Did Joseph Smith Die in a "shoot out"?

[_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.

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.

If you think that two groups of people or two persons fighting eachother with guns isn't a gunfight, then you might need to rethink that.

[_Jason Bourne]

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.

Your attempt to make Smith's murder look justified is what is an oversimplification. 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. Regardless, the simple fact 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. And it was not a gun fight. I think your bias really is clouding your thinking here. There are better things to pick on.

[_Jersey Girl]

Here it is right here, Jason.

You know as well as I what the words gun fight create as an image. What happened in Carthage simple was not that image.

The "imagery" you are responding to isn't rational, Jason.

[_Mister Scratch]

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

Some excellent points. Certain apologists have recently been issuing a number of challenges and taunts pertaining to whether or not they are "embarrassed" about some of their views. Well, it seems pretty obvious that they are most definitely "embarrassed" about some facts, even if there is no reason for them to be.

[_Jason Bourne]

Here it is right here, Jason.

You know as well as I what the words gun fight create as an image. What happened in Carthage simple was not that image.

The "imagery" you are responding to isn't rational, Jason.

To call Carthage a gunfight is irrational. Do you think Smith was wrong to defend himself. Do you think the murder was justified?

Is the robber justified, like Scratch seems to think, in entering your house and shooting at you, because he thinks you did some awful things, maybe stepped on his roses or something


Well this is fun. Keep it up. It demonstrates that most critics of things LDS cannot be rational at all when it comes to Smith. I have to run now but I will join your foolishness later.

[_Mister Scratch]

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."

[_Mister Scratch]

Here it is right here, Jason.

You know as well as I what the words gun fight create as an image. What happened in Carthage simple was not that image.

The "imagery" you are responding to isn't rational, Jason.

To call Carthage a gunfight is irrational. Do you think Smith was wrong to defend himself. Do you think the murder was justified?

Is the robber justified, like Scratch seems to think, in entering your house and shooting at you, because he thinks you did some awful things, maybe stepped on his roses or something

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.

[_Mister Scratch]

An interesting addendum from Prof. P. over on the aptly named MADboard:

To say, without careful explanation, that Joseph and his brother died in a "gunfight" in Carthage, Illinois, obscures the fact that they died, badly outnumbered, under a preplanned assault from a homicidal mob with painted faces while under the promise of protection from the state of Illinois. That is deeply misleading, and such mischaracterization ought to be resisted when it occurs.

I wonder: Does he consider it "deeply misleading" whenever a Church talking head turns up on CNN in order to say, "The LDS Church has nothing to do with those polygamists!" Or, "MMM had nothing to do with the Church!" Either he and other Mopologists are in favor of full examination of the facts---warts and all---or they are not.

[_Jersey Girl]

Here it is right here, Jason.

You know as well as I what the words gun fight create as an image. What happened in Carthage simple was not that image.

The "imagery" you are responding to isn't rational, Jason.

To call Carthage a gunfight is irrational. Do you think Smith was wrong to defend himself. Do you think the murder was justified?

Is the robber justified, like Scratch seems to think, in entering your house and shooting at you, because he thinks you did some awful things, maybe stepped on his roses or something


Well this is fun. Keep it up. It demonstrates that most critics of things LDS cannot be rational at all when it comes to Smith. I have to run now but I will join your foolishness later.

Again you are appealing to emotion when you refer to defense, self defens or who did something awful.

Two sides fought with guns, Jason. It was a gunfight or shoot out.

I ask you again, are you implying that in a gunfight no one defends themselves?

[_Jersey Girl]

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.