Did Joseph Smith Die in a "shoot out"?

Post by **_Bond...James Bond** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 12:17 am

Silly critics.....don't you folks know that "gunfight" means "crucifixion" in Reformed Egyptian? Didn't you guys hear? He was too busy up on that cross to be shot and killed. Duh.

[/sarcasm]

Post by **_karl61** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 1:14 am

the meaning of stupidity: well there are a lot of acts that Joseph did that could be thought of as stupid but the crown jewel is bringing one pistol, with no extra ammo, to a shootout.....maybe it had to do with the amount of alcohol he consumed prior to his death....... but I still think the masons got him.

Post by **_Trevor** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 1:49 am

thestyleguy wrote:I still think the masons got him.

I'm with you, thestyleguy. If I were to film Joseph Smith's death as I would have liked to see it go down, Joe would have at least 5 pistols strapped to him, all six-shooters, and as a band of nefarious, conspiring, masons approached the Carthage jail, he would bust out the front door with guns a blazin'. Rolling to dodge bullets, ducking for cover, and picking off a foe with every well-aimed shot. Then Emma would bring him a black stallion, and he would lift her onto the horse and they would go riding off into the sunset... until that turncoat Brigham Young, whom everyone thought was in England, picks him off from behind some bushes, and then emerges as Smith's replacement. The perfect conspiracy.

Post by **_Bond...James Bond** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 1:55 am

I'm with you, thestyleguy. If I were to film Joseph Smith's death as I would have liked to see it go down, Joe would have at least 5 pistols strapped to him, all six-shooters, and as a band of nefarious, conspiring, masons approached the Carthage jail, he would bust out the front door with guns a blazin'. Rolling to dodge bullets, ducking for cover, and picking off a foe with every well-aimed shot. Then Emma would bring him a black stallion, and he would lift her onto the horse and they would go riding off into the sunset... until that turncoat Brigham Young, whom everyone thought was in England, picks him off from behind some bushes, and then emerges as Smith's replacement. The perfect conspiracy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_iYb4g59uE

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

Post by **_Trevor** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 1:57 am

Bond...James Bond wrote: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!

Post by **_Jason Bourne** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 2:26 am

Mister Scratch wrote:
Jason Bourne wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote: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.

Your attempt to make Smith's murder look justified is what is an oversimplification.

How do you figure? I am not the one who omitted contextual details: you're the one who did that, Jason.

Look, I do not defend what Joseph Smith did as far as some of the issues you raise, though your implications and conclusions are debatable.

What "implications and conclusions" are you referring to? All I've said is that it is important to view the larger picture, and to include all the details.

Regardless, the simple fact

But that misses the point: there is no "simple fact" here. Would you like it if I said, "The simple fact about MMM is that dozens of innocent people were slaughtered by LDS"? You are calling for a reductive summary of something that was more complex than Church shills would have us believe.

is the man and his brother were held for trial, you know, due process, innocent till proven guilty, and so on. They were promised protection. They were murdered in cold blood.

I agree that they were murdered in cold blood.

And it was not a gun fight.

Seeing as how this was a "fight" which involved "guns," I have to disagree with you on this one, Jason.

I think your bias really is clouding your thinking here. There are better things to pick on.

I am not the one trying to re-write the dictionary because I'm terrified that Joseph Smith's whitewashed image might get "tarnished."

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

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

Post by **_Jason Bourne** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 2:31 am

[/quote]

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. 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. 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.

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?

Post by **_Gazelam** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 2:32 am

Is this considered a shootout as well?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW09aDBQebU

Post by **_Jason Bourne** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 2:36 am

Jersey Girl wrote: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.

Post by **_Jersey Girl** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 2:39 am

Jason Bourne wrote:
Jersey Girl wrote: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