Mudcat Posted January 19, 2009 Posted January 19, 2009 Was Joseph Smith's martyrdom a deliverance from tribulation or a triumph over all Joseph Smith's enemies?D&C 127:
The Nehor Posted January 19, 2009 Posted January 19, 2009 He succeeded in what he set out to do. All the keys were restored, the key doctrines taught, the organization established, and then he was taken. He triumphed and was delivered until his work was done. Then his enemies won what they felt was a victory and he was delivered from the difficulties he had faced in life. As someone who (not suicidal) has said to God before that if he's ready for me to die I am ready to go I see death as deliverance.
hagoth7 Posted January 19, 2009 Posted January 19, 2009 Was Joseph Smith's martyrdom a deliverance from tribulation or a triumph over all Joseph Smith's enemies?In reading this passage, I am wondering how LDS interpret a couple of things in this passage.1. In the most immediate sense of the events surrounding his martyrdom, it would seem that it couldn't be perceived as a triumph over his enemies. IMO, it seems his enemies achieved their immediate goal. I would think you would have to assign a different meaning to what this triumph over his enemies was.How do LDS interpret this triumph?I see his victory in light of passages such as Rev 12:11And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death. 2. â??Deliveranceâ?, as it appears I would think could be perceived as deliverance to some sort of heavenly place or something to that effect. However, his usage of the word â??deliveredâ? in the verse seems to speak of a temporal or temporally spiritual deliverance. Almost like he is saying "I have been delivered so far, or up to this moment." What do you think?True. However, he had reason to believe that such wouldn't always be the case. One book that he was quite fond of was Fox's Book of Martyrs.3. Assuming, that despite his martyrdom, LDS would most likely interpret this passage in a way that JS was is delivered and triumphant. If that is the case, do LDS believe that he had fulfilled for all intents an purposes what the Lord had intended for him to fulfill?Yes. He had said earlier that no one could kill him until his mission was fulfilled, but that after that point, he was as liable to die as any man. In a similar vein, at another juncture, he likewise foretold he wouldn't live to see age forty. In that setting, he was told by the Lord not to fear what man could do, for his days were known, and would not be numbered less.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 19, 2009 Posted January 19, 2009 Was Joseph Smith's martyrdom a deliverance from tribulation or a triumph over all Joseph Smith's enemies?In reading this passage, I am wondering how LDS interpret a couple of things in this passage.1. In the most immediate sense of the events surrounding his martyrdom, it would seem that it couldn't be perceived as a triumph over his enemies. IMO, it seems his enemies achieved their immediate goal. I would think you would have to assign a different meaning to what this triumph over his enemies was.How do LDS interpret this triumph?MudcatIn no meaningful sense did his enemies achieve their goal. They wanted to destroy Mormonism. They thought they would accomplish this by murdering the prophet. The opposite happened. After removing to the western United States, where it be out of reach of mobs and mobocrats, the Church thrived and eventually expanded globally. One symbol of the triumph is that the Church returned to Nauvoo, where it had been oppressed, and rebuilt the temple that had been desecrated and destroyed by mobs. Another symbol is that the Church now owns the jail where Joseph and Hyrum were martyred and operates it as a visitor attraction. The murderers of the prophet are now remembered with infamy, while the prophet and his brother are honored and revered by millions.
orion88 Posted January 19, 2009 Posted January 19, 2009 How exactly was Joseph Smith a martyr? Was he killed because of hisfaith in Christ or because the mob was angry at him for committing someother acts?Tony
Scott Lloyd Posted January 19, 2009 Posted January 19, 2009 How exactly was Joseph Smith a martyr? Was he killed because of hisfaith in Christ or because the mob was angry at him for committing someother acts?TonyHad Joseph Smith renounced his religious claims he would not have found himself in the jail at Carthage and would not have been murdered by the mob. He was a martyr in the strictest sense of the word.The charge of treason (because he and the Nauvoo city leaders declared martial law so as to protect the city from mob violence) was a ruse to get him to Carthage where he would be vulnerable to his enemies. Unlike riot (the charge in connection with the destruction of the Expositor), treason was an unbailable charge, and Joseph and Hyrum were unable to obtain their freedom.
Mormon2Christian Posted January 19, 2009 Posted January 19, 2009 How exactly was Joseph Smith a martyr? Was he killed because of hisfaith in Christ or because the mob was angry at him for committing someother acts?TonyHe was killed because of his faith and belief in the mormon faith. If he had been a baptist, or a catholic, or a methodist etc he would not have suffered persecution. He wouldn't have any enemies. Where in American history do we see Christians being persecuted? Joseph Smith also went down fighting unlike the apostles who were persecuted for their faith and belief in Christ. So if LDS want to try to group Joseph with the martyrs of Pauls day they are gonna have difficulty redefining what a martyr is.
captain-jack Posted January 19, 2009 Posted January 19, 2009 He was killed because of his faith and belief in the mormon faith. If he had been a baptist, or a catholic, or a methodist etc he would not have suffered persecution. He wouldn't have any enemies. Where in American history do we see Christians being persecuted? Joseph Smith also went down fighting unlike the apostles who were persecuted for their faith and belief in Christ. So if LDS want to try to group Joseph with the martyrs of Pauls day they are gonna have difficulty redefining what a martyr is.Merriam-Webster:2: a person who sacrifices something of great value and especially life itself for the sake of principleSounds like what Joseph Smith did, no redefinition needed.
hagoth7 Posted January 19, 2009 Posted January 19, 2009 ...if LDS want to try to group Joseph with the martyrs of Pauls day they are gonna have difficulty redefining what a martyr is.And also from Merriam-Webster:Martyr: 1: a person who voluntarily suffers death as the penalty of witnessing to and refusing to renounce a religionOr in your own words:He was killed because of his faith and belief in the mormon faith. We have a match. He was killed, as you attested, because of his faith/religion. The very definition of a martyr. Again, no redefining needed.
Sentinus Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 And also from Merriam-Webster:Martyr: 1: a person who voluntarily suffers death as the penalty of witnessing to and refusing to renounce a religionOr in your own words:He was killed because of his faith and belief in the mormon faith. We have a match. He was killed, as you attested, because of his faith/religion. The very definition of a martyr. Again, no redefining needed.voluntarilyNot trying to be antagonistic, but IMO one who attempts to defend himself by firing back is disqualified from being killed voluntarily. Had he simply gone out on his knees praying I would have no problem calling him a martyr. Regards,SentinusHad Joseph Smith renounced his religious claims he would not have found himself in the jail at Carthage and would not have been murdered by the mob. He was a martyr in the strictest sense of the word.The charge of treason (because he and the Nauvoo city leaders declared martial law so as to protect the city from mob violence) was a ruse to get him to Carthage where he would be vulnerable to his enemies. Unlike riot (the charge in connection with the destruction of the Expositor), treason was an unbailable charge, and Joseph and Hyrum were unable to obtain their freedom.Had Joseph Smith renounced his religious claims he would not have found himself in the jail at Carthage and would not have been murdered by the mob.CFR
orion88 Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 We have a match. He was killed, as you attested, because of his faith/religion. The very definition of a martyr. Again, no redefining needed.Why exactly was he jailed? Was he jailed for his faith in Jesus Christ?And was he killed for his faith in Jesus Christ like the early apostles?Tony
Sentinus Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 Why exactly was he jailed? Was he jailed for his faith in Jesus Christ?And was he killed for his faith in Jesus Christ like the early apostles?TonyGood points to consider. IMO he was jailed due to destruction of the press and the illegal practice of Polygamy within the state of Illinois. Also I believe that the mob was organized and contained mainly Masons that were quite peeved with Mr. Smith at the time. However one could argue that all this was done to follow Christ, it becomes quite a tangled mess. Regards,Sentinus
orion88 Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 Good points to consider. IMO he was jailed due to destruction of the press and the illegal practice of Polygamy within the state of Illinois. Also I believe that the mob was organized and contained mainly Masons that were quite peeved with Mr. Smith at the time. However one could argue that all this was done to follow Christ, it becomes quite a tangled mess. Regards,SentinusHow does destroying a press or engaging in polygamy reflect following Christ or having faith in Him?Tony
Joseph Antley Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 How does destroying a press or engaging in polygamy reflect following Christ or having faith in Him?TonyIf God commanded him to engage in plural marriage (or if he at least believed God did), or if he felt destroying a press that was printing libel that would further anger violent mobs towards followers of Christ, then I can see either or both of those reflecting following Christ and having faith him.
Sentinus Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 How does destroying a press or engaging in polygamy reflect following Christ or having faith in Him?TonyIf one believes he was told to do these things to follow Christ then you may end up in a circular argument, that is my only point. Regards,Sentinus
Mudcat Posted January 20, 2009 Author Posted January 20, 2009 Thanks to all for your participation, so far. It was my assumption that many of the LDS posters would respond as such. As I have read the posts, I think there seem to be a general consent that JS must have accomplished what he set out to do and is considered delivered and triumphant, in that respect by LDS.I suppose I would ask how do LDS feel about that in relation to free will? It seems JS wasn't "fair game" until after he had accomplished his purpose.Do you feel that may be the case for everyone? I mean is there somethings that God might benevolently work around, to make sure we make it to the point in which we do what he has put us here to do?In regards to martyrdom........ As I feel this thread may be digressing into a discussion of JS's qualifications as a martyr, I would note that hopefully, people will understand that I by no means question the fact that Joseph Smith was a martyr.He was killed by a mob that was bent on his destruction, I feel they wanted him dead because of his beliefs. To say that he was not is ignorance of the facts IMO.If any would continue to follow that line of thinking, I would ask...If JS had not founded a church, claimed to translate a book, set forth doctrines for that church and so forth and the only thing that he could have been "potentially" guilty for was his association and possible leadership towards the destruction of the Expositor... do you think an angry mob would have shown up to take justice in their own hands and kill him? If so... I'd like to hear what you have to say.If not.. I hope you reevaluate your position.Respectfully,Mudcat
Sentinus Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 Thanks to all for your participation, so far. It was my assumption that many of the LDS posters would respond as such. As I have read the posts, I think there seem to be a general consent that JS must have accomplished what he set out to do and is considered delivered and triumphant, in that respect by LDS.I suppose I would ask how do LDS feel about that in relation to free will? It seems JS wasn't "fair game" until after he had accomplished his purpose.Do you feel that may be the case for everyone? I mean is there somethings that God might benevolently work around, to make sure we make it to the point in which we do what he has put us here to do?In regards to martyrdom........ As I feel this thread may be digressing into a discussion of JS's qualifications as a martyr, I would note that hopefully, people will understand that I by no means question the fact that Joseph Smith was a martyr.He was killed by a mob that was bent on his destruction, I feel they wanted him dead because of his beliefs. To say that he was not is ignorance of the facts IMO.If any would continue to follow that line of thinking, I would ask...If JS had not founded a church, claimed to translate a book, set forth doctrines for that church and so forth and the only thing that he could have been "potentially" guilty for was his association and possible leadership towards the destruction of the Expositor... do you think an angry mob would have shown up to take justice in their own hands and kill him? If so... I'd like to hear what you have to say.If not.. I hope you reevaluate your position.Respectfully,MudcatI think that my biggest issue with the word Martyr stems from the attitude in which one is killed. I could be wrong but I can personally think of no example of a martyr that fights back, martyrdom to me seems to imply a pacifist reaction to being killed. That is my only hang up. Was he unjustly murdered certainly, but martyrs IMHO don't fire back. Hope this clarifies alittle, I am definately open to being corrected. Regards,Sentinus
annewandering Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 It's an interesting concept that you have to be a pacifist to be a martyr.
Anijen Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 Sentinus, I have to disagree. I feel one can be martyred without the show of meekness IE getting on ones knees and praying instead of defending oneself. Paul delayed his day of martyrdom as much as he could through the courts, Peter used a sword even though he was stopped by the Savior it does not take his Apostleship away from him. There is not much on if the apostles fought back when that time came. I know I can look at the Catholic book of Martyrs and see they died in the faith, preaching the gospel, and not saying okay I'm not a______ (insert your religion here). You don't have to go and just give up (suicidal if you ask me). Being a martyr is someone who doesn't back down from their own convictions and died for those convictions. A martyr is not only just for someone who goes meekly to his sentence without some sort of self defense.It's an interesting concept that you have to be a pacifist to be a martyr.Anne its amazing what I try to squeeze into a paragraph my feelings and you say it in one sentence much more eloquently. Thank you.Anijen
Sentinus Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 It's an interesting concept that you have to be a pacifist to be a martyr.I don't think that was my intent, I only meant to imply that one who is a martyr for a cause does nothing to fight back even when they could have. Some people consider Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King Martyrs, I consider them assasinated for their beliefs and cause. I hope this helps clarify my intent.Regards,Sentinus
wenglund Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 Good points to consider. IMO he was jailed due to destruction of the press and the illegal practice of Polygamy within the state of Illinois. Also I believe that the mob was organized and contained mainly Masons that were quite peeved with Mr. Smith at the time. However one could argue that all this was done to follow Christ, it becomes quite a tangled mess. Regards, SentinusThere is the simple pretense for why Joseph was jailed, and then there is the richly complex context. I think you have rested your opinion on the former at the expense of the later. Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Sentinus Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 Sentinus, I have to disagree. I feel one can be martyred without the show of meekness IE getting on ones knees and praying instead of defending oneself. Paul delayed his day of martyrdom as much as he could through the courts, Peter used a sword even though he was stopped by the Savior it does not take his Apostleship away from him. There is not much on if the apostles fought back when that time came. I know I can look at the Catholic book of Martyrs and see they died in the faith, preaching the gospel, and not saying okay I'm not a______ (insert your religion here). You don't have to go and just give up (suicidal if you ask me). Being a martyr is someone who doesn't back down from their own convictions and died for those convictions. A martyr is not only just for someone who goes meekly to his sentence without some sort of self defense.Anne its amazing what I try to squeeze into a paragraph my feelings and you say it in one sentence much more eloquently. Thank you.AnijenThe day Peter used the sword he was not being placed in custody, had he been killed that day while weilding the weapon I don't think Christ himself would consider the sacrafice good. Hence why he healed the injured man and went peacefully to his death. Paul attempting to avoid his death through the courts is not the same as punching, kicking, or shooting back. My intent was that a martyr doesn't do physical harm to others in defense of themselves or others, or their beliefs. I agree that we don't have all the info on how the early apostles went to their death, it can be surmised that they did so in much the same manner as Christ himself exemplified, which is to go peacefully. I definately could be wrong. However I appreciate your valid opinion. Regards,Sentinus There is the simple pretense for why Joseph was jailed, and then there is the richly complex context. I think you have rested your opinion on the former at the expense of the later. Thanks, -Wade Englund-How so? Regards,Sentinus
Mudcat Posted January 20, 2009 Author Posted January 20, 2009 I think that my biggest issue with the word Martyr stems from the attitude in which one is killed. I could be wrong but I can personally think of no example of a martyr that fights back, martyrdom to me seems to imply a pacifist reaction to being killed. That is my only hang up. Was he unjustly murdered certainly, but martyrs IMHO don't fire back. Hope this clarifies alittle, I am definately open to being corrected. Regards,SentinusHi Sentinus, I see where you are coming from, and at one point, I shared your view. The best examples of martyrs that the Bible yields are Christ and Stephen and neither fought back. This at one point in my mind was the only viable definition of martyrdom. However, something you might want to consider would be others who we consider martyrs. Its a hypothetical scenario, but for the sake of discussion.Lets say when they came for Peter to take his life, perhaps it was a mass of Roman soldiers. If Peter had resisted with a sword or even his bare hands, would that mean he wasn't a martyr?or...To give it a little anonymity to the scenario, take a random early Christian who was put into the Coliseum to be eaten by lions. If that Christian had struggled against the beasts would he or she not be a martyr? I suppose the thing is, who determines what a martyr is? Is it the intent of the victim or the intent of the killer?Respects, Mudcat
wenglund Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 I think that my biggest issue with the word Martyr stems from the attitude in which one is killed. I could be wrong but I can personally think of no example of a martyr that fights back, martyrdom to me seems to imply a pacifist reaction to being killed. That is my only hang up. Was he unjustly murdered certainly, but martyrs IMHO don't fire back. Hope this clarifies alittle, I am definately open to being corrected. Regards, SentinusI think I understand the binary way in which you interpret the word "martyr". However, I see it a little differently. To me, there is a broad range of things to weight in the balance, and the fact that Joseph willfully turned himself over to his captures, having the firm belief that by so doing he would end up forfeiting his life, would qualify even though after the stakes were later raised (the life of his brother and other Church leaders were also placed in mortal danger), he may have fired a few defensive shots.But, to each their own.Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Sentinus Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 Hi Sentinus, I see where you are coming from, and at one point, I shared your view. The best examples of martyrs that the Bible yields are Christ and Stephen and neither fought back. This at one point in my mind was the only viable definition of martyrdom. However, something you might want to consider would be others who we consider martyrs. Its a hypothetical scenario, but for the sake of discussion.Lets say when they came for Peter to take his life, perhaps it was a mass of Roman soldiers. If Peter had resisted with a sword or even his bare hands, would that mean he wasn't a martyr?or...To give it a little anonymity a random early Christian who was put into the Coliseum to be eaten by lions. If that Christian had struggled against the beasts would he or she not be a martyr? I suppose the thing is who determines what a martyr is. Is it the intent of the victim or the intent of the killer?Respects, MudcatI would say that Peter fighting back in defense of his life would be unChristlike especially since Christ already healed one he had injured prior. The Christian in the Coliseum fighting back would do a greater work by simply submitting instead of meeting violence with violence. In the process it would ruin the show. I am not saying that I am right and you are wrong, I just feel strongly that a Martyr follows the same example that Christ did in facing death for ones belief in him. If we are to die for him we should do so in a way that is pleasing and exemplifies him in our lives. Now would the Peter fighting back be less heroic, or his death be less tragic surely not. Would the Christian killing the Lion with his bare hands only to be killed after by the Romans less heroic or tragic surely not. How would you think Christ would want you to go down? Swinging or Forgiving? I guess this is my point. Regards,Sentinus
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.