You misunderstood. I doubted that he had never met another Mormon that knew that. As you showed, it's common knowledge--the gun is even in the church history museum.
Mormon Temple ceremony.
- Thread starter Siro
- Start date
You misunderstood. I doubted that he had never met another Mormon that knew that. As you showed, it's common knowledge--the gun is even in the church history museum.
It's common knowledge that he had a gun, and fired out the window.
It's NOT true that he killed anyone in the process.
It's not clear whether he was trying to kill anyone, or just trying to scare them off. Either way most LDS would agree with you that killing is justified in self-defense.
Yeah, that's why those tricky Mormons are hiding the gun in plain sight in the official church history museum.
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
It's funny, but everything here was covered by my ninth grade seminary teacher. I kid you not. Lol
Maybe this account is not true but according to John Taylors account he said he shot and killed people.
Maybe I am misunderstanding his account or maybe he changed his account or something else but here is where I read it at.
https://https://mldb.byu.edu/jtaylor.htm
according to that history some one pointed out these facts from that account.
1. Joseph was imprisoned because he ordered the destruction of a press.
2. Joseph ordered the press's destruction (illegally) because it was going to publish details of his polygamous and polyandrous relationships.
3. Joseph, in prison drank wine.
4. Joseph removed his temple garments before going to the prison.
5. Joseph had a gun.
6. Joseph fired first.
7. Joseph was trying to escape via the window when he was shot.
Are these all accepted facts in LDS history or are those disputed or made up?
Never really read much about this, but this thread made me curious about Joseph Smiths death and the accounts.
1. Joseph was imprisoned because he ordered the destruction of a press.
2. Joseph ordered the press's destruction (illegally) because it was going to publish details of his polygamous and polyandrous relationships.
3. Joseph, in prison drank wine.
4. Joseph removed his temple garments before going to the prison.
5. Joseph had a gun.
6. Joseph fired first.
7. Joseph was trying to escape via the window when he was shot.
Are these all accepted facts in LDS history or are those disputed or made up?
Never really read much about this, but this thread made me curious about Joseph Smiths death and the accounts.
I think he was mistaken. As far as I know there's no evidence that anyone from the mob was killed.
Jimmy Hoffa?
True, but the press had been declared a "public nuisance" by the town council, and ordered to be destroyed. Keep in mind this was less than 60 years after the constitution was established, so what freedom of the press means was much less established than it is today. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauvoo_Expositor
"Apart from its ethical implications, there has been some debate about whether the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor was legal. At the time, the United States Constitution did not prohibit states and local governments from infringing the freedom of the press. This First Amendment protection only applied to the federal government until the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution was enacted in 1868, and U.S. courts did not consistently enforce the First Amendment against states and localities until about 1931."
As far as I know, the press was mixing truth with fiction when it came to describing his relationships, and was almost certainly libeling Smith.
Don't know. I believe he did drink alcohol on occasion. (The "Word of Wisdom" was considered somewhat optional until decades later.)
Don't know, seems quite possible.
Absolutely.
No, I don't think so. According to the Taylor account you just linked to, he fired out the window after Hyrum Smith had been killed.
He was certainly *at* the window. But since there were apparently a whole bunch of mob members outside below the window, I don't think you could say there was any possibility of escape that way. As was mentioned earlier in this thread, there's speculation that he was trying to signal some Masons in the crowd, to ask them for help. And I've heard plausible speculation that he was there to intentionally draw the fire away from the two men in the room who were still alive (if so, it worked since the two men both survived).
Where'd you grow up? Member of the Antarctica 1st Ward?
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
You might want to take that up with the Church History Museum.
The gun Joseph used is on the right. The one Hyrum used is on the left.
Next time you're in SLC go check it out.
This is one of those things that isn't contested by the church. If you have your official church history, it's right in there.
While I'm not a fan of JS, I've never understood why this is an issue. So people really think there's a problem that he tried to defend himself from a mob clearly intent on killing him?
There are so many other legitimate reasons to doubt this guy, but this doesn't strike me as one of them.
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
And so for the man claiming to be 'second only to Jesus,' we are to only judge his acts on narrowly defined legal grounds while setting aside the 'ethical implications of his acts?"
I never cease to be amazed at the lengths that otherwise rational and reasonable people will go to to rationalize what JS was doing as per polygamy. Look at what is happening in the FLDS today, and much of that is what was happening in Nauvoo and then later in SLC. We recoil from its practice today, but rationalize away its practice 150 or so years ago. It was a disgusting practice in the 19th century that dehumanized women just as it is a disgusting practice today that dehumanizes women. If this were any one other than JS and any religion other than LDS, you'd be comdemning it along with the rest of us.
Where are your poll results to back up that "most LDS church members" aren't aware of some of these things in Church history.
By the way it sounds like you have a somewhat distorted view of things, and may have some serious gaps in understanding the history of things.
Plenty of people I know understand the history of Oliver Cowdery. His relationship with the Church was not "wiped away" as you put it. He chose to no longer support the Prophet at the time and separated himself, and competed for leadership and disagreed with the Prophet on some issues along with some friends and family. The Church at the same time excommunicated him for his actions and choices. You cannot hold leadership in the Church if you are not a member. Around 10 years later he came back and asked to be part of the Church again, and said he held no claims towards leadership and he just wanted to be baptized and be a fellow member. He was re-baptized and became a member of the Church again until his death. He was not reinstated to his former position, but it was not expected or even realistic after 10 years of being apart from the Church.
As to the next Prophet of the Church after Joseph, it was arranged and set up before Joseph died. The people that didn't like that chose to make some efforts to grab power, but it was not in accordance to how the Lord instructed Joseph to set things up. The Twelve Apostles were set up, and a seniority given. They were given all of the keys necessary to lead the church. The President and most senior of those Apostles was Brigham Young. They needed a certain number of apostles present to (not sure of the wording here) ordain? him the Prophet, but the Apostles were spread all over the world at the time. Before Brigham and the others could get back Sidney decided to call himself the "Guardian" of the Church and said there should not be a next Prophet but that he should be the guardian or protector and that is because he was the most senior of the First Presidency. There were many other claims for leadership of the church including a Stake President, and Joseph's son, Joseph III. It is obvious that many people either did not understand how the Church Leadership should move on in the future, or actively wanted the perceived power associated with that leadership.
Any "rank and file" members of the Church can learn as much as they want to. It's a question of application and learning.
If all members of the Church put as much effort into understanding and learning Church History as those intent on finding fault in the history, it would be a good thing.
Also to those that say they were members of the Church and never learned about "......", whatever it is, it could have as much to do with your own desire to learn and/or listen as anything. There are tons of members that show up and learn nothing because they don't listen/care/pay attention. Kind of pointless if you ask me. It's only part of the job to show up, but the whole point of showing up is to get something out of it.
/rant
The quote from John Taylor is this
Not that he is "second only to Jesus". I believe there are many Prophets over dispensations that are on an equal playing field, and that Adam is the Prophet with leadership directly after Christ and over all others.
I know it's a small point, just thought it needed to be made. "second only to Jesus" is much different that "has done more, save Jesus only" imo.
To be honest I never heard this.
I don't see eye to eye on this issue, and I don't think many of the people/women in the history of the world would think of plural marriage as dehumanizing.
There is a difference between forcing young women into marriage and other terrible acts outside of their will.
There are times in the world that marriage was common from the age 14 and older and was not viewed as anything wrong so the age of those being marries should be taken in perspective to the laws and customs of the time. I am hoping your rant has more to do with what has gone on with these young girls and women that has been forced on them, as opposed to what they have chosen?
Do I have any desire to have polygamy be the norm, or even have in part of my life? No.
Do I vilify those that had that practice in their lives? No.
Do I have an issue with people being taken advantage of and forced to do things against their will? Yes, a huge yes.
That would be the tipping point for me.
I could see countries or nations ravaged by war, and having far more women than men. Would polygamy be acceptable in that situation? Is there any situation where you think it would be a benefit to society, or people in general? Just food for thought.
This is just my opinion.
I think Joseph was accused of all sorts of things in his life. There have been, and still are many many many people trying to discredit him and his work. I think it's then, and now, people speculating and trying to make a story of nothing.
I make up all sorts of stories about Utes fans to discredit them, and that's just sports. Imagine what people will do to try to discredit something that is actually important.
margodydek
Well-Known Member
I remember speaking to the son of a man who dedicated his life to studying Joseph Smith. The man's wrote a number of books about the prophet. His son told me that it was his dad's opinion that if you studied Joseph Smith's life you'd discover enough stuff that shows he was a true prophet, but you'd also discover enough stuff to perhaps discredit that. Ultimately it comes down to whether you choose to believe or not. FWIW, this man chose to accept Joseph Smith as a true prophet.
So the stories of him using seer stones and money digging on people's farms then getting caught and convicted for it before he had a single follower is made up to discredit him?