.

He did not jump from the window until the pistol was useless (or even more than it was by nature).

Correct.

You (or someone) tried to portray Joseph as using John Taylor as a shield: that is unsuported by the facts.

I agree, it is unsupported by the facts. But you folks need to stop conflating what one person says with everyone else who you would arbitrarily lable anti.

Joseph had tried to get Hyrum (at least, and I believe the others, as weel) to stay behind or leave.

Evidence?

Hyrum, just as much as Joseph, was under indictment.

Exactly, so how is it he could expect him to leave even if he wanted to?

The others were not. Hyrum had no portion in the Expositor{/i] abatement. Why was he there? The only answer is that he was the second president of the Church. Because of that, he was slated for slaughter on that basis alone.

Based on what evidence?

[Jeff K.]

Quote

You (or someone) tried to portray Joseph as using John Taylor as a shield: that is unsuported by the facts.

I agree, it is unsupported by the facts. But you folks need to stop conflating what one person says with everyone else who you would arbitrarily lable anti.

Quote

Interesting, because the implication is cowardice. 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.

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

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

One more time. Continually trying to make the poster the topic will get you removed from the thread. The only posters left standing in the thread will be those who stick to the topic.

Edited June 23, 2011 by Minos

[Bernard Gui]

Of course not. Is that what all this hoopla is about? Something I never said?

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

This doesn't make any sense. If they were trying to kill him, they would have. The reason he was shot up and Richards wasn't, is easily explained by the fact that taylor was positioned the guns and Joseph Smith. Gun fire continued throughout the ordeal up until the time Joseph Smith keapt out the window. You make it sound like these men were "inside" the room and taking clear aim when Taylor was shot up, but this isn't what Taylor said. While he was going to the window, Josesph and Richards were blocking them from entering. What they were doing was shoving their barrels through the crack of the door and shooting blindly into the room at awkward angles. If you look at an image of the room, you'll see that the window is directly in the line of fire if men are shoving their guns into the small door opening. Taylor was shot four times. twice in the leg, once in the finger, once in his firearm and once in his hip. What evidence do you have to suggest these shots were intended to kill him?

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. 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?

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

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

Again, this makes no sense. With people pushing up against a door, allowing only a couple inches to squeeze through a gun barrel, the only liberty they had as far as "aiming" went, was to either aim up or down. Can you cite the portion of Taylor's account that makes this case for you?

Willard Richards:

"...[Taylor] rolled under the bed which stood by his side, where he lay motionless, the mob from the door continuing to fire upon him, cutting away a piece of flesh from his left hip as large as a man's hand, and were hindered only by knocking down their muzzles with a stick; while they continued to reach their guns into the room, probably left handed, and aimed their discharge so far round as almost to reach us in the corner of the room to where we retreated and dodged, and then I recommenced the attack with my stick."

Willard Richards, Two Minutes in the Jail, Times and Seasons, History of the Church VI: 619-621.

What was the name of this witness? The exact citation you're alluding to says that the men were on their way back down the stairs when someone screamed "the Mormons are coming." This means they abandoned any attempt to hunt down the two men who were in another room on the same floor. Also, as soon as they realized the Mormons weren't really coming, there is no reason for them not to return to finish the job... unless of course that was never their intention. Taylor's was the most complete and reliable eye-witness account, and he says nothing about a group of men rushing back up the stairs. You'd think he'd be precisely the person who would be aware of such a thing, given his fear that they wanted him dead.

If you had just seen your best friends murdered, had been shot 4 times and were cowering motionless under a bed, how lucid would you be? How many details of an event that took only a few minutes would you remember? How many details could he see from under the bed? The account of the return of the mob is appended to Richards' account, but was probably not written by Richards. There is no reason to doubt its veracity. The account of the mob fleeing is well attested in the trial record. William Hamilton, one of the first observers to go upstairs and see Hyrum's body, saw the Carthage Greys coming to the jail, and another unnamed witness said by the time the Greys arrived, which was a matter of minutes, the fleeing mob was still in sight, but the Greys did not pursue them. Even the Greys disbanded by the next day, fearing Mormon retaliation, which did not materialize.

Again, from Times and Seasons:

While Willard Richards and John Taylor were in the cell, a company of the mob again rushed up the stairs, but finding only the dead body of Hyrum [Taylor and Richards had hidden in another room], they were again descending the stairs, when a loud cry was heard, 'The Mormons are coming!' which caused the whole band of murderers to flee precipitately to the woods.

What was his/her name?

Who knows?

Yes, but was this the precise group of people who rushed the jail? It doesn't sound to me like a group of people preparing for a war of "extermination" would flee when finding out that those they intend to exterminate were coming to the fight. In any event, the fact that Richards and Taylor were spared is all the evidence I need to make the point. Your argument that they abandoned their goal because some mysterious unnamed "witness" scared them away, is really quite weak.

I don't think the mob intended to have a shoot-out with well-armed Mormon militias. Their actions after the assassination indicate they were not up for a fair fight. What was planned was to drive the Mormons into Nauvoo, kill their leaders, and force them to leave or die.

Well, yes, some in the mob were those who led the cry for extermination. The mob had come from Warsaw and fled back to there after the shooting. Some of them were indicted and stood trial for their participation. That Richards and Taylor lived through the assault is not evidence they were not on the list of those Mormon leaders to be exterminated. The reason the mob fled was a Mormon militia counterattack had been anticipated, and when the cry was heard, the presumed attack was imminent, but, of course, it never materialized. There were plenty of witnesses to this event and they testified at the trial. If you want more details, read "Carthage Conspiracy."

Bernard

Edited June 23, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[LeSellers]

If you want more details, read "Carthage Conspiracy.

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

Edited June 23, 2011 by LeSellers

[frankenstein]

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 corward and traitor Joseph Smith. Anyone who got in their way deserved to die, too, because he was trying to protect Joseph Smith (who desrved to die).

What else is there?

Lehi

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

Edited June 23, 2011 by frankenstein

[KevinG]

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

What was the original beef with the way the Church presents the murder of Joesph and Hyrum Smith?

The definition of Martyr? (which by most difinitions includes dying for a cause - like Joseph and Hyrum did)

The fact that Joseph shot a pepper box pistol down the hallway? (Said pistol displayed prominently in the Church museum and shown in teaching materials)

The motives of the mob? (which were undoubtely to murder leaders of the LDS Church, most notably Joseph Smith)

[Bernard Gui]

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 corward and traitor Joseph Smith. Anyone who got in their way deserved to die, too, because he was trying to protect Joseph Smith (who desrved to die).

What else is there?

Lehi

The Carthage Greys were supposed to guard the jail, but failed to prevent the Warsaw mob from entering and killing the Smiths. There was evidence that the two groups were in collusion. For example, the 7 guards at the jail (a detachment of the Greys) fired point blank into the mob, but none was injured.

The main body of the Greys (Yellows!!!) was camped about 1/2 mile away and were warned of the approach of the mob, but arrived too late to do anything. They also fled the scene when the rumored Mormon counterattack was at hand.

Bernard

Edited June 23, 2011 by Bernard Gui