Did Joseph Smith Die in a "shoot out"?

[_karl61]

Starring Emilio Estevez as Joseph Smith, Kiefer Sutherland as Hyrum Smith, and Lou Diamond Philips as Brown Beer, the 4th Nephite.

Damn straight. Sells itself. A sure-fire blockbuster. An Oscar shoe in!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Awv7ROHCNtg

The only thing that could make a Joseph Smith shootout ending better are:

1) Al Pacino
2) cocaine
3) a combo grenade launcher/M16 machine gun
3) Alot of pissed off drug warriors

some would rather have Robert De Niro and Val Kilmer on their side

[_Trevor]

some would rather have Robert De Niro and Val Kilmer on their side

Now, here is a good question: which of the action heroes would best fit the part of Joseph Smith in our action-thriller remake of Showdown in Carthage?

[_Mister Scratch]

I am not trying to re-write the dictionary either. Nor am I trying to white wash Smith;s image. Nor is Peterson. Did he deny Joseph had and fired a gun? Did he say we should not discuss it?

Actually, yes: he did. Here, from the OP:

It's repulsive, now, to see some critics seek to murder their reputation, even as regards that day. It would be fitting and proper for you to express your abhorrence of that act of double homicide and attempted double homicide and then to fall silent.

(emphasis added)

Who is terrified of the truth here and admitting how foolish they look on this Scratch? Not me.

Well, perhaps you are just too dense to understand how and why you look foolish, my dear boy.

I am stating simple facts. It was not a gun fight in the way one thinks of a gun fight.

Who is this mysterious "one" you're referring to, Jason? Certainly I and Jersey Girl aren't this "one." Whoever wrote the dictionary isn't this "one". Perhaps you, and you alone, constitute this one?

I have no trouble with the fact that Joseph had a pepper gun or whatever it was and that he fired in self defense. And I have never hid that at all.

But continue on. This thread is another fine example of how you will take anything you can spin it negatively. To argue that it was a gun fight is simply absurd. Continue to be absurd if you wish.

Very well. It is equally absurd to whine when someone points out that Joseph Smith was involved in a "gunfight" prior to his death.

[_Mister Scratch]

I hardly think "stepping on roses" is comparable to destroying a printing press, sleeping with other men's wives, crowning oneself king, and so on. I am not saying that the mob was justified so much as I am saying that Mopologetic oversimplifications and spin-jobs are wrong.[/quote]


Hmmmm......Crowning King of the world? Nope, King of Israel on earth and it was not a real time thing and what threat did that pose? Council of 50? That was a Church council and was not for any political power other then to handle Smith's presidential campaign.[/quote]

LOL!!! "Not for any political power" other than the presidency??? Wow, Jason. I'm aghast.

Yes he destroyed a printing press. Spin jobs? Saying in a simple way, with out details, that Smith died in a gun fight is a spin job.

It is no more of a "spin job" than saying, "The LDS Church has nothing to do with polygamists!"

Saying he was in jail, standing trial for the printing press issue and that he was SLAUGHTERED IN COLD BLOOD, and that he had a gun that when his brother was murdered by DOZENS OF MEN WITH GUNS, he fired off a few shots is not a spin job.

I agree. But, then again, Joseph Smith had ticked off a lot of people on account of stuff that extends well beyond the printing press.

by the way, if you do no think the mob was justified why do you keep bringing up the fact that Joseph had been a naughty person?

I think that the mob was justified in its outrage at Joseph's "indiscretions," but I think that the murder was wrong. It would be no different if we were talking about, say, Warren Jeffs, or David Koresh. These men may have outraged our moral sensibilities, but they deserve a fair trial the same as anybody else. You seem to be insinuating that disapproval of Joseph Smith's "naughty" doings is somehow wrong.

[_karl61]

Here is more about the incident on a webpage:

http://www.Bible.ca/mor-smith-2-way-gun-battle.htm

[_Jason Bourne]

You can argue whether or not it was a Gunfight (both sides had guns, duh), but he was a criminal - An adulterous, unethical, lying, cheating thieving unconvicted criminal. The record stands on it's own merits.

So you are ready to do away with due process? You storming and jails soon?

Joseph Smith knew he was going to die ("as a lamb to the slaughter") and he knew his "friends" that remained with him were in mortal peril. He could have commanded them to leave and they would have left. But he did not. Instead, he and his brother took up arms -

Took up ARMS? You ever see a picture of the ONE GUN they had? It was hardly arms.

to either defend themselves or those that had no business being with them.

Taylor and Richards could have left. They loved the Smith's and made their own choice to remain? Why does that bug you?

Either way, they all broke some serious laws that day. Nowdays it would be considered a felony to smuggle in or posses even an unloaded firearm into a prison complex without explicit authorization.

WOW. They had this little teeny weeny pistol that was not very reliable-it misfired a few times-but the mob stormed the jail and murdered the Smith's in cold blood. Yep, there was some serious law breaking done that day.

It was frontier justice.

Oh and that makes it a OK in your angry mind?

The Dirtbags finally had their come-upin's. It's only regretable that he wasn't sent to Jesus sooner to be judged for his Crimes Against Humanity.

Your are ranting her enow.

If only the group of concerned citizens knew that Brigham Young would carry on the reprehensible acts of adultery etc., they would no doubt, have hunted him and his co-conspiritors down like dogs as well.

Hmmm...maybe you would have joined them?

Sure, the citizens should not have stooped to Smith's level of lawlessness. They ought to have been patient to let the wheels of justice grind the form of their punishment.

That is about all I agree with in your post.

[_Jason Bourne]

I think that the mob was justified in its outrage at Joseph's "indiscretions," but I think that the murder was wrong. It would be no different if we were talking about, say, Warren Jeffs, or David Koresh. These men may have outraged our moral sensibilities, but they deserve a fair trial the same as anybody else.

Well we will have to agree on this and leave it there. I guess I can concede that if one explains ALL the fact and also puts in that Joseph had a small pistol in his possession that he fired into the mob through the open door after they shot Hyrum, a gunfight if you will.... then I am fine with it. But give all the details.

You seem to be insinuating that disapproval of Joseph Smith's "naughty" doings is somehow wrong.

No not at all. Just that irrespective of these things he was murdered in cold blood. And, some of them had various weight on the on the culmination of the events of that day. Some, in my opinion, were no big deal and may not even been known of while others were more substantive.

[_Jason Bourne]

Here is more about the incident on a webpage:

http://www.Bible.ca/mor-smith-2-way-gun-battle.htm

THus my point about distorting things is proven.

[_Scottie]

When I visited Carthage jail about five years ago, it was not mentioned that Joseph Smith had a weapon. We were not told he fired shots. That information was entirely omitted from the presentation. At the time, I wondered why the visitors weren't told the whole story, because in my mind, I didn't blame Smith for firing shots at all. The mob certainly had violent intentions and I see Joseph Smith's actions as self-defense.

Why does it embarrass the church that Joseph Smith fired a weapon?

I have since been told that other visitors to Carthage were told of Smith's firing shots. If that's so, why the inconsistency?

KA

Because they want to maintain the "I go like a lamb to the slaughter" line of thinking.

They want to portray Joseph Smith as much like Jesus as possible. Even when soldiers ear was cut off, Jesus stopped him, healed his ear and went willingfully to his death. What a great image if Joseph Smith did the same thing. Knowing he was going to die, going willingly and sacrificing himself. THIS is a man next to Jesus!

[_Scottie]

A couple of comments...

First, remember when DCP wrote that letter to the editor about September Dawn and said The so-called Mountain Meadows Massacre is in no substantial way parallel to the attacks of 9/11. The critics jumped all over him for saying so-called. The apologists pulled out the dictionary definitions and, sure enough, if you used the exact definition, it fit. Critics laughed this off as a desperate attempt to save face. Nobody uses it like the dictionary says it is used. EVERYONE knew what he meant by it.

Aren't the critics doing the same thing here?

Same goes for shootout. By the textbook, dictionary definition, yes, it was technically a shootout. But it certainly wasn't a shootout by the standard way the term is used in everyday conversation. Any more than "so-called" meant "it was called".

Second, isn't it funny that when we try to apply our standards today to the standards back in the 1800's regarding polygamy, that we are guilty of presentism?
But good ol' fashioned justice, which was common back then, can be nothing but cold blooded murder? I smell a bit of presentism myself here...