Did Joseph Smith Die in a "shoot out"?

[_Jason Bourne]

It has not escaped my attention that Scratch and I appear to agree for the most part. Yes, hell is indeed freezing over.

Having said that...

2 rival gangs fighting is a gang fight.
2 groups fighting with swords is a sword fight.
2 cats fighting is a cat fight.
2 people beating eachother with closed fists is a fist fight.


And 2 groups using guns to fight is a frickin' gunfight.

No I am not appealing to emotion and you a a frickin spin doctor by calling this fricken gun fight.

2 sides
Both armed
Both shooting at eachother

is a gunfight

Your mind is like cement on this one. All mixed up and permanently set.

[_dartagnan]

This is a valid definition according to the dictionary:

"gunfight - a fight involving shooting small arms with the intent to kill or frighten"

Sounds applicable to me.

[_Jason Bourne]

This is a valid definition according to the dictionary:

"gunfight - a fight involving shooting small arms with the intent to kill or frighten"

Sounds applicable to me.

Sorry my friend. You and I both know that to simply say Smith died in a gun fight obfuscates the facts of what happened. Look, I have my beefs and concerns but this is stupidity. To say it was a simple gun fight is frankly not honest.

[_Jersey Girl]

This is a valid definition according to the dictionary:

"gunfight - a fight involving shooting small arms with the intent to kill or frighten"

Sounds applicable to me.

Sorry my friend. You and I both know that to simply say Smith died in a gun fight obfuscates the facts of what happened. Look, I have my beefs and concerns but this is stupidity. To say it was a simple gun fight is frankly not honest.

The "facts" are that:

1. There were two groups of men.
2. Both were armed.
3. Both fired shots at eachother

and it was a gunfight.

Nowhere on this thread will you find a post by me stating that it was a "simple gunfight".

Nowhere.

The definition supplied by both myself and dart is applicable.

[_Jason Bourne]

This is a valid definition according to the dictionary:

"gunfight - a fight involving shooting small arms with the intent to kill or frighten"

Sounds applicable to me.

Sorry my friend. You and I both know that to simply say Smith died in a gun fight obfuscates the facts of what happened. Look, I have my beefs and concerns but this is stupidity. To say it was a simple gun fight is frankly not honest.

The "facts" are that:

1. There were two groups of men.
2. Both were armed.
3. Both fired shots at eachother

and it was a gunfight.

Nowhere on this thread will you find a post by me stating that it was a "simple gunfight".

Nowhere.

No Jersey Girl. There are more fact then that. If you want to really say GUN FIGHT, really bad then put it in context with all the other facts. Then it will be presented properly. 1,2 and 3 leaves about 20 other points of the day out. Spin doctoring indeed!

[_dartagnan]

So your beef is that the critic doesn't provide more details. FIne. But he or she cannot be faulted for lying simply by calling it a gunfight. I don't know any critic who insists that it was a typical, run of the mill gunfight. Peterson is just jumping to conclusions based on a psychoanalysis of what he thinks a critic is trying to say, while noting irrelevant points that do not change the fact that this was a legitimate gunfight. The Prophet had someone smuggle a gun for him that night.

Self defense or not, I don't see how this changes the nature of a gunfight.

Out numbered or not, I don't see how this changes the nature of a gunfight.

Whether his gun was smaller than his enemy's, I don't see how this changes the nature of a gunfight.

Not all gunfights begin with two men with their backs to each other and taking ten paces before turning and firing. I think that would be a rather narrow understanding of the term and I am sure there were plenty of legitimate gunfights where someone preemptively started firing on someone else who then defended himself by firing back. Don't most gunfights start with one person firing first and the other returning fire ind efense?

Whenever you think of two sides hiding behind wood barriers while bullets whiz by from both ends, that sounds like a legitimate gunfight to me.

Was it your typical gunfight? Of course not. But critics don't usually call it "typical." They simply note that Joseph Smith was armed and was perfectly willing to take as many lives as he could during his "martyrdom." This is historic fact that pours piss in the cornflakes of the apologists, which is why people like Peterson respond so defensively to it.

I think Peterson is complaining to the wrong side here since the LDS version almost never mentions the fact that Joseph Smith even had a gun to begin with. So which version is more deceptive? The apologetic version I think.

I had a fireside held in my home once and I seemed to be the only person who knew of this fact. I mentioned it after the speaker had given a "detailed" analysis of the Prophet's assassination, while neglecting to share this tid-bit of information. EVeryone got pissed off at me like I just ruined their fantasy version of how things happened. Somehow I doubt Peterson would have complained that this was left out in a Church talk.

[_Jason Bourne]

Was it your typical gunfight? Of course not. But critics don't usually call it "typical." They simply note that Joseph Smith was armed and was perfectly willing to take as many lives as he could during his "martyrdom." This is historic fact that pours piss in the cornflakes of the apologists, which is why people like Peterson respond so defensively to it.

And I have no problem saying the Joseph fired on his attackers after about what, 15 or so all armed, shot his brother dead. And as mentioned, I would not have been sad had he taken a few with him.

I think Peterson is complaining to the wrong side here since the LDS version almost never mentions the fact that Joseph Smith even had a gun to begin with. So which version is more deceptive? The apologetic version I think.

All LDS versions I read include the gun including the Documentive Church history, Roberts Church History, Bushman and other Bios.

I had a fireside held in my home once and I seemed to be the only person who knew of this fact. I mentioned it after the speaker had given a "detailed" analysis of the Prophet's assassination, while neglecting to share this tid-bit of information. EVeryone got pissed off at me like I just ruined their fantasy version of how things happened. Somehow I doubt Peterson would have complained that this was left out in a Church talk.

I know you mentioned this before. I find it odd. This really is one I thought everyone knew about.

[_Jason Bourne]

I think Peterson is complaining to the wrong side here since the LDS version almost never mentions the fact that Joseph Smith even had a gun to begin with. So which version is more deceptive? The apologetic version I think.

Ok

So I have to say Kev has a point here. See, I can concede points, unlike most here.

I just pulled out the new Priesthood/Relief Society manual-Teachings of the Presidents of The Church-Joseph Smith. I looked under the index for Martyrdom. There are at leas 7 or 8 pages referenced. Not one of them mentions Joseph having a gun and firing it. Disappointing indeed.

[_KimberlyAnn]

I think Peterson is complaining to the wrong side here since the LDS version almost never mentions the fact that Joseph Smith even had a gun to begin with. So which version is more deceptive? The apologetic version I think.

Ok

So I have to say Kev has a point here. See, I can concede points, unlike most here.

I just pulled out the new Priesthood/Relief Society manual-Teachings of the Presidents of The Church-Joseph Smith. I looked under the index for Martyrdom. There are at leas 7 or 8 pages referenced. Not one of them mentions Joseph having a gun and firing it. Disappointing indeed.

Jason, I mentioned earlier in the thread that on a tour of Carthage the guides never said a thing about Joseph Smith having a gun or firing shots. Those facts were entirely omitted from the tour, just as they were omitted in the church manual.

It seems to me the church is embarrassed over the fact that Smith didn't go as a lamb to the slaughter. He attempted to defend himself, which to me seems perfectly reasonable.

KA

[Guest]

I just pulled out the new Priesthood/Relief Society manual-Teachings of the Presidents of The Church-Joseph Smith. I looked under the index for Martyrdom. There are at leas 7 or 8 pages referenced. Not one of them mentions Joseph having a gun and firing it. Disappointing indeed.

It is quite simply astonishing, I think. Didn't Dan Peterson get pissed off when concernedchristians accused the Church of lying when a priesthood manual referred to Brigham Young's wife instead of his wives? He wrote up all sorts of apologetic material responding to this charge. His rationale was that the priesthood manual wasn't a history manual, which was a lame response I think. But technically the manual wasn't lying, it just failed to tell the whole truth. Apparently the Church can get away with this without registering on DCP's integrity radar.

Yet, if a critic provides an account of something that doesn't provide every apologetically convenient detail, DCP calls down the thunder of indignation and says they are being "repulsive."

Anyway, someone should mention what you just discovered Jason, over at MAD, just to get their reaction. I mean how can you accidentally neglect to share this key piece of information?

I know the more scholarly publications mention it, but the version generally talked about at Church doesn't mention it.

I know his brother was killed first, but this doesn't convince me his own violent participation wasn't premeditated. I mean he accepted the smuggled gun long before the mob came. I doubt he expected his friends and family to still be in the cell with him when it arrived. I suspect he accepted the gun as a means to save his own life. Nothing to be ashamed of here.

The mobsters probably didn't think they were risking their own lives by ransacking an unguarded prison. But if they found out the prisoner was actually armed, and was perfectly capable of firing back, then that might dissuade at least some of them. Unfortunately for Smith, after firing upon and hitting a couple of the men, it probably just pissed them off more.