Talk:Killing of Joseph Smith

message: This article was created by moving all the material and related footnotes from the Smith's death section of Joseph Smith, Jr., and rewording the introduction so the article will stand on its own. Please edit and enhance per discussion at the main article. --MrWhipple 22:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New article

message: I have removed the following paragraph from the main article:
:On 26 June 1844, Smith sent message to Major-General Johnathan Dunham of the Nauvoo Legion that he should lead the militia to the jail in order to protect and accompany Smith and his associates back to Nauvoo. Dunham decided to ignore Smith's order, fearing such an action would instigate a major conflict that could erupt into civil war. Dunham informed no one of Smith's order or of his decision to disregard it.
This quality of information should be refrenced and supported.  In talking with Whipple it may have come from something the revered Mr. Quinn developed.  In doing research trying to find support for claim the last three days, which has been fruitless, I came across quotes in numerous other websites that quote WIKI's article.  It is one of those endless rounds without a legitimate head or beginning.  This underscores the importance of quality editing and supporting claims.  Let's make sure that there is more support than my favorite, Mr. Quinn.  Otherwise we end up with a slur to Dunham that may be unwarranted. Storm Rider 22:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I came across this photo on the Tanners' web site: . Assuming the letter is authentic, it appears that Joseph Smith did order Dunham to bring the Legion to Carthage. I don't know the rest of the story -- did Dunham receive the letter? Was it countermanded by a later letter? Did he ignore it? If so, did he have reason to? --MrWhipple 03:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea whether the photo shown by MrWhipple is authentic, but the story of the orders is corroborated by the jounal of Joseph Smith's former bodyguard, Allen J. Stout, who shows obvious disgust at Dunham keeping the order secret and not responding.  It also explains why Joseph Smith was so calm in hearing of armed men approaching. 68.45.104.173 (talk) 19:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dunham's actions 

message: I have to admit, guys, that I am not a fan of templates and probably never will be.  But I generally hold my typing fingers about them.  But come on!!  All that blank space next to a row of templates.  This is an improvement?  What do we owe our readers?  Information.  Let's bring the article contents to the fore.   WBardwin 07:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What skin/browser are you using - I added the table at the top so that it would float the tables off to the right and start the text at the top - and get rid of the whitespace. I'll revert for now until we can find somehting that works for other setups. --Trödel 11:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm an AOL customer (sometimes to my sorrow) and use the default MonoBook skin.  A fairly routine combination -- so probably used by many of our readers as well.  White space on Life of Joseph Smith, Jr. from 1831 to 1844 as well.  The others come across ok.  Hope you can fix the problem.  WBardwin 19:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can see what you mean I was unable to edit Brigham Young, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints because of blocked IPs due to anon vandalism - you have my sympathies - and I will get those later. --Trödel 21:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Templates and white space

message: I am wondering about the completeness of the section on succession. The activity around succession claims involving Sidney Rigdon,  and Joseph Smith III all had significant impact on how things played out after 1844, and each case made claims that succession was prefigured by Joseph Smith before his death (preparation for succession). Are there others intending to add these things, or to link to articles with this other information? Without these pieces, the article's quality seems affected by bias. The article on Succession crisis (Mormonism) has a lengthy discussion of the claims to succession, and this article may only need to be linked back to it? Jerekson 14:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Succession

message: There was a citation requested by Duke53; however he must have missed that the statement is already footnoted.  The problem is that the footnote only reads "Star, Lance", can someone please complete the reference and then remove the citation request that was erroneously placed.  Storm Rider (talk) 07:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found the reference Starr refers to in an article titled, "Was Joseph Smith a Martyr or a Murderer". He attributes it to Dallin H. Oaks and Marvin S. Hill, Carthage Conspiracy (Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press), 1979, 51. I corrected the citation Oasisbob 06:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a reference to Ed Decker saying that "Some Christians object to the term martyr".  As to the term martyr, Smith is a martyr by definition (see discussion at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  The question is this:  Is Ed Decker a ligitimate representative for the Christian Community, and should he be referenced in the intro?  Seems a bit extreme and obscure to me. Bytebear 19:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reworded the intro from 'assassinated' to 'martyred', see my comment above in the the 'Lynched / Assassinated / Martyred' section.  I suspected it would be controversial so I put in a balancing statement and cited the reference you noticed.  It was the first halfway legitimate thing I could find, I'm hoping that someone who really thinks that Joseph Smith wasn't a martyr will come up with a better reference.   I'm still learning about Wikipedia, so if I haven't done this properly I would appreciate feedback. 74s181 22:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for reference

message: What, more specifically is this Martyrdom debate about? The text says:
:There is some controversy over the classification of Joseph Smith, Jr. as a martyr.
There's most probably no such controversy outside the vast number of Latter-Day-Saint churches, so the controversy must be between some of the "Saints" themselves (no offense meant). The section Classification of Joseph Smith, Jr. as a martyr should be clarified on this matter. If it is "non-Saint" sources that criticise this martyr classification, then the matter should be put in an article or section about contrary opinions. Rursus 19:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This subject is discussed in the section Lynched / Assassinated / Martyred (above) and in other places.  But to summarize the discussion, "martyr" can't be used because not everyone can agree that the church that he founded is a valid religion.  "Assassinated" can't be used because he wasn't killed for his political views.  "Lynched" can't be used because it has the modern implication of hanging.  "Murdered" can't be used because no one was ever charged for killing him.  And "killed" can't be used because his death was more than that.  In summary, there is no word which can be used that is acceptable by consensus.  The only thing that can be agreed upon is that there is controversy over his death, but this wording hasn't been approved by consensus. Val42 00:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree as to killed. That's a neutral term that doesn't imply anything controversial. Murdered is also neutral and it's accurate, because the killing was obviously intentional and premeditated, even though we don't know for sure the identity of who did it. Just like how you can say that JonBenét Ramsey and Tupak Shakur were murdered. COGDEN 00:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that killed and murdered should be acceptable for exactly the reasons that you specified.  But the above is my recollection of the many discussions on the subject. Val42 19:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: "Killed" may be less offensive to some people, but "martyred" is more accurate. One may be killed by being gored by an ox, run over by a wagon, shot for cheating at cards, etc. Joseph Smith was killed for his religious beliefs, therefore he was martyred. Assassinated is less accurate, although he was a politician for a short time, most people are not even aware that he was a US presidential candidate. His entire life revolved around his role as founder and leader of the Mormon church. 74s181 02:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Joseph Smith went to Carthage voluntarily, "...like a lamb to the slaughter..." but he did fire a few shots with a pepper-box revolver after attackers started firing into the jail. However, there is nothing in the dictionary definition of 'martyr' that says a martyr has to meekly accept his fate. In fact, the Wikipedia martyr article includes those who voluntarily surrender their lives actively attacking others in the name of a religous cause. 74s181 02:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: "Died" would be the most neutral, but it isn't accurate. We could say: "Joseph Smith led the church until his death in 1844." This is factually correct, but doesn't convey as much information as "killed", which doesn't convey as much information as "martyred". We could also say "...until he died in prison in 1844..." Not exactly correct. "...until he was shot while attempting to escape from prison in 1844..." Whoa, completely factual but also completely wrong. How about "...until he was killed by an armed group who disagreed with his religious teachings..." Accurate, but kind of long, might still be offensive, and by the way, isn't that what 'martyred' means? "...until his death in 1844..." would be definitely be less offensive to some Christians. Is that the goal? To sacrifice brevity or accuracy in order to avoid offense? 74s181 02:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I see nothing in what you (74s181) said that I disagree with.  I, too, think that "martyred" (or variation thereof) would be the best word.  There hasn't been any disagreement in this particular discussion against using that word.  Let's let it go for a few more days then if there have been no objections, we should change it. Val42 02:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: "being a martyr means that you willingly accept your death" [citation needed]. I thought martyr meant "somebody who suffers persecution and death for refusing to renounce a belief or cause, usually religious." Smith was threatened and persecuted plenty, without renouncing his "belief or cause", and was subsequently killed. Regardless, the wording from 4 years ago is old news. The article now clearly states that "Latter Day Saints view Joseph and Hyrum as martyrs", which is about as plain as it gets. ...comments? ~BFizz 00:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Martyrdom?

message: The following reference has been provided regarding Joseph Smith's last words:
:Why was Joseph Smith a Mason?, from Sunday Sermons, by By Cordell and Janice Vail, http://www.vcaa.com/epistles/sss/ss-masons.htm, dated 23 Nov 2003, retrieved December 15, 2007. 
The problem is this is not a reputable reference from an expert source. When reading the attached article it is clear that the Vail's have a very strong POV and there is no support in this reference for the statement other than personal opinion. Can someone provide a reputable reference? I know they must exist from someone that has done more than just offer opinion. --Storm Rider (talk) 11:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mason reference

message: As a notorious "Later Saints Day (LSD) advcate" I find this whole discussion beyond intellectual & more on a wrangling over opinions of 1. It is okay to insult 13 people with inaccurate terms, over 2. Using the correct & accurate terms (wich do not mean a thing to the rest of humanity).
Joseph Smith did not kill himself, he did not want to die, his life was horribly wrenched from him in a small upstairs room of a little jail in an even less notable county of Illinois. Death? Yes, he is dead & the world is not better for it (Is only a opinion). Murdered without a doubt & by the people of the land of Missouri, Illinois, Ohio, & Mississippi that time & again stole the lands, goods & crops of his religious followers. Taken at gunpoint & by war alive or dead. Leaving families, women, children, widows, destitute in the cold winters of early America?
Cry for the trail of tears. Hurt for the loss of the Long Walk. But shed not a tear, give no right of deference to those who died along the western trail to escape the horrors dealt them in the land of their fathers (wich was Europe). Yes, their fathers were of the Mayflower, were those who fought the fight of the Revolution & for America. I know for both are in my lineage & others I have met & studied.
He died a Martyr to his religious beliefs (As do/did a lot of people with other religions). The text is rife with the Anti-Mormon sentiments of the local & regional people. It is without doubt that he was killed for his religious beliefs (and being a real Moron for spitting on the beliefs of the common people). 
He died assassinated for his beliefs which were a plenty beyond Presidential (remember Mayor of Nauvoo (an unwanted Swamp brought to prominence rivaling Chicago!). Because of this kind of manipulative reporting most people believe, Bobby Kennedy was the first presidential hopeful assassination! I'm Not being true and only a accesory to the murder of JFK and his brother. Many of the Apostles, including Brigham Young were distributing (false) material to that end when the assassination occurred (You do not seem to know what an Apostle is).
He was also a military commander of the Nauvoo legion, a legal & proper American militia of the type in those times of America. The real Mormon people, even in their most desperate times supported a government that rarely even noticed them. Joseph Smiths example & Brigham Young's prodding providing the Mormon Battalion to repel Santa Anna finally from Texas & other territories that became the American Southwest. Where is General Joseph Smiths Statue? An unmarked grave is all, as his son, Joseph Smith III, so respectfully wrote in his song. He died serving his country & was buried in a  grave.
Those are (my) facts gentlewomen. Try as you like to sound intellectual about your presentations it doesn't come out that way. The man is dead, report it truthfully & accurately or at the expense of your own intelligence jargonism loose the very thing that Wikipedia is trying to achieve. The truth.
Perhaps the truth is that you need a small paragraph on each item & let people decide for themselves what the truth is.
Unbelievable what a blabering, this should be rewritten by the pope of Amsterdam 
There seems to be no place for Jesus, except on the "church". 
Some additional information. Anti-mormon writers should be restricted to contributing on Anti-mormon sites. Sites dealing with the Church of Joseph Christ should be written by people who are actually associated in some positive intellectual way. Just as I would not presume to relate reliable Catholic information & editing, the use of anti-mormon writers material is very questionable in defining areas of history that have been well written & referenced by actual Mormon writers. Anti anything should not be the staple of a article on Wikipedia.
Also consider this please: would it be acceptable to refer to all the Protestants as Catholics since they broke from Catholism but still believe in the Bible? I think most Protestants would agree that the Bible is not the sole definition. Likewise it is incorrect to refer to all break away church's from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as Mormons because they believe in portions of the Book of Mormon Another Testament of Jesus Christ. They chose another course & left the original church. They own no copyrights to the associated body of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints nor any true rights to claim ownership of the doctrines, words, or teachings of real Mormons.
In a Christian attitude of not making them offenders for a word, the LDS church has been generous in not calling them to task for these misrepresentations but recent events, like the FDLS Child Abuse Scandal, the Warren Jeffs Trial, & other polygamous prosecutions, point out that more & more, just because groups use Mormon words does not truly, in any way, associate them with real Mormons of the LDS church. A careful delineation between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints & other break-off groups has become important in accurate reporting & writing alike. These ex-Mormon groups have been through the excommunication processes within the LDS Church & lost or given up the right to claim true affiliation or representation of the church. This is true of most, although not all, anti-mormons. They may or may not be associated with the break-off groups or even protestant groups. They may speak or write their mind as much as they like but they do not have a right to represent the LDS church in anyway other than their own experiences. Often their reference sources are highly suspect using unclaimed documents, suspected forgeries, & a variety of time consuming research to distract & dissuade a completion of a rightful project about which they earned the title of anti-mormon for.
Lastly, be clear there is not one among all these herein listed that could not return to active membership in the LDS church by applying the principles of Faith in Jesus Christ, Repentance of all wrong doing, Rebaptism to reactivate their membership in the Church & a remission of sins & letting the Holy Ghost that is given them to guide their direction in the path of the Savior. They have closed the door but he stands outside waiting for the door to be opened. As recently as last April 2008 Conference, President Monson asked that they return, they are not forgotten, nor are they far from our hearts.
mormontrailnews Mormontrailnews (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So what you are suggesting is that the history of an individual or a movement should be written by those who have a biased point of view towards the person or movement in question?  That is blatantly against wikipedia standards, and explains a great deal about how this article was written.  This article is short on references and high on rhetoric.  In other words, it requires the attention of individuals who are able to describe this event without any of their own personal beliefs colouring it.  Halogenated (talk) 01:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lynching/Death 

message: Copied from my comment on Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr.:
I found an Eyewitness account by John Taylor, now how to source it? Apparently it is from History of the Church, 7:99-108.
Also: whoever does the citation, please also replicate it on Death of Joseph Smith, Jr.#Attack by the mob since it also includes the statement of when Hyrum exclaimed "I am a dead man."...but what do you think? ~B Fizz (talk) 05:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if this is the earliest source ever (I would guess that it was originally published in the Deseret News), but the earliest copy I can find constitutes Appendix III of . COGDEN 01:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I just did a search of the Deseret News archives, and the only hit that came up was a 1937 article transcribing a radio address by Stephen L. Richards. Nothing apparently before that. So apparently Deseret News is not where it came from.  Also, part of Taylor's story is quoted in Bankroft's History of Utah, and he attributes Burton. It appears from the text of Burton (p. 272) that Burton got the original manuscript from Taylor, and published it long before the church ever did. I would cite Burton. COGDEN 02:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "I am a dead man" 

message: It should be noted that there are many people (mostly members of the Community of Christ church which is the church of the Smith family formally known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Ladder Day Saints) believe that Smith was killed by a mob of angry polygamist that knew Smith and his family were going to ban polygamy from the Mormon church.  This is very likely considering the polygamist's swift move (or what the modern-day Mormons strangely refers to as the "Exodus," as if Brigham Young could even remotely compare to Moses) to Utah without the Smith family.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.209.41.145 (talk) 14:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: People are entitled to their opinion, of course.  But, scholars generally agree that the mob was led by Protestant churchmen, contained many "Gentiles" who were politically opposed to Mormon interests, and included a modest number of "disaffected" Mormons who had left the Church in recent years.  A number of these men were brought to trial but were not convicted.  Your point on polygamy also fails, as scholars (including those of the Community of Christ) almost unanimously agree that Joseph Smith instituted the practice of polygamy among the Mormons and was a polygamist himself.  Best wishes.  WBardwin (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If the claim by anon could be cited to a source, it could be included in the article in the sense of reporting what some RLDS Church members taught/believed about the death. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Mormon mob killed Joseph Smith? 

message: Anybody else think this reads like an extremely well-written LDS pamphlet? In comparison to many other LDS articles, this one's got a real problem with neutral wording in every section. In total the tone is juuuust sympathetic and apologetic enough to impart that subtle spin on the article's tone. It reads like it's been very carefully vetted from top to bottom by a skilled LDS Wikipedian. Unflattering details are avoided or generically worded where possible, while heroic or sympathetic ones are accentuated and expounded on. Aren't all LDS articles supposed to be under Arbcom scrutiny to avoid this kind of thing? I see tons of inlines and lots of gleaming prose but that gleam clearly came after somebody with a pro-Smith POV polished it from "neutral grey" to "shiny, flawless chrome". 
Oh, and the sources need work. A lot of these sources are dogmatic LDS members who would, by necessity, hold a hagiographic (i.e- non historic) view of Joseph Smith, Jr. (particular as to the circumstances of his death) in keeping with official church dogma. Not to say we can't include LDS scholars as sources for theocratic viewpoints, but many of these historical inlines are currently cited to LDS scholars rather than neutral historians or primary documentation. That's not okay in a purely non-theological historical event article like this. Bravo Foxtrot (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you have any specific ideas, why not share them? What source in particular do you think is misquoted or inappropriate? Where are these non-LDS scholarly sources you mention? It would be nice to improve the article, but your criticism is too vague, with no specific examples of what needs to be done. – jaksmata 14:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow, what a hagiography 

message: Any truth to the newspaper accounts of an attempted rescue of Smith by 150 armed men? e.g.:  If so, can this be incorporated? Just curious, I was editing Steamboat Iowa and came across this ref. Edgar Vekilnik, Jr. (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's true, but it doesn't relate to the June 1844 arrest of Smith that led to his death. The paper you cite was from a year previous, on 30 June 1843. Smith was indicted and/or arrested multiple times in various jurisdictions, and this incident is referring to a different time Smith was indicted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Attempted rescue?

message: The following text is taken from an 1863 Salt Lake City Almanac published by W. W. Phelps Digital photographs of the actual pages can be seen below.
Look at Joseph Smith's Last Dream - The Full Account as Told by W. W. Phelps
How can I add this dream to this wikipedia biography?79.209.69.49 (talk) 17:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be OK to mention it in the "Incarceration at Carthage Jail" section. I'll try to add it in. ...comments? ~BFizz 17:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: How's this? ...comments? ~BFizz 18:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joseph Smith's last dream

message: The article was rated C-class for lack of sufficient in-line citations. Boneyard90 (talk) 11:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP: Death assessment commentary 

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:G. W. Fasel - Charles G. Crehen - Nagel & Weingaertner - Martyrdom of Joseph and Hiram Smith in Carthage jail, June 27th, 1844.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on June 27, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-06-27. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! —howcheng  {chat} 18:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:G. W. Fasel - Charles G. Crehen - Nagel & Weingaertner - Martyrdom of Joseph and Hiram Smith in Carthage jail, June 27th, 1844.jpg]] to appear as POTD soon 

message: The entry refers to newspapers as well as former associates, of whom were well known critics of Joseph Smith.  The wording of this entry, the citations used, combined with the title itself.  All slant the article toward the POV of Smiths critics.  A POV of which is entirely based on hearsay.
Hoss1982 (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What specificially is being referred to that is problematic? Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Since Hoss1982 hasn't responded in over a month, I would suggest closing this issue and removing the  tag.  I will do it if there is a consensus.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 21:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV dispute 

message: I am not sure if its just me or my computer but I am having trouble finding what citation 3 is referencing to and could not find it with the link provided. The article writes, "Some of these associates alleged that Smith tried to marry their wives. About eight of Smith's wives were also married to other men (four were Mormon men in good standing, who in a few cases acted as a witness in Smith's marriage to his wife) at the time they married Smith. Typically, these women continued to live with their first husband, not Smith. Some accounts say Smith may have had sexual relations with some of his other wives, and one wife later in her life stated that he fathered children by one or two of his wives.[3]"
The link provided is ^ Newell, Linda King; Avery, Valeen Tippetts (1994). Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith (2d ed.). University of Illinois Press. pp. 44. . http://books.google.com/?id=UjHEhhqVu1UC&pg=PA139&dq=Mormon+Enigma:+Emma+Hale+smith.
Like I said I couldn't find the content in the reference that the article is discussing. If its correct then maybe someone could point that out to me. If its not correctly cited then maybe a new reference could be found or it should be removed.Thenamesbryce (talk) 16:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation three error? 

message: Isn't it impossible to know exactly why Joseph Smith moved to the window? He's dead, and he never told anyone why he did it prior to his death. There are a few different possible explanations, all of which are at least plausible. How could there have been any research on this that doesn't essentially amount to an opinion? Maybe the WP article should just say he moved to the window, without ascribing a motive to it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with you, but I have found one source, although it is historical fiction. Volume 6 of the award-winning series The Work and the Glory describes Smith's martyrdom in detail, including the reasons Smith moved to the window. I believe it lists some sources to back it up. I will be happy to do research on it at some point. Right now, however, my wife and I are preparing to move, and things have picked up at work, so my Wikipedia time is limited. I will do some studying on this as time and circumstances allow. Would that be a satisfactory source? On another article, the series has been cited as a good source for information, since it contains fictional characters but ties them in with actual historical events. Thoughts? --Jgstokes (talk) 06:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't think that a work of historical fiction can be used as a reference for Wikipedia stating what a person's motives were for doing something that they did. I really don't see how anyone could possibly know what the motive was, since Smith never told anyone before he died. As I said, there are several plausible explanations which could be and have been speculated about (eg, he was trying to protect others; he was trying to escape; he was frightened; he was going to shout out the Masonic call of distress out the window; he was offering himself up as a martyr), but how can Wikipedia state definitively which is correct? I don't think we can. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

text: I understand what you're proposing, but I fail to see how any reference could possibly be able to establish a motive, apart from speculating. We can have a look at what the sources say, but in the abstract I'm having a hard time understanding how we can know what a dead man was thinking or intending just seconds before he died. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

text: I'm not stopping you from looking it up or posting here what the sources are and what they say. In the meantime, I've placed a "citation needed" tag on the phrase. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

text: A new user has removed the statement. I just want to state that this user has no connection to me. (It could be viewed as suspicious, since it was the user's first-ever edit.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Reason J. Smith moved to window

message: I referenced a BYU studies article about the positions of everyone and I found a newer link to it (but the newer link isn't as specific; it links to the entire issue). If the one I put becomes broken try this one. This source could also support the assertion that the pocket watch wasn't shot.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwelean (talk • contribs) 18:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  BYU Studies article 

message: If one click's on William Law's name, the reader is directed to a Law who died in the 18th century.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyCzar (talk • contribs) 08:08, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, I just piped the link to the correct article. Bahooka (talk) 16:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hyperlink to 'William Law' under External links is incorrect 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Death of Joseph Smith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071218220046/http://byustudies2.byu.edu:80/hc/6/31.html to http://byustudies2.byu.edu/hc/6/31.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Today several edits from 73.52.129.29 changed and removed text, seemingly to diminish the article's statements about JS polygamy, with comments that this was just erasing erroneous information or fixing syntax.  These statements were cited, and historians agree (along with the LDS Church) that Joseph Smith was sealed to some women who were already married.  If the article needed better balance with less weight on the debated details of JS polyandry, that would call for more careful editing or a discussion here.  Some references were also broken by the edits, which invited AnomieBOT to cleanup, and I think they all should be reverted.  ——Rich jj (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not dispute that the statements are correct (I don't know one way or the other); however, I do question whether or not a detailed analysis of Joseph Smith's marriages is appropriate in this article. This article is about the death of Joseph Smith, not his many wives. Although it is true that the Expositer makes some accusations about his polygamous history, what exactly that history entails is not directly relevant to the article and would be better addressed in other articles on Joseph Smith. I suggest a removal of most of the discussion on polygamy. Dcp718 (talk) 21:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polygamy edits 

message: Being killed by an unruly mob is not an "assassination" but a "killing" since he was not killed for political reasons.  Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never like assassination, but I don't think you have the facts. Do you have a reference that Smith was not killed for political reasons? If not, how about you revert it and then we will come up with a mutual decision on what to do and the best wording. --StormRider 02:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: What did you have in mind?  Assassination is not accurate.  Killing seems the most accurate since he was killed in a gunfight with a six shooter in his hand blazing. Octoberwoodland (talk) 04:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If my brother was dead in my arms and the crowd that killed him was proceeding to invade the jail in which I was trapped, I hope I would have the presence of mind for my gun to be blazing too. It was a mob lynching, not a duel or anything resembling a fair gunfight. But I also agree that "assassination" is a poor choice, as the term implies a more deliberate and organized act by a smaller number of people, or at least operating under a more clear leadership. The scenario that springs to mind when hearing the term "assassination" is that of a sneak attack on a prominent person by a lone gunman or a well-organized conspiracy, and that's very different from what happened to Smith, his brother, and their friends at that jail. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

text: I don't hate the LDS faith, so drop the anti-mormon rhetoric please. Octoberwoodland (talk) 18:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

text: To me, "murder" also seems to describe something more organized than this lynching. To me, "lynching" seems better, but I see from previous comments you made here that you aren't (or at least weren't) in favor of that word. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: He was not lynched, he was shot, and he was shot after he opened fire on members of the mob that stormed the jail.  It could be termed a murder since five men were arrested and tried for "murder", so that may work, except that they were all acquitted of murder, so it goes back to whether it was a murder or a gunfight.  As near as I can tell from both mormon and non-mormon sources, what happened there was a gunfight -- it was a "killing", not a murder, and definitely not assassination or martyrdom.  Octoberwoodland (talk) 18:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: In my view, a mob storming a jail to attack specific prisoners and kill them is pretty much the epitome of a lynching. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you that it started off that way as a lynch mob, but hey, how many jails let the prisoners carry handguns into their cells?  If he had been unarmed, different story. but as it stands, the mob stormed the jail, at which point Smith started shooting at them, so its hard to characterize it as a lynch mob since both sides were armed and used deadly force against each other -- a gunfight to be sure. Octoberwoodland (talk) 19:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Minor correction: they were not in "cells" but in the jailer's own bedroom, an upstairs room without bars on the windows. And I don't think you'll find any reliable sources characterizing it as a gunfight. ~Awilley (talk) 23:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I knew that based on the various accounts, they were also provided with food and alcohol by their jailers and their jailing was somewhat relaxed.  I was just stating an illustration with the use of the word "cell".  I agree none of the sources say it was a gunfight, mostly because they have been sanitized, embellished, and some portions outright fabricated and rewritten to portray Smith as "Larger Than Life" by the LDS Church.  There are other sources quoted in Fawn Brodies "No Man Knows My History" which paint Smith and the events of his killing in an very different light.  Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:53, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

text: If we believe what the article says, Hyrum was shot in the face and died in Joseph's arms before Joseph started shooting, and presumably the only reason Joseph had the gun was as a feeble defense against the well-founded fear of a lynching. He wasn't trying to bust out and go on the lam. One gun inside a jail against a hundred invading from outside of it is not much of a gunfight. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I have read these sources about him holding Hyrum in his arms, problem I have with that portrayal is that events happened really fast because the accounts stated that the mob fired at Hyrum after trying to force the door open to where they were inside the building, and Hyrum and Joseph and the other inmates were trying to keep the door closed ... events went down far too fast for Joseph to be holding Hyrum then he suddenly is at the window shooting at them in all this mayhem.  I think some portions of these accounts were embellished or outright fabricated.  Based on the layout of the jail, Joseph would have been holding him for about 3 seconds before the next wave of attacks came from the mob and he teleported himself to the window -- sorry but I don't buy it.  If he were holding Hyrum then he would have been shot dead before he could even stand up.  The events don't add up. Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It does seem a little too Shakespearean for the invasion to pause until Hyrum can speak his farewell and die in his loving brother's embrace before resuming the slaughter. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed "assassination" to "killing" in article lead 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Death of Joseph Smith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081121105725/http://dig.lib.niu.edu/ISHS/ishs-2004summer/ishs-2004summer107.pdf to http://dig.lib.niu.edu/ISHS/ishs-2004summer/ishs-2004summer107.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:55, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A few ideas: mention the "poor wayfaring man of grief" (weren't they getting nervous too?) mention how he was seen posthumously as a martyr ("he lived great, he died great"). Thanks, nice job here! :) Rogerdpack (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  improvements 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the move request was: No consensus for any alternative. As there is no clear consensus that the current title is unsuitable, it will remain where it is. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Death of Joseph Smith →  – Proposed new page name is a more appropriate title that better reflects the identity of the article. Smith’s death was clearly and undoubtedly a murder, and typically when there is a Wikipedia page about a death by murder of a person, it is titled “Murder of (person’s name)” instead of “Death of (person’s name)”. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 07:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

text: Lynching, no.  He wasn’t lynched.  Killing works. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:56, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to understand why you think he wasn't lynched? What is your basis for saying that? It seems like a textbook lynching to me. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:52, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmmm.  OK, I was assuming that lynching meaning a public mob hanging.  I see that this is the usual meaning.  I reads to me that he died in a fire fight trying to escape and died from being shot and/or falling from an upstairs window.  It sounds like the mob want intent on a lynching, but he was killed while they tried to capture him.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:22, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  He wasn't trying to escape (at least not until he was attacked by a large mob). In fact, he had turned himself in voluntarily. The mob wasn't trying to capture him; they were trying to kill him (and they succeeded). His shots were fired in self-defense. Lynching involves killing, but does not necessarily involve hanging. I don't think any of that is disputed. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:57, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
=== Moved to killing ===
I support todays bold move to Killing of Joseph Smith. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 9 April 2019 

message: I support todays bold move to Killing of Joseph Smith. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved to killing