(emphasis added)Daniel Peterson wrote:Mudcat wrote:He died shortly after he discharged a pistol into a crowd that was firing upon him. They fought with guns and he fought back with a gun. What pray tell...do you define as a gunfight..that does not fit within that parameter.
your defense of his reputation is no less baseless and no more credible..than my "percieved" attack.
It is misleading to characterize as a gunfight (implying that the odds were remotely close to even) a situation in which four men, none convicted of any crime and two of them not even charged with a crime, are assaulted while locked in prison by a heavily armed mob with painted faces -- even if two of them (to the presumed shock and irritation of those hoping to murder them in completely cold blood, without any resistance) happen to have small, primitive pistols with them and the other two have (shudder) a cane.
The mob didn't "fight" with guns. They murdered with guns. It wasn't a "fight." It was a mob lynching.
The reason anti-Mormons like to characterize the murders that occurred at Carthage Jail as having occurred during a "gunfight" -- which, incidentally, if it were really true, would greatly lessen the guilt of the murderers -- is that it allows them to pretend that Joseph Smith was equally guilty for the events of that day and that his death, while perhaps slightly regrettable, was understandable . . . in view of his participation in a "gunfight."
This is a low and despicable thing to do, in my opinion.
The event of 27 June 1844 was a premeditated double murder, pure and simple -- and, had it not taken longer than planned, probably would have been a quadruple homicide.
It is, in my view, simply disgusting for you and others on this thread to insinuate that, well, Joseph really brought it on himself, that he may have been lusting in an unchristlike way after vengeance, that he doesn't really deserve the title of martyr, that it would be pure speculation to suppose that he might have been seeking to defend his brother and his innocent friends, that he could have done this better, that he should have done that, that it would be mere speculation to imagine that Joseph had any redeeming qualities on that day.
Anti-Mormons murdered Joseph and Hyrum. Period.
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. As it is, instead, you seek to denigrate the behavior of its victims.
He really seems to be flailing in this post. But that is not even the worst of it. I have a feeling that Bishop Dan is going to sorely regret having written this:
Daniel Peterson wrote:At the risk of venturing into very sensitive and, in fact, offensive territory, perhaps an analogous story will help to express my revulsion at the way some anti-Mormons seek to revise history with regard to the murder of Joseph and Hyrum at Carthage Jail:
Melissa is walking to the bus stop from work, heading home, when she's accosted by an assailant and raped.
"How awful!" exclaims Diane when she hears the news. "Poor Melissa!"
"She was stupid to walk that way," says Bob. "I'm not sure that she deserves the title of victim. Maybe idiot would be better."
"And did you see the way she was dressed?" demands Eric. "She's scarcely innocent in this."
"She apparently tried to run from him," observes Billy. "That probably just made things worse. The guy may only have been following her, but, when she ran, she forced the issue. In fact, I think she should have turned and confronted him. He probably would have backed off."
"Yeah," agrees Bob. "It was hopeless for her to try to outrun him, anyway. He was much faster than she was. She got his adrenalin pumping, and the rest is history. It was like stirring a hornet's nest. Stupid girl."
"She tried to use Mace on him, too," Billy comments. "Can you imagine how angry that must have made him?"
"Anyway," offers Zeke, "who says she didn't enjoy it?"
"I've had about enough of this," interjects Diane, angrily. "You have no reason at all to suggest that she enjoyed it! What a repulsive suggestion."
"Well, lots of people enjoy having sex," counters Zeke. "Why wouldn't she?"
"You call that 'having sex'?" Diane responds, incredulously. "It was rape, for heaven's sake."
"Did they, or did they not, engage in sexual intercourse?" comes Zeke's cool reply.
"Well of course, technically speaking," says Diane. "But it was coerced. Women don't enjoy being raped."
"You have no basis," replies Zeke, "for declaring what was in her mind. Your claim that she didn't enjoy it is just as baseless as, and no more credible than, my claim that she did."
Uh... wow.
This is reminiscent of Bill Hamblin's k-word-ridden rant on RfM some years ago. DCP seems to have known (as indicated by his "at the risk of venturing into offensive territory" disclaimer) that this was a bad idea. Pity that tact and emotional calmness seem to have fled him at this moment. I have to say, I'm quite stunned at The Good Professor's apparent easy familiarity with rape and misogyny. This post of his was quite disgusting, and the fact that he would stoop to such an atrocious argumentative tactic merely illustrates how desperate Mopologetics is in this death-of-JS regard.