Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Joseph Smith/Martyrdom/Joseph fired a gun (LDS ecumenical)
FAIR ^ | 23 May 2010

Posted on 08/17/2010 2:58:51 AM PDT by restornu

Criticism

See also: Source(s) of the criticism

Response

Shifting Definitions

In order to make their argument tenable, the critics must do three things. First, they must take some creative liberties with the English language. In this case, the word being redefined is the term martyr. Webster’s New World Dictionary defines a "martyr" as

“a person who chooses to suffer or die rather than give up his faith or his principles.”[1]

The online resource, Dictionary.com, defines a martyr as

“one who chooses to suffer death rather than renounce religious principles.” [2]

Both are nearly identical and fairly standard definitions, and neither includes a requirement or qualifiers of any sort. However, some anti-Mormon writers have taken the term martyr and subtly changed its definition to suit their own needs. The new definition would probably read something like this: Martyr: a person who chooses to suffer or die rather than give up his faith or his principles without any resistance or effort at self-defense on his part whatsoever.

Critics are free to use such a definition, but it belongs to them alone; it is not the standard use of the word, and not what Church members mean when they refer to the "martyrdom" of Joseph and Hyrum Smith at Carthage.

Throughout Christian history, "martyrs" have been understood to be those who suffered quietly, and those who resisted, even with violence, and even to the death of those who persecuted them for their beliefs. (See FAIR wiki article: Martyrdom in Christian history.) The first anti-Mormon argument thus focuses on the fact that Joseph had a firearm and that he used that firearm to defend himself. Critics claim that Joseph's announcement that he was going “as a lamb to the slaughter” is false, since he fought back.

Anyone who has ever worked on a farm or in a slaughterhouse knows that sheep do not go willingly to the slaughter. They kick and buck, bleat, scream, and make every attempt to escape their fate. In fact, they make such a haunting sound, that the title of an extremely popular Hollywood film was based on it: The Silence of the Lambs. The term “lamb to the slaughter” simply refers to the inevitability of the final outcome. No matter how valiantly they struggle, the fate of the sheep is sealed. If we apply this understanding to Joseph Smith and his brother, it is clear that they truly were slaughtered like lambs. Fight as they might, they were doomed.

Hiding History?

Mob fires at Joseph Smith in the upper window at Carthage Jail.
Main article: Hiding Joseph's gun?

The critics' second tactic is to rely on their target reader being uninformed about trivial aspects of LDS history. Many members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (and this is especially true of new members or less-active members) are not aware of all the excruciatingly minute details of the history of the Church. It has become a common tactic among some anti-Mormon aficionados of Mormon history to use this historical ignorance as a weapon. These writers often claim to “expose” these minor events of Church history in a sensationalistic attempt to shock members of the Church with “hidden” revelations or “secret” accounts about various episodes in Church history. They will often claim that the Church has kept this knowledge under wraps for fear that if it was generally known it would cause many members of the Church to immediately renounce their faith and result in the ruination of the Church.

Unfortunately for the critics, Joseph's attempt to defend himself, his brother, and his friends, and his possession of a pepperbox gun, is clearly spelled out in the History of the Church:

In the meantime Joseph, Hyrum, and Elder Taylor had their coats off. Joseph sprang to his coat for his six-shooter, Hyrum for his single barrel, Taylor for Markham's large hickory cane, and Dr. Richards for Taylor's cane. All sprang against the door, the balls whistled up the stairway, and in an instant one came through the door.
Joseph Smith, John Taylor and Dr. Richards sprang to the left of the door, and tried to knock aside the guns of the ruffians...
Joseph reached round the door casing, and discharged his six shooter into the passage, some barrels missing fire. Continual discharges of musketry came into the room. Elder Taylor continued parrying the guns until they had got them about half their length into the room, when he found that resistance was vain, and he attempted to jump out of the window, where a ball fired from within struck him on his left thigh, hitting the bone, and passing through to within half an inch of the other side. He fell on the window sill, when a ball fired from the outside struck his watch in his vest pocket, and threw him back into the room.[3]

The next volume of the History of the Church tells the story from John Taylor's point of view:

I shall never forget the deep feeling of sympathy and regard manifested in the countenance of Brother Joseph as he drew nigh to Hyrum, and, leaning over him, exclaimed, 'Oh! my poor, dear brother Hyrum!' He, however, instantly arose, and with a firm, quick step, and a determined expression of countenance, approached the door, and pulling the six-shooter left by Brother Wheelock from his pocket, opened the door slightly, and snapped the pistol six successive times; only three of the barrels, however, were discharged.[4]

If the Church wished to hide these facts, why did they publish them in the History of the Church not once, but twice?

Murder?

The critics' third attack is to insist that since Joseph fired his gun six times (only three shots discharged) and he hit two of the mobbers, he is a murderer.

Joseph's actions were clearly self-defense and defense of others under the common law. However, this point is moot since the attackers who were hit were not killed (as was first reported in some Church publications) but only wounded. They were alive and well at the trial held for mob leaders, and were identified by witnesses. Their good health allowed them to receive gifts because of their role in the assault on Joseph, Hyrum, and the other prisoners.

According to Dallin Oaks and Marvin Hill:

Wills, Voras, and Gallaher were probably named in the indictment because their wounds, which testimony showed were received at the jail, were irrefutable evidence that they had participated in the mob. They undoubtedly recognized their vulnerability and fled the county. A contemporary witness reported these three as saying that they were the first men at the jail, that one of them shot through the door killing Hyrum, that Joseph wounded all three with his pistol, and that Gallaher shot Joseph as he ran to the window.[Hay, "The Mormon Prophet's Tragedy," 675] According to Hay, Wills, whom the Mormon prophet had shot in the arm, was an Irishman who had joined the mob from “his congenital love of a brawl.”[Statement of Jeremiah Willey, August 13, 1844, Brigham Young correspondence, Church Archives.] Gallaher was a young man from Mississippi who was shot in the face.[Hay, "The Mormon Prophet's Tragedy," 669, 675. Another source says Wills was a former Mormon elder who had left the Church. Davis, An Authentic Account, 24.] Hay described Voras (Voorhees) as a “half-grown hobbledehoy from Bear Creek” whom Joseph shot in the shoulder. The citizens of Green Plains were said to have given Gallaher and Voras new suits of clothes for their parts in the killing.[Statement of Jeremiah Willey, August 13, 1844] [5]

Conclusion

It seems clear, then, that:

  1. Joseph and Hyrum were martyrs by the accepted definition of the term—they suffered death for their beliefs. (Note that martyrs can die for worthy or ignoble causes, but this makes them no less martyrs.)
  2. The Church has not hidden this fact, but published it from the beginning and includes it in the History of the Church twice.
  3. Joseph was not guilty of murder, because no one died from his shots, and his actions would have been justifiable as self-defense and defense of others even if deaths had resulted.

Endnotes

  1. [note]  Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, Second College Edition (New York: World Publishing Company, 1970), 870.
  2. [note] Dictionary.com website, (accessed May 7, 2003). off-site
  3. [note] Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 volumes, edited by Brigham H. Roberts, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1957), 6:617–618. BYU Studies link
  4. [note] Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 volumes, edited by Brigham H. Roberts, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1957), 7:102–103. BYU Studies link
  5. [note] Dallin Oaks, Marvin Hill, Carthage Conspiracy: The trial of the Accused Assassins of Joseph Smith, p. 52

Further reading

FAIR wiki articles

Template:DefinitionFallaciesWiki
Definitional fallacies wiki articles
Template:JosephSmithWiki
Joseph Smith, Jr. wiki articles
Template:JSLegalWiki
Joseph Smith and legal issues wiki articles
Template:ProphecyWiki
Prophecy wiki articles

Post-Joseph Smith and non-Joseph Smith prophecies

Template:FirstVisionWiki
First Vision wiki articles
Overview

Leading up to the vision:

The vision:

After the vision:

Others' accounts:

Other criticisms:

Template:JSOtherVisionWiki
Joseph Smith other visionary issues wiki articles

Moroni's visit:


Template:Godwiki
God wiki articles

FAIR web site

Template:JosephSmithFAIR
Joseph Smith FAIR articles on-line
Template:JSOtherVisionFAIR
Joseph Smith other visionary issues FAIR links

External links

Template:JosephSmithLinks
Joseph Smith, Jr. on-line articles

Printed material

Template:JosephSmithPrint
Joseph Smith, Jr. printed materials

The Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research (FAIR) is a non-profit organization formed in late 1997 for the purpose of defending the Church. FAIR is staffed completely by volunteers, all of whom are dedicated to defending the Church. FAIR is not owned, controlled by, or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All research and opinions provided on this site are the sole responsibility of FAIR and should not be interpreted as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief, or practice.


TOPICS: History; Religion & Culture
KEYWORDS: josephsmith; lds; martyrdom; mormon
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last
Some Links Do not work use Source URL
1 posted on 08/17/2010 2:58:54 AM PDT by restornu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Adam-ondi-Ahman; America always; Antonello; Arrowhead; asparagus; BlueMoose; ComeUpHigher; ...
Religion Moderator Guidelines

To have a cordial discussion on this topic

Ecumenic threads are closed to antagonism.

To antagonize is to incur or to provoke hostility in others. Unlike the “caucus” threads, the article and reply posts of an “ecumenic” thread can discuss more than one belief, but antagonism is not tolerable.

More leeway is granted to what is acceptable in the text of the article than to the reply posts. For example, the term “gross error” in an article will not prevent an ecumenical discussion, but a poster should not use that term in his reply because it is antagonistic. As another example, the article might be a passage from the Bible which would be antagonistic to Jews. The passage should be considered historical fact and a legitimate subject for an ecumenic discussion. The reply posts however must not be antagonistic.

Contrasting of beliefs or even criticisms can be made without provoking hostilities. But when in doubt, only post what you are “for” and not what you are “against.” Or ask questions.

Ecumenical threads will be moderated on a “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” basis. When hostility has broken out on an “ecumenic” thread, I’ll be looking for the source.

Therefore “anti” posters must not try to finesse the guidelines by asking loaded questions, using inflammatory taglines, gratuitous quote mining or trying to slip in an “anti” or “ex” article under the color of the “ecumenic” tag.

Posters who try to tear down other’s beliefs or use subterfuge to accomplish the same goal are the disrupters on ecumenic threads and will be booted from the thread and/or suspended.

2 posted on 08/17/2010 3:03:45 AM PDT by restornu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #3 Removed by Moderator

To: pennyfarmer
I will accept Josephs martyrdom only in the image of modern day martyers such as suicide bombers.

But I am not sure that is the image that modern day LDS want him pictured.

Admittedly he was killed by a mob but he was hardly an innocent party. After all he had ordered the destruction of a printing press that he felt was against him. 1840’s America still had fresh feelings about freedom of speech and the fact that Joseph thought himself above the Lord.

***

May I remind you those remarks of yours are being antagonist.

Religion Moderator Guidelines

To have a cordial discussion on this topic

Ecumenic threads are closed to antagonism.

To antagonize is to incur or to provoke hostility in others. Unlike the “caucus” threads, the article and reply posts of an “ecumenic” thread can discuss more than one belief, but antagonism is not tolerable.

----

The Expositor incident led directly to the murder of Joseph and Hyrum, but it was preceeded by a long period of non-Mormon distrust of Joseph Smith, and attempts to extradite him on questionable basis.

The destruction of the Expositor issue was legal; it was not legal to have destroyed the type, but this was a civil matter, not a criminal one, and one for which Joseph was willing to pay a fine if imposed.

Joseph seems to have believed—or, his followers believed after his death—that the decision, while 'unwise' for Joseph, may have been in the Saints' interest to have Joseph killed. For a time, this diffused much of the tension and may have prevented an outbreak of generalized violence against the Saints, as occurred in Missouri.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Nauvoo_Expositor

4 posted on 08/17/2010 3:36:07 AM PDT by restornu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: restornu
Well, whatever. On the other hand it appears that in that time it was common for prisoners awaiting a hearing to provide for their own defense ~ jail not being the sort of operation we have today.

It's still common throughout most of the world for prisoners to make arrangements for their own meals, and in some countries wealthy prisoners might well build a modern apartment right inside the jail.

Many of the Latin American narcotrafficantes have, in the past, brought their own security people with them to prison.

Without getting a feel for "frontier Illinois" it's probably wrong to dwell too much on Smith's possession of firearms in jail.

Besides, we are talking about Illinois, not Missouri or Indiana, and who can forget the Mafia big dogs bringing in their own fully furnished and equipped double-wide trailers to the state prison facility in Joliet ~ like that's within living memory. Many state officials became quite wealthy by facilitating this practice.

5 posted on 08/17/2010 4:07:37 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: pennyfarmer
Hmmm ~ there had been a mutual excommunication circa 1836 between Smith's core group and an older community that'd joined him back in New York.

There was plenty of bad blood between what we might call "factions" and "families" within the broader Mormon group.

Any history buff who's read through all the available literature on the matter, and researched some of the other affiliated groups cannot help but come away from the experience anything but surprised that Smith had enemies quite close to him ~ not just out there in some ill-defined "mob".

Not going to say the "mob" wasn't used, but it probably was.

Politics doesn't end just because you are organized like a church.

6 posted on 08/17/2010 4:15:01 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: restornu

Interesting article. Thanks for posting!


7 posted on 08/17/2010 6:16:43 AM PDT by Paragon Defender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

“It has become a common tactic among some anti-Mormon aficionados of Mormon history to use this historical ignorance as a weapon.”

I agree with that statement.


8 posted on 08/17/2010 6:48:48 AM PDT by Saundra Duffy (For victory & freedom!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: restornu

Thank you


9 posted on 08/17/2010 8:24:23 AM PDT by BlueMoose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: restornu
Joseph and Hyrum were martyrs by the accepted definition of the term—they suffered death for their beliefs. (Note that martyrs can die for worthy or ignoble causes, but this makes them no less martyrs.)

First question that begs to be answered was the REASON for the smith brother's incarceration. According to Bancroft's History of Utah—1540-1886 (p. 175-183) they were incarcerated on charges of "The overt act of treason charged against them, . . consisted in the alleged levying of war against the state by declaring martial law in Nauvoo, and in ordering out the legion to resist the posse comitatus. These charges began with the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor and smith's follow on actions.

History also notes that the smith's surrendered themselves only after being on the run for a considerable period of time and being begged by those they abandoned in Nauvoo.

In these points, the article is not accurate, but presents a false background to the incident.

10 posted on 08/17/2010 8:47:04 AM PDT by Godzilla ( 3-7-77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: restornu

THE FALLACY OF DEEMING SMITH A MARTYR

Based on the following syllogism, however, I do not believe it is accurate to classify Joseph as a martyr:

Premise 1:   A martyr is someone who, at the risk or cost of his own life,

                      willingly dies for his faith.

Premise 2:   Joseph Smith did not die willingly, or:

                      a. he would not have attempted to call on the Nauvoo Legion, and

                      b. he would not have shot at his attackers.

Premise 3:   Joseph Smith did not die for his faith but rather for:

                      a. his imposition of nonbiblical practices upon his people, and

                      b. his illegal destruction of a newspaper printing press.

Conclusion:          Therefore, Joseph Smith was not a martyr for his faith.

 

A Comparison of Biblical Martyrs

TRAIT BEING COMPARED

JOHN THE BAPTIST

JESUS

STEPHEN

JAMES

Charges brought

Criticizing Herod for taking his brother Phillip’s wife (Matt. 14:3‑4)

“Blasphemy” (Mark 14:64)

Speaking “blasphemous words against Moses, and against God” (Acts 6:11)

The exact charge is not clear, though blasphemy is most likely

Accuracy of the charge(s)

True, but justified

False; Jesus was truly God incarnate and thus what He said was true, so it was not blasphemy

False; Acts 6:13 says that false witnesses were given against him

False

Execution method

Beheading (Matt. 14:10)

Crucifixion (John 19:17ff)

Stoning (Acts 7:59)

Sword (Acts 12:2)

 

Possibility of avoiding the death sentence

Could not have avoided it; Herod imprisoned John, then promised to give Herodias’s daughter “whatsoever she would ask” (Matt. 14:8). Since she asked for John’s head, Herod killed John to fulfill his oath (Matt. 14:9); though Herod was “distressed,” he felt obligated to follow through with the execution

Could have allowed His disciples to fight (but instead He reprimanded Peter for resisting—Matt. 26:52); could have called down angels and destroyed His accusers (Matt. 26:53)

Could have lied about his testimony; could have told his accusers what they wanted to hear rather than give them cause for the charge of blasphemy. Instead he preached with boldness (Acts 7)

Could have fled , but likely could not have avoided it; killed in an apparent political move when Herod Agrippa became governor of Judea because Herod wanted to please the Jewish leaders

Last words

Unknown

“Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34); “It is finished” (John 20:30)

“Lord Jesus, receive my spirit…Lord, lay not this sin to their charge” (Acts 7:59–60)

Unknown

Last action

Unknown

Forgives His enemies

Asks that the sin not be charged against his killers

Unknown

Extent to which his death “bears witness to the truth of the Gospel” (as defined in Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language)

John the Baptist preached the truth, and this cost him his life

Jesus prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane, “Glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee” (John 17:2)

Stephen is killed for the truth, according to Acts 7. His death is mourned in Acts 8:2 by devout men.

Early Church historian Eusebius of Caesarea says that the soldier who guarded James was so affected by his witness that he declared himself a Christian and was willingly executed with James23

 


11 posted on 08/17/2010 9:13:15 AM PDT by colorcountry ("The power of facts is much greater than the power of argument.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: colorcountry

Sorry - left off source link.

http://www.equip.org/articles/the-martyrdom-of-joseph-smith


12 posted on 08/17/2010 9:14:04 AM PDT by colorcountry ("The power of facts is much greater than the power of argument.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: restornu
Joseph wasn't in Carthage alone, and when Hyrum was shot through the head, he still had 2 dear friends inside, that both survived to lead the Church. LDS teachings are clear that we are to defend ourselves from our enemies. John Taylor was a great man, I'm glad he lived to lead the Church.

I don't fault Peter for trying to cut a soldiers head in half and only taking off an ear either. Christ was the rational one and told him to put up his sword. No one is perfect save Christ, no one ever said prophets were supposed to be without flaw, or not love and defend their dearest friends.

I don't fault Joseph for the defense of others, or himself, nor do I fault Peter for what he did. He went on to lead the early Church, even after denying the Christ.

Thanks for posting this.

13 posted on 08/17/2010 9:49:58 AM PDT by Ripliancum ("As He died to make men holy, let us live to make men free")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: colorcountry
As common with mormon apologetic sites as this one, the focus usually concentrates on a 'definition'. Here is are the ones they chose:

Webster’s New World Dictionary defines a "martyr" as “a person who chooses to suffer or die rather than give up his faith or his principles.”[1]

The online resource, Dictionary.com, defines a martyr as “one who chooses to suffer death rather than renounce religious principles.”

The article becomes contentious with this statement: However, some anti-Mormon writers have taken the term martyr and subtly changed its definition to suit their own needs. The new definition would probably read something like this: Martyr: a person who chooses to suffer or die rather than give up his faith or his principles without any resistance or effort at self-defense on his part whatsoever

As has already been proven, smith wasn't in jail for his religions faith or principles - but on charges of treason. As such he could never be considered a martyr for his faith.

14 posted on 08/17/2010 10:09:35 AM PDT by Godzilla ( 3-7-77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Godzilla

It seems a common practice for Mormonism to redefine terms. We see it once again with them trying to make Smith out to be a martyr.


15 posted on 08/17/2010 10:15:13 AM PDT by colorcountry ("The power of facts is much greater than the power of argument.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: All

Personally I don’t see how anyone could seriously believe that Joseph was “really” in jail for treason or that the mob was there to murder him for that reason.


16 posted on 08/17/2010 12:52:38 PM PDT by Paragon Defender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: restornu

Yes you can remind me of that fact. Sorry I will try not to post to such threads in the future. I had a few beers in me and it was about 3am.

I don’t do well with touchy feely. People are all different and after I posted it I thought that might have been thought of as Antagonistic. But no way of pulling it back.


17 posted on 08/17/2010 1:45:06 PM PDT by pennyfarmer (Even a RINO will chew its foot off when caught in a trap.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: All
When a historical event is being presented, there is an intellectual responsibility to present the truth surrounding the situation. Facts can be pesky things. Fact - smith ordered the destruction of the Nauvoo expositor. Fact - smith declaired martial law and denied habius corpus. Fact - smith mobilize the Nauvoo militia. Fact - smith and smith fled Nauvoo to avoid arrest.

Other sticky facts come to light as well. Smith sent word to General Jonathan Dunham to lead the Nauvoo Legion to rescue him - smith thought the crowd was his legion coming to rescue him.

Other facts - smith removed his temple garmets and ordered all his apostles to do the same(Quinn page 147) Quinn references History of the Church 6:519 which mentions the letter, and Heber C. Kimball's diary, 21 Dec. 1845, found in the book "Smith, An Intimate Chronicle, page 224". Heber J. Grant journal sheets, 7 June 1907, LDS Archives

I find it hard to believe that this key aspect of mormon doctrine and living - essentially rejecting his temple ordinaces by removing and ordering others to do same - would be representative of one who is ready to die for their religious beliefs. It speaks a lot of other thing.

18 posted on 08/17/2010 2:21:19 PM PDT by Godzilla ( 3-7-77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Godzilla
Actually, it was out of respect for what they expected to happen. They didn't want that was sacred to them to be mocked and ridiculed and waved around on the end of a gun.

I've seen Hyrum’s temple garments with my own eyes, the ones he removed before going to Carthage, as well as the clothes he was wearing when he was shot, complete with the entry and exit holes of the bullets.

These men knew they were going to their deaths when they surrendered into the hands of the state militia, that has sworn to protect them.

19 posted on 08/17/2010 3:31:13 PM PDT by Ripliancum ("As He died to make men holy, let us live to make men free")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Ripliancum
Actually, it was out of respect for what they expected to happen. They didn't want that was sacred to them to be mocked and ridiculed and waved around on the end of a gun.

OK, then they defacto denied their faith did they not rejecting their priesthood oaths? As Boyd Packer stated they are "a visual and tactile reminder of our covenants" made to the lord. Willard Richards didn't remove his garments - was he ridiculed? Were the smiths ridiculed/undressed? History says no.

Now within that same thought, they all had lots of wine the night before.

These men knew they were going to their deaths when they surrendered into the hands of the state militia, that has sworn to protect them.

Not according to other eyewitness and historical testimony. As pointed out above - smith's first comments were that the Nauvoo militia was arriving to release them. Why didn't smith believe his own prophecy that he would prevail against his enemies - found in the Nauvoo Neighbor for June 19, 1844:

"I therefore, in behalf of the Municipal Court of Nauvoo, warn the lawless, not to be precipitate in any interference in our affairs, for as sure as there is a God in heaven, WE SHALL RIDE TRIUMPHANT OVER ALL OPPRESSION.

"JOSEPH SMITH, Mayor"

Interesting how facts of history keep popping up. Just eight days after Joseph Smith made this prophecy he was murdered in the Carthage jail

20 posted on 08/17/2010 4:03:35 PM PDT by Godzilla ( 3-7-77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson