- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Picture a door. It’s being opened. You and some others quickly shoulder it to keep it closed. What’s behind it? (The purpose behind this topic is to lament that Mormonism often prevents (perhaps not even purposely)
forensicthinking). It is up to the individual to follow- two things: their intellect, as well as the Church.) Back to the door.
Mind you, it doesn’t really matter to me what I found behind this door, what bothers me is that I never really gave thought to it until mid-life. The Church never mentioned what was behind it and so I assumed their wasn’t a story to tell.
It’s Carthage, Illinois, June 27, 1844. You know the story. Joseph, Hyrum, Willard Richards, and John Taylor. Just months before I left on my mission in 1972 I gave a talk on the Martyrdom reading the lyrics to “A Poor Wayfaring Man of Grief.”This assassination was the ultimate miss carriage of justice and the greatest loss to our Church.
Like many of you, I knew every detail of the story. However, not long ago I wondered to myself, did Joseph Smith hit anybody when he fired that six shooter through that opening in the door. How could he not? Could he have killed anyone? Low and behold, I researched this (prior to anyone, internet or otherwise leading me to this question) and found out that he did. According to John Taylor, who had been hit four times, Joseph Smith killed two people.
Why hadn’t I known this before? It was obviously a highlight of the story that the Church chose not to share. But, more importantly I had been trained from my youth to only consider what the Church had to say on any Church subject- nothing more. I didn’t look behind doors.
I think that the Church discourages “forensic” thinking, much to it’s benefit, but sadly to the individuals’ detriment.
I think that this is what drives many members to a site like this. Individuals thinking for themselves, hoping for forensic fellowship.
Isn’t forensic discovery how one ultimately finds truth?
“Isn’t forensic discovery how one ultimately finds truth?” Well, it certainly is how one ultimately finds facts. How one looks at those facts discovered can vary wildly in the pursuit of truth IMHO.
I can’t remember not being aware that Joseph had a small pistol that he tried to defend himself and his friends with. I’ve also always felt bad that it misfired. If it had fired properly that might have helped, at least a couple more, of the men involved atone for what they were doing.
I’ve never personallly seen a lamb slaughtered. I will assume that, like any other creature, it will kick and do everything it can to escape it’s assaillant.
That’s speculation on my part but I’ve seen in various anti-Mormon material the idea that Joseph Smith should have been some sort of wimp that would just stand by and see himself and his friends killed and do nothing. I don’t guess I understand that sort of thinking.
My 2 cents….
Personal statement: Amen, Bruce.
pc, I’ve known about the weapons and defensive actions for decades – since I was a teenager, at least. Also, all animals, even lambs and doves, fight when they are threatened – and “going like a lamb to the slaughter” fits what happened in that jail when you consider the numbers, weapons and confined space. Seriously, four people with one pistol, one single-shot rifle and two walking canes against at least 100+ armed men? Yeah, that’s a lamb in a slaughter.
Our Sunday School lesson today was on D&C 135. The teacher talked openly about the weapons Joseph and Hyrum had – and about them trying to defend themselves. Not a single person in the class was shocked or outraged – and, frankly, I really don’t understand how anyone could be outraged. Every reasonable person understands that self-defense is absolutely a right.
All accounts agree he fired two or three shots and that at least three shots misfired, but John Taylor was lying under a bed wounded grievously throughout the attack. How in the world would HE have known if anyone in the mob was killed?
[Moderator hat:
The title of this post is something I don’t understand at all. There is an undercurrent that I loathe, and I use that word intentionally and carefully. Please explain it better, especially in the context you chose as the primary example – a man defending himself against an attacking mob and a church hiding his actions, even though those actions have not been hidden by that church. Seriously, this example is a very poor one to use for the menacing title you chose.
Also, please provide a link to the statement that Joseph killed two men.
I honestly don’t care if he did, given the situation, but you can’t drop a statement like that without attribution in the context of a post with the title you chose. Your wording almost makes it sound like Joseph killed two men with his pistol and caused the attack. Seriously, as a moderator here, I am asking: What is the purpose of using this event in the context of the title – and why did you choose such a menacing title?]
This is just a copy and paste from the ever popular Wikkipedia site: injuries to mob members
There have been conflicting reports about to what extent members of the mob were injured during the attack, and whether any of them were killed. Shortly after the events occurred, John Taylor wrote that he had heard that two of the attackers that Joseph Smith had shot with his pistol had died.[1]
Most accounts seem to agree that at least three mob members were wounded by Joseph’s gunfire, but there is no other evidence that any of them died as a result of the attack. John Wills was shot in the arm; William Voras was shot in the shoulder; and William Gallaher was shot in the face.[15][16] Others claimed that a fourth unnamed man was also wounded.[17] Wills, Voras, Gallaher, and a Mr. Allen (possibly the fourth man) were all indicted for the murder of Joseph and Hyrum. Wills, Voras, and Gallaher, perhaps conscious that their wounds could prove that they were involved in the mob, fled the county after being indicted and were never brought to trial.[18] There is no evidence that Wills, Voras, Gallaher, or Allen died from their wounds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Joseph_Smith,_Jr .END OF COPY AND PASTE
Ray, Bruce and M Wallace (is that short for Mike Wallace?) Thank you.
I originally got my information from B H Roberts
History of the Church.Sorry, I don’t have page number at this moment. I’m sorry if I presented this discovery in a detached or nonchalant way. I didn’t want to come off as knowing something you didn’t already know. However, it is surprising isn’t it? Because in all your years you never picked this up at Church. Also, the purpose of the posting isn’t to dwell on
whatactually happened (that is something to absorb and sink in by itself). My point is to uncover what is worrisome about being a true believer. It can frustrate your own method of thinking about things- where you are only encouraged to go so far, and are discouraged from opening some doors. I agree with Bruce. One could (and now perhaps should) think of Joseph Smith as going out fighting.
Weapons: Two pistols were smuggled into the jail, a single shot derringer and a six shooter. When (if forget the smuggler’s name) asked the prisoners who wanted the six shooter, Joseph said that he did. Hyrum had the derringer.
Ray: I got the title in my head from Crouching Tigers hidden Dragons- the movie. I merely thought of those men crouching against a door against their hidden assailants. Those assailants have been hidden by name until M Wallace just provided them. Good forensic work M Wallace! Anyway, it was meant to interest viewers, and perhaps have the element of surprise that I felt when I first thought about this.
But again, I ask:
Quote:Isn’t forensic discovery how one ultimately finds truth?
I take Bruce’s point:
Quote:Well, it certainly is how one ultimately finds facts.
And, don’t facts ultimately lead us to truth?
pc, 1) I repeat, provide a link. Every report I’ve read (and they are NUMEROUS) states that there were people in the mob injured (naturally, since shots were fired), but I’ve never read anything that states authoritatively that two men actually died. I’ve read a few reports that say some were believed to have been killed, but I’ve never read anything that provided proof of that – and the VAST majority of sources present injuries only as being certain.
Your words in your post are that it is absolute fact that two died.You then repeat that – and offer my lack of knowledge about that as proof that the Church has been involved in a cover-up. OF COURSE, I haven’t heard that in church – since I’m not aware of any proof that it occurred – and since, again, the vast majority of sources (even anti-Mormon sources which I have read extensively) don’t make that claim as authoritative. 2) I know the movie. I own it.
It is a great movie.It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the situation you are discussing, which is why I don’t understand its use here. Let me say it differently. 3) We don’t try to sensationalize post titles here in order to get people to read them. We aren’t into shock value. Personally, I really don’t like this title for this post – as, again, it implies something sinister. Think about it:
Crouching Mormons, Hidden Dragons. Who are the Dragons? It sounds like there are Mormons crouching ready to pounce – that they actually are dragons hidden away and ready to attack. In the context of this post, it sounds like you are claiming that Mormons (perhaps even Joseph in the jail) are aggressors and actively wait to pounce on unsuspecting people – hiding their real intentions and character behind doors that they try not to let others open. Is that a fair representation of your meaning with the title and the post? Are you saying that Joseph should have walked unarmed to meet the mob and not tried to defend himself – AND his friends at whom the mob was shooting indiscriminately?
I am having a hard time reconciling the post, the claims of absolute knowledge about something where no definitive proof exists, the idea that Joseph and the others there were wrong to defend themselves – and that, ultimately, not knowing the unknowable (whether or not any in the mob died in the attack) is proof of a sinister motive on the part of “crouching Mormons, hidden Dragons”.
Ray, in answer to your points: Quote:1) I repeat, provide a link. Every report I’ve read (and they are NUMEROUS) states that there were people in the mob injured (naturally, since shots were fired), but I’ve never read anything that states authoritatively that two men actually died…
This is from History of the Church, volume 7, pages 102-103:
(This is from a history made by John Taylor (in preface to this section B.H. Roberts stated “written by John Taylor, late President (the third)of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a close participant in these events; and second only in nearness to the Prophet Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum in them; and who also was nearly made a complete martyr to the cause in which they suffered, being savagely wounded in Carthage Prison, and only narrowly escaping the death visited upon them.”)
I’m picking up the story, right after Hyrum was shot. So here is John Taylor:
“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. I afterwards understood that two or three were wounded by these discharges, two of whom, I am informed, died.”
Quote:2) I know the movie.
Quote:3) We don’t try to sensationalize post titles here in order to get people to read them. We aren’t into shock value. Personally, I really don’t like this title for this post – as, again, it implies something sinister. Think about it: Crouching Mormons, Hidden Dragons.
I’m sorry this was offensive to you. I almost was going to call it
Crouching Mormons hidden Dragoonsthereby describing the brethren crouched against the door, with the Carthage Grays storming the door. Did you realize that both Hyrum and Willard Richards were hunched into the door. That Hyrum was shot in the face because his head was near the door knob and lock which the intruders were shooting at, in their attempt to break in. But, more to point, I in no way pictured this as a sneer toward the brethren, and moreover, I picture them as showing bravery in self defense! I know it’s your concern, as an administrator:
Quote:and that, ultimately, not knowing the unknowable (whether or not any in the mob died in the attack) is proof of a sinister motive on the part of “crouching Mormons, hidden Dragons”.
Believe me. I have no sinister motive. Maybe I’m more Mormon than you- and don’t take that the wrong way. I don’t suspect the Church as having a sinister motive.
I’m simply pointing toward what I’ve called forensic thinking. If I had said critical thinking- it sounds arrogant and condescending. And I think forensic thinking is more to what I’m explaining. Evidence, logic and authenticity is nothing to be afraid of, or to get riled about.
But, I know that you might tire of having to review all these posts. Hope these answers might move the subject along to how we think about what we know.
So the query is: Do facts lead to truth?
[Again, moderator voice]: Just so there is no misunderstanding, I don’t “tire of having to review all these posts”. I enjoy it, and that’s why I participate here. I just really dislike the title of the post, given the imagery it conjures. Notice, however, that I left it alone and asked for clarification. I’m glad I did, since I think the clarification led to a MUCH more constructive discussion about “forensic thinking” and confirmation bias – and anything else that might come of further discussion. Now, to avoid the appearance of a message you have said you don’t want to convey, I am changing the title to reflect the actual topic you appear to want to discuss.Quote:Hope these answers might move the subject along to how we think about what we know.
I am fine with that, but it is NOT the topic of the original post as written. Now that we have clarification of original intent, let’s discuss the question,
“Does critical/forensic/investigatory thinking lead to facts – and do facts lead to truth?”] So, back to personal voice:
Quote:“Do facts lead to truth?”
Bruce answered that question in his comment, but I will add to it by highlighting the following:
The account from John Taylor is an example of one man who said, “I am informed . . .” Again, how is that proof that they died – and, even if they did, how is that an example of the Church hiding the truth? Iow, how is the idea that two men might have been killed a “fact” in any meaningful sense of the word? How is discovering ONE account that says someone was informed that two people died, while the VAST majority of accounts make no such claim, and asserting that two men in fact did die an example of forensic thinking? What “truth” was discovered by such “forensic thinking”?
Look, I agree with the basic premise that looking carefully at something can be called forensic thinking, and I agree that such forensic thinking CAN lead to a discovery of facts, and that a discovery of facts CAN lead to an understanding of truth – but I also believe that forensic thinking mis-applied can lead to a discovery of opinion and hearsay (which is a perfect word to describe the statement, “I am informed.”), which can lead to a lack of understanding of truth based on faulty assumption.
So, no, I don’t believe forensic thinking leads to truth, because I believe the buffering of individual filters and interpretations of what appear to be “facts” often results in conclusions that are not undeniably factual – and I think the assertion that you discovered that Joseph actually did kill two people as a result of his firing his gun is a perfect example of this tendency to latch onto hearsay evidence and turn it into fact.
Again, at the most fundamental level, I really don’t care if he did or did not kill anyone. They attacked him; he defended himself; if they died, that is the risk they took when they decided to attack him. I think, however, using the example you did in the way that you did proves that forensic thinking doesn’t lead always to either fact or truth – that it often leads to conjecture and assumption and a manifestation of existing perspective, or, in other words, to confirmation bias.
Mark Twain is credited with saying that there are three types of lies: Lies, damned lies and statistics. Statistics, in and of themselves, are nothing more than “facts” – but they can be applied in ways that lead to VERY different conclusions.
So, again, facts CAN lead to truth – but facts don’t lead automatically to truth.
Primarycolor, I just finished the book Carthage Conspiracy by Dallin Oaks. He details the trial of the accused assassins of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, and nobody died from Joseph’s shots. The men who were wounded, fled the county to avoid trial. Their wounds were pretty incriminating that they were there, and tried to kill Joseph and Hyrum.
I’ve been to Carthage jail, and it is pretty well known that a pistol was smuggled to Joseph. The tour guides tell this. I get the impression you think this is some sort of church coverup, but it is not. I’m not sure why you think this is shocking. If you were in prison, would you have acted differently if you knew a mob was coming to lynch you?
If you want a review of the book, go to
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/888395.Carthage_Conspiracy_The_Trial_of_the_Accused_Assassins_of_Joseph_Smith I highly recommend the book. Incidentally, all the men were acquitted, and nobody was ever found guilty for the murder of Hyrum and Joseph. Did you know that? I don’t think the church publicizes that either. I didn’t hear that fact on the Carthage tours either. Do you find that shocking? Do you feel that nobody was guilty for these murders?
If the question is “do facts lead to truth?” I would say “not necessarily.” Facts lead to conclusions. Conclusions are related to one kind of “truth,” but have little to do with spiritual direction (which is the concept of “truth” generally meant by the gospel). We misapply the word “truth” in the church as well as in places like this – we refer to the kind of “truth” that is referenced in a court of law, but it’s not even truth in that case, just a set of conclusions based on facts and opinions and the testimony of witnesses. We use these words to describe spiritual truth, but in both cases, they only refer to our conclusions and feelings about things we have seen and experienced. hawkgrrrl wrote:If the question is “do facts lead to truth?” I would say “not necessarily.” Facts lead to conclusions. Conclusions are related to one kind of “truth,” but have little to do with spiritual direction (which is the concept of “truth” generally meant by the gospel). We misapply the word “truth” in the church as well as in places like this – we refer to the kind of “truth” that is referenced in a court of law, but it’s not even truth in that case, just a set of conclusions based on facts and opinions and the testimony of witnesses. We use these words to describe spiritual truth, but in both cases, they only refer to our conclusions and feelings about things we have seen and experienced.
Can “truth” be reached without facts? I am currently struggling with the differences between the church version of history and what appear to be the historical facts. Could they both be “true”? If facts are required to arrive at truth, does the church keep us from finding truth by not giving us the facts? I understand the frustration of the OP, I am also struggling with how the “only true and living church on the face of the earth” can have a side they are trying to hide. It seems that God’s “true” church should be able to withstand scrutiny, but the more I read the more it seems to whither.
Regarding Carthage, I have known about the shootings, etc. To me it seems that if there is a cover-up regarding Carthage in the church, its neglecting to mention the multiple reasons Joseph may have been incarcerated in the first place and by using “Lamb to the slaughter” they are bringing up Christ-like imagery of the sinless Christ being crucified, when JS captors may have had perfectly acceptable grounds upon which to incarcerate him (this does not excuse the attack of the mob). Additionally, it appears that JS initially thought the mob may have been his own brethren, because he had given a command for them to come as a mob and rescue him from Carthage. Finally, it disturbs me that the church uses his last words “O Lord My God” as a faith-promoting moment of how close he was to God as Prophet, when in fact he was giving a Mason call of help to any of his fellow Masons that may have been in the mob.
My two cents… Yes facts do lead to truth; but a set of facts does not guarantee that you have the truth. (Like everyone has basically said.)
MisterC, for me I’ve come to realize that I have to look at the “only true and living church on the face of the earth” statement for what it is. Can it be proven in any physical way? Of course not. Thus for me it falls to the ‘spiritual’ realm, which is deeply personal and subject to individual interpretation. I realize that statement is meaningful to many church members, I respect that and try to deepen my understanding of what this statement means to me.
I guess what I’m trying to say is I (try not to) let the perceived “authority” of this statement get in the way of simply allowing the spirit of love and goodness (in other words God) tutor me on things that are “virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy” and in helping me to see these things in my life – and seek after them.
So let me flip the question to make a point: Does truth lead to facts?
I started this post by telling you that an idea came to me (no one prodded, prompted, or put the idea into my head). One evening, having been steeped in a very well written book, I acknowledged to myself that much of what I take from reading many great books, what I enjoy and hold tribute to great thinkers and writers is how they contribute to my “thinking”. I mean, don’t you pause, often, when reading a particularly intelligent writer and realize how a paragraph or sentence can quickly invigorate a memory, an issue that you are immediately dealing with, or inspire you?
One evening, after shutting the pages of such a book, I thought, I wished that I had a better mental talent to use logic in the way I’d just experienced, so I just started going over what I knew best: Church subjects. I went through stories and doctrines of the Church, and I thought, let me think of a rock that I haven’t turned over, and see where it leads me. It was really nothing more than an intellectual exercise. (Being a Mormoncentric person from birth, I tend to not go a day without thinking about my world navel- meaning where I came from, my Church). I haven’t given up on this exercise.
It had been just a week before this, that I had gone to a sporting goods store to try out a handgun. We have a business that handles a lot of cash, I’ve had neighboring businesses that had been robbed. Then a bank a block a away was robbed.I happen to be more experienced with rifles, tried a 357 magnum handgun, realized my wife and sons would have a difficult time learning to shoot it (it’s like a canon in your hands). Needless to say, I didn’t purchase.
(Sorry for the long story)
So, back to the mental exercise, it suddenly dawned on me. Joseph Smith fired a hand gun. At short range. Into a mob of people. I knew that it miss fired. But I wondered to myself, I wonder if he hit anyone? I never heard that he had. Never read that he had. So there you have it. My hand was still reverberating from the 20 rounds of a 357.
I don’t suspect a Church cover-up, but I
dothink that the Church wouldn’t want to expound on it, or dwell on it. But it did surprise me to read John Taylor state that two men died. Now, you can quibble about “he understood” that two men died. What I find interesting is that he almost said it in passing. I bet that here in the 21’st century it wouldn’t have passed so lightly. Just think about the killings, murders, death and dying that the early Church were constantly in touch with. John Taylor was almost killed.
Mormonheretic said:
Quote:I just finished the book Carthage Conspiracy by Dallin Oaks. He details the trial of the accused assassins of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, and nobody died from Joseph’s shots.
Did Dallin Oaks just say this? As RayDegraw would say- would you please site how and where he came to this conclusion?
I have reservations like Mr. C
Quote:Can “truth” be reached without facts? I am currently struggling with the differences between the church version of history and what appear to be the historical facts. Could they both be “true”? If facts are required to arrive at truth, does the church keep us from finding truth by not giving us the facts?
So, when I say, “Does truth lead to facts,” however you want to answer that: Is that how the Church goes about teaching us? How we learn from a young age”
Yet, when we decide to individually mature, and approach Church subjects in a questioning way, aren’t we just trying to reverse that mode, and hopefully come to the same conclusion?
I respectfully disagree with Ray:
Quote:but I also believe that forensic thinking mis-applied can lead to a discovery of opinion and hearsay (which is a perfect word to describe the statement, “I am informed.”), which can lead to a lack of understanding of truth based on faulty assumption.
So, no, I don’t believe forensic thinking leads to truth, because I believe the buffering of individual filters and interpretations of what appear to be “facts” often results in conclusions that are not undeniably factual – and I think the assertion that you discovered that Joseph actually did kill two people as a result of his firing his gun is a perfect example of this tendency to latch onto hearsay evidence and turn it into fact.
All that I showed to you was a statement by John Taylor, who by chain of evidence was closer to this event than Dallin Oaks, or you or myself.
I’m not trying to create hearsay, miss apply anything. And if it seems wrong to say that “I am informed” for just having looked up in History of the Church, something that the third President said, and take what he said as true (after all, I usually accept what other things that he has said)— you see where I’m going?
Just because you believe something is true, does that mean you have all the facts?
I don’t think anyone here believes that because we believe something we have all the facts. Nobody has ever hinted at that, and, in fact, the very existence of this forum argues against that proposition. I wasn’t applying my comment directly to you – only that your original post claimed unequivocally that Joseph killed two people – when other accounts say one man died and most say nobody died. I used that example to show that “facts” might or might not lead to truth – depending on if the information really is factual AND how the information is processed and viewed by the person doing the determination of “truth”.
Do you disagree with that conclusion?
I think part of what you are talking about is white-washing. Does the church white-wash? Yes. So does the company you work for, the country you live in, and the family you were raised in. If you keep a journal, so do you, to some extent. How many times have your written in your journal: “Today I wasn’t right, clever enough, or justified in my actions. My intentions were not perfect, and my actions were insufficient”? I did a post on white-washing a while back on Mormon Matters:
- The topic ‘Joseph Smith’s Murder: Do facts lead to truth?’ is closed to new replies.