What Would You Do?

[_maklelan]

I never took "gunfight" to imply evenly an matched battle. If anything, the term sticks in my mind as an unevenly matched battle due to images from Westerns where a few people are pinned down in a battle against a larger force. What an odd, odd complaint.

If you don't recognize the manipulation in couching Joseph Smith's death in such vernacular then you're not paying any attention at all. My suspicion is that you do know exactly why cynics like to use that vernacular, but you're playing dumb.

[_AlmaBound]

He threw the gun to the floor and was shot several times trying to escape out a window.

I wonder what would have happened if he'd have had some more bullets, personally.

Could you call it a "shootout" if shots were exchanged, however many?

What is the criteria for amount of shots fired before you can label it a gunfight or a gunbattle?

Also, what is the deal with the stories about the pewter knife? What's the significance there?

[_RockSlider]

More so fear of his political clout and his control of a growing Mormon population.

I also assume that martyrdom would relate to dying for spiritual/religious concepts not political/economical, would you not agree? I have to admit that the persecution in Far West was heavily political/economic driven. No doubt some of this came along and played a part in persecutions in Nauvoo. However, persecution does not automatically equal martyrdom.

There is no surprise that the faithful LDS that followed would uphold this as an act of martyrdom. But it also comes as no surprise that others might view it simply as an ugly example of vigilantism.

Bottom line, who cares, call it what you want.

Do you think it's intentionally misleading to state simply that Joseph Smith "was killed in a gunfight"?

Joseph Smith was killed by vigilantes, plan and simple. That he defended himself, friends, brother etc. does not bother me, I’d be disappointed in him if he did not. in my opinion the act of one defending their own life would not disqualify them from being called a martyr.

As for the statement “going like a lamb to the slaughter”, does this not come from some story about Joseph Smith, where he had crossed the river and was in hiding … and someone (sorry butcher of the story) talked him into turning himself in. Some other statement similar to “if my friends have no value for my life, why should I” went along with this, and he turned his self in.

I suppose there are different ways this could also be viewed. Nobel that he turned his self in (and knew the level of hatred and possibility of death), or How/why did he run and hide in the first place, and how Nobel is that? What if he had not turned his self in and remained an outlaw in hiding?. Would have made for a good alternate dimension history/story!

[_Some Schmo]

I'm noticing an interesting pattern with mak, which is that there is only one version of history worth acknowledging, and it's the one with which he's most comfortable.

Or the accurate one. I know this history far better than you ever will, so stop wasting my time with your made up history.

Nothing like just asserting something without any real knowledge, is there? I'm not the one making up history (unless you consider speculation making up history). You are.

Stop wasting your time? Am I making you read anything here? Take control of your own life.

I always find it kind of funny/sad when people are so confident in what they think history is because they happened to have read some things on it.

It's better than history that is simply made up.

Where did I make up history again?

You seem to have a real problem distinguishing between speculation and history.

When I think about the fact that we don't even know the truth about occurrences in our own time due to news media slant, it seems incredibly hubristic to think anyone's got a handle on exactly what happened 200 years ago.

And yet you've got a better grasp than me on what happened without ever having to crack a book? Are you seriously trying to assert that?

Did I say that?

Learn to read.

Agreed upon, documented facts are one thing. Intentions and motivations are quite another. If people think they're doing anything other than speculating about what Joe Smith thought or what motivated him, they're living in a fantasy land.

What a joke. You're more than happy to make absolute statements about the intentions and beliefs of everyone in Mormondom from Joseph Smith down to President Monson.

Absolute statements? LOL

You have serious issues, man. Seek help.

You're a terrible liar, and yet you keep trying to do it. Here are some examples:

The mother lie of them all:

"I know the church is true."

You're confused. If you've ever claimed that you know the church is true, you're the liar, not me.

Sometimes, I imagine (of course, this is pure speculation; I'm not stating it as fact, not trying to suggest I know this for sure, and am only basing it on my subjective experience with reading various apologists on this board - thought I better make that clear in case someone wanted "evidence") that it's got to be tough and frustrating for the apologists when the deck is so highly stacked against them. I suppose I'd probably get angry and start acting the way they do if I were fighting an impossible battle too, especially if I couldn't admit to myself that it was a lost cause.

At what point do they just say to themselves, "All this intellectual dishonesty isn't worth it any more" and stop making crazy arguments? I suspect their resistance is due to comfort, and perhaps to a greater extent, ego. Some people just can't admit to themselves they're wrong (even though it's part of learning and being human).

It's sad, really.

Yes. I wasn't lying there. What I wrote there is what I think. Do you happen to have evidence to the contrary?

The fact is, sometimes people find themselves in situations (of their own making) where they're damned if they do and damned if they don't. When confronted with a dilemma, people choose what they think is the lesser of two evils. I imagine he knew he’d die soon no matter what he did. How long would he last as a fugitive? At least if he held on to the ruse, it might protect his family, church, and reputation.

If you don't think that holds water, that's up to you. Seems pretty obvious to me.

And this is a lie... how? You think people aren’t confronted by dilemmas, or don’t choose the lesser of two evils?

I'm interested how you can categorize speculation (look that word up before moving on... it would help you to look less foolish) a lie. What part of “I imagine” didn’t you understand?

It's just so amusing to me the pretzel logic a religious person must employ to make all the wacky, illogical crap they believe work. It just goes to show that comfort is way more important to most people than the truth is (although I wonder how many people would be relieved and comforted if only they realized they didn't have to believe a bunch of intellectually dishonest rubbish).

How is this a lie? I do find that amusing. What's your evidence I'm lying?

I suspect the truth is that you’re a frightened, insecure little boy hiding in a misogynistic, deluded adult’s body, but I’ll resist declaring that as fact, despite the abundance of evidence favoring that conclusion.

Again, what's your evidence I'm lying? I do suspect that about Will.

You're a phenomenal hypocrite, dude. I don't know why you think I would ever take you seriously.

Hypocrite? Hmmm... don't think you know what that means, either. Unless you have some evidence that I'm not the way I portray myself here.

And I'm clearly nowhere near as concerned about people taking me seriously as you seem to be, which is really funny given how silly and uptight you act on a regular basis here. I’m confident in who I am, what I think, and understand myself to be a flawed person. I don’t need to pretend I’m something I’m not. It’s not worth the effort. And I don’t need your validation (or anyone else’s) to make me feel good about myself.

Quite frankly, I couldn't care less if you take me seriously or not. I can't think of anything offhand that is of less consequence.

[_maklelan]

He threw the gun to the floor and was shot several times trying to escape out a window.

I wonder what would have happened if he'd have had some more bullets, personally.

Could you call it a "shootout" if shots were exchanged, however many?

I think the connotation is accurate even if it is to the extreme of the semantic range, but my point addresses the denotation of the words, or the images and impressions the words conjure up in the mind of the reader. "Gunfight" and "shootout," and "gun battle" denote things far removed from the events surrounding Joseph Smith's death. The cynics know this and enjoy using the manipulation because the denotation (1) removes any sense of martyrdom, and (2) conveys a specific impression to those who don't know any better.

What is the criteria for amount of shots fired before you can label it a gunfight or a gunbattle?

I would say if Joseph Smith were looking in the direction he was shooting, was not so tactically handicapped, reloaded his gun, and actually had it in his hands when he was killed, it could be more accurately described as a "gun battle."

Also, what is the deal with the stories about the pewter knife? What's the significance there?

Pewter fife. Pewter is too soft to use in knives. It's a musical instrument a boy was said to be carrying when he accused the dead Joseph Smith of being the "ruination" of his father (which is assumed to refer to Governor Boggs, but is problematic in a number of ways). His revenge was to hit the dead Joseph over the head with the fife.

[_maklelan]

Nothing like just asserting something without any real knowledge, is there? I'm not the one making up history (unless you consider speculation making up history). You are.

Please point out the history I'm making up. You can take your time.

[_RockSlider]

His revenge was to hit the dead Joseph over the head with the fife.

Hence Fife and Drum

[_Some Schmo]

Nothing like just asserting something without any real knowledge, is there? I'm not the one making up history (unless you consider speculation making up history). You are.

Please point out the history I'm making up. You can take your time.

Any time you claim to know what ol' Joe was thinking based on your extensive research well enough to call my speculations BS. Or are you just... speculating?

So, is that it? Not going to back up how you know I'm lying?

Shocker.

[_AlmaBound]

I would say if Joseph Smith were looking in the direction he was shooting, was not so tactically handicapped, reloaded his gun, and actually had it in his hands when he was killed, it could be more accurately described as a "gun battle."

Oh, so you want to give the impression that (3) his "shooting back during the shootout" was haphazard due to a tactical disadvantage, and thus still qualifies as martyrdom?

Also, what is the deal with the stories about the pewter knife? What's the significance there?

His revenge was to hit the dead Joseph over the head with the fife.

I must have missed this part of young Mr. Webb's statements. Care to point me to the source of your assertion here?

[_maklelan]

Any time you claim to know what ol' Joe was thinking

First, this is not pointing to evidence, this is simply reasserting your position. Second, I've never claimed to know what he was thinking. I have explained what is a more logical assumption, but nothing beyond that.

based on your extensive research well enough to call my speculations BS.

That I have done, and I've been right every time. The vast, vast majority of your speculation is simple bigotry and historical naïvété. You also like to hide behind calling something speculation, even though you defend that speculation in the face of a wealth of evidence to the contrary. This shows you don't really think it's speculation, but you want to avoid being responsible for evidence. Not a particularly bright thing to do.

Or are you just... speculating?

So, is that it? Not going to back up how you know I'm lying?

You're lying by asserting that I've ever claimed to know what Joseph Smith was thinking. You're also lying by asserting that I'm "making up history." You have yet to produce an example of me doing so, you've only asserted that I have, and your assertion is demonstrably false. I'll invite you again to show where I'm making up history, and I'll also invite you to give an example of me claiming I know what Joseph Smith is thinking. I recommend you stop digging yourself into larger and larger holes. You're not an historian, and you're not particularly good with logic, so quite wriggling and either admit your error or prove me wrong. I will not respond to any more of these idiotic evasions.

Shocker.

Quite.