Did Joseph Smith Die in a "shoot out"?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Post by _Mister Scratch »

Gadianton wrote:Mr. Scratch,

Is there some irony (is that the right term?) in the fact that a critic could have used, used far better, the exact same scenario Dr. Peterson conjured up to describe the mindset of the apologists who defend Joseph Smith's actions in regard to a certain 14 year old girl?


Wow... I didn't think of that, but, of course, you're right. That same type of smear was applied to Martha Brotherton too, if I'm not mistaken.

What we are seeing on that thread is a case of apologists wanting to gloss over the particulars, but, as we know, the devil is in the details. DCP---and LoaP---would probably want to say about that appalling rape analogy, "The point is that this crime took place, and so who cares about the particulars? A wrong was done, and that's that!" I'm sure the apologists would have no problem applying this same kind of thinking to MMM: "The Fancher Party was slaughtered by Mormons and that's that!"
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Post by _Jersey Girl »

Jason Bourne wrote:
Jersey Girl wrote:Oh, I'm not even going to read all of the posts on this thread. There is no need to. I saw the thread over on MAD and here is my opinion.

Both groups of men were armed.
One group attacked with weapons.
One group defended with weapons.

It was a gun fight. A shoot out.

It doesn't matter who disguised their identities or who shot first. For pete sakes people, it was what it was.



So I guess if an armed robber enters your house and you shoot at him to defend your home and house and he kills you it is a shoot out, a gun fight. If you are killed in it I guess you got what you deserved.

It was not a a gun fight. Smith shot only after his brother was killed. It was self defense.


As I stated previously the point was to blindside folks with emotion. Your post here contains the result of that. Let me show you what your post would have looked like without the emotional need to place value judgement on the situation.

So I guess if an armed robber enters your house and you shoot at him to defend your home and house and he kills you it is a shoot out, a gun fight.


Yes, by definition that would have been a gunfight or shoot out.

It was not a a gun fight. Smith shot only after his brother was killed.


Yes, by definition that would have been a gunfight or shoot out.


Here is the extracted appeal to emotion:


If you are killed in it I guess you got what you deserved.


It was self defense.
_Jason Bourne
_Emeritus
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm

Post by _Jason Bourne »

Actually, Jason, your post touches on one of the main points of my OP: Why is there this intense need to haggle over semantics on this issue?


Because gunfight connotes to armed groups planning to confront each other with the intent to do harm. Think OK Corral here. The events in Carthage were nothing like this. It connotes that Smith's were planning to fight the group that attacked them rather then being innocent and acting in self defense only, that is why.



Joseph Smith *did* fire off some shots, and indeed wounded some of the other men. Joseph Smith *was* murdered in cold blood. Why is there such apparent anger on the part of partisan LDS on this issue?



Is self defense a gun fight? Is it is a gunfight if you are innocently attacked and you defend yourself?

Do you feel, as DCP apparently does, that the fact that Joseph Smith fired shots "detracts" from his status as a "martyr"?


Not one bit.

Further, do you take issue with whitewashings of the incident, which omit Joseph Smith's firing of the gun?


Yes I do. I think the fact that he shot at those who murdered his brother should be reported and this is one fact of LDS history that I have known since a small lad. Never bothered me a bit. I would not feel to bad had he taken a few of his murderers with him.
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Post by _Jersey Girl »

Jason,

I have posted the definitions of both gunfight and shoot out. Do you disagree with those definitions? If so, please describe to me what you think constitutes a gunfight or shoot out.
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Post by _Mister Scratch »

Jason Bourne wrote:
Jersey Girl wrote:Oh, I'm not even going to read all of the posts on this thread. There is no need to. I saw the thread over on MAD and here is my opinion.

Both groups of men were armed.
One group attacked with weapons.
One group defended with weapons.

It was a gun fight. A shoot out.

It doesn't matter who disguised their identities or who shot first. For pete sakes people, it was what it was.



So I guess if an armed robber enters your house and you shoot at him to defend your home and house and he kills you it is a shoot out, a gun fight. If you are killed in it I guess you got what you deserved.


This is a pretty crummy analogy, Jason. It would be more accurate if the robber-ee had been engaging in multiple scandalous liaisons with various women in the robber's town, and that the robber-ee was preparing to assume political and military control of the robber's country, and the robber-ee had recently attempted to sabotage the media in the robber's area. Your gross oversimplification of the issue and glossing over the details doesn't help matters in the least.
_KimberlyAnn
_Emeritus
Posts: 3171
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 2:03 pm

Post by _KimberlyAnn »

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
_Jason Bourne
_Emeritus
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm

Post by _Jason Bourne »

thestyleguy wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:
Jason Bourne wrote:
Bond...James Bond wrote:Were the folks that killed Joseph Smith anti-Mormon or anti-Joseph Smith? I'm thinking anti-Joseph Smith.


Both

And the thread here is ridiculous. It was not a shoot out at all. To say it was anything other then cold blooded murder is stupidity.


Actually, Jason, your post touches on one of the main points of my OP: Why is there this intense need to haggle over semantics on this issue? Joseph Smith *did* fire off some shots, and indeed wounded some of the other men. Joseph Smith *was* murdered in cold blood. Why is there such apparent anger on the part of partisan LDS on this issue? Do you feel, as DCP apparently does, that the fact that Joseph Smith fired shots "detracts" from his status as a "martyr"? Further, do you take issue with whitewashings of the incident, which omit Joseph Smith's firing of the gun?


Mister Scratch: going against the spit and polished image of Joseph Smith that the LDS church spends millions each year to maintain brings out their minions.


I have no allusions that Joseph Smith had issues. Never the less he was murdered in cold blood...period, and was attacked... and fired in self defense. Self defense is not a gun fight.
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Post by _Jersey Girl »

Jason
Is self defense a gun fight? Is it is a gunfight if you are innocently attacked and you defend yourself?


Are you implying that in a gun fight no one is defending themselves?
_Jason Bourne
_Emeritus
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm

Post by _Jason Bourne »

Jersey Girl wrote:Jason,

I have posted the definitions of both gunfight and shoot out. Do you disagree with those definitions? If so, please describe to me what you think constitutes a gunfight or shoot out.


I could care less what you posted. It was not a gun fight. You are plainly wrong. If you think defending your home is a gun fight you are wrong. You know as well as I what the words gun fight create as an image. What happened in Carthage simple was not that image.
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Post by _Mister Scratch »

Jason Bourne wrote:
Actually, Jason, your post touches on one of the main points of my OP: Why is there this intense need to haggle over semantics on this issue?


Because gunfight connotes to armed groups planning to confront each other with the intent to do harm. Think OK Corral here. The events in Carthage were nothing like this. It connotes that Smith's were planning to fight the group that attacked them rather then being innocent and acting in self defense only, that is why.


I don't think it does. There is nothing about the word "gunfight" which detracts from the self-defense of Joseph Smith & Co. "Gunfight", in and of itself, is a neutral term, and Jersey has pointed out. I think the reality is that apologists would prefer that everyone believe that Joseph Smith just "sat there and took it," and that mention of the gun shots detracts from his "martyr" status somehow. I don't think it does, but obviously plenty of Mopologists and TBMs do.

Joseph Smith *did* fire off some shots, and indeed wounded some of the other men. Joseph Smith *was* murdered in cold blood. Why is there such apparent anger on the part of partisan LDS on this issue?


Is self defense a gun fight?


Yes; it can be.

Is it is a gunfight if you are innocently attacked and you defend yourself?

Yes, provided that you fired a gun.

Do you feel, as DCP apparently does, that the fact that Joseph Smith fired shots "detracts" from his status as a "martyr"?


Not one bit.


Then what's the problem? Joseph Smith "died in a gunfight," was acting in self-defense, and died a martyr. What's the problem with that?
Further, do you take issue with whitewashings of the incident, which omit Joseph Smith's firing of the gun?


Yes I do. I think the fact that he shot at those who murdered his brother should be reported and this is one fact of LDS history that I have known since a small lad. Never bothered me a bit. I would not feel to bad had he taken a few of his murderers with him.
Post Reply