Joseph Smith's Martyrdom

[Lightbearer]

Was Joseph Smith's martyrdom a deliverance from tribulation or a triumph over all Joseph Smith's enemies?

Both I think. As for section 127 it was written in 1842 and at that time Joseph was in hiding from his enemies. Those enemies in Missouri were trying to extradite the prophet so he could be implicated in an attempt on former Governor Bogg's life. Also many apostates and enemies in Illinois sought to aide in his being taken to Missouri where he would be surely put to death. So he was swimming in persecutions and had a real threat to his life. While the Missourians were not successful in killing him his enemies in Illinois finally were in 1844 when the Prophet had completed his mission and so he was sent like a lamb to the slaughter to seal his testimony with his own blood.

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?

The same could be said of Jesus Christ, or Peter, or Paul, they were all killed and it seemed like a defeat to His disciples at first, but Jesus was resurrected and those others who gave their lives in the cause of Christ shall be exalted over all their enemies. They fought a good fight, they finished the course they kept the faith, so they all have the crown of eternal life. They might kill the body but they could not ever get him to deny his witness of Christ.

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?

The Prophet was delivered temporally, he was spared another two years. In fact once that tribulation was past he was seen in public and continued his ministry until June 1844 when he was killed by a mob while in protective custody of the Governor of the State of Illinois.

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 fulfilled the Lord's purpose, the restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ was complete and the keys were given to the twelve apostles who carried on the work after his death. The Lord had told him earlier that such would be the case:

(D&C 122:1-9) "THE ends of the earth shall inquire after thy name, and fools shall have thee in derision, and hell shall rage against thee; While the pure in heart, and the wise, and the noble, and the virtuous, shall seek counsel, and authority, and blessings constantly from under thy hand. And thy people shall never be turned against thee by the testimony of traitors. And although their influence shall cast thee into trouble, and into bars and walls, thou shalt be had in honor; and but for a small moment and thy voice shall be more terrible in the midst of thine enemies than the fierce lion, because of thy righteousness; and thy God shall stand by thee forever and ever. If thou art called to pass through tribulation; if thou art in perils among false brethren; if thou art in perils among robbers; if thou art in perils by land or by sea; If thou art accused with all manner of false accusations; if thine enemies fall upon thee; if they tear thee from the society of thy father and mother and brethren and sisters; and if with a drawn sword thine enemies tear thee from the bosom of thy wife, and of thine offspring, and thine elder son, although but six years of age, shall cling to thy garments, and shall say, My father, my father, why canâ??t you stay with us? O, my father, what are the men going to do with you? and if then he shall be thrust from thee by the sword, and thou be dragged to prison, and thine enemies prowl around thee like wolves for the blood of the lamb; And if thou shouldst be cast into the pit, or into the hands of murderers, and the sentence of death passed upon thee; if thou be cast into the deep; if the billowing surge conspire against thee; if fierce winds become thine enemy; if the heavens gather blackness, and all the elements combine to hedge up the way; and above all, if the very jaws of hell shall gape open the mouth wide after thee, know thou, my son, that all these things shall give thee experience, and shall be for thy good. The Son of Man hath descended below them all. Art thou greater than he? Therefore, hold on thy way, and the priesthood shall remain with thee; for their bounds are set, they cannot pass. Thy days are known, and thy years shall not be numbered less; therefore, fear not what man can do, for God shall be with you forever and ever."

His days were numbered and he did not die before his mission was finished. As a summation I quote the following:

(D&C 135:7) They were innocent of any crime, as they had often been proved before, and were only confined in jail by the conspiracy of traitors and wicked men; and their innocent blood on the floor of Carthage jail is a broad seal affixed to â??Mormonismâ? that cannot be rejected by any court on earth, and their innocent blood on the escutcheon of the State of Illinois, with the broken faith of the State as pledged by the governor, is a witness to the truth of the everlasting gospel that all the world cannot impeach; and their innocent blood on the banner of liberty, and on the magna charta of the United States, is an ambassador for the religion of Jesus Christ, that will touch the hearts of honest men among all nations; and their innocent blood, with the innocent blood of all the martyrs under the altar that John saw, will cry unto the Lord of Hosts till he avenges that blood on the earth. Amen."

[ldsquest]

Verse 6 of D&C 135 says, "Hyrum Smith was forty-four years old in February, 1844, and

Joseph Smith was thirty-eight in December, 1843; and henceforward their names will be

classed among the martyrs of religion; and the reader in every nation will be reminded

that the Book of Mormon, and this book of Doctrine and Covenants of the church, cost the

best blood of the nineteenth century".

Is this concept of classifying them as "the best blood of the nineteenth century" sinful

in the sense that it elevates two Mormons above other Latter-day Saints?

"They were innocent of any crime, as they had often been proved before, and were only

confined in jail by the conspiracy of traitors and wicked men".

Assuming Hyrum and Smith were only jailed for having Christian beliefs, were there

others of their era (Baptists, Methodists, etc) who also went to jail and/or were killed

for having Christian beliefs?

Did this group of "traitors and wicked men" only go after Joseph and his jailed companions

or did they also make other Mormons and non-Mormons martyrs?

Regards,

Pete

[LeSellers]

Would you consider Joan of Arc a Martyr?

No.

I believe she was a religiously motivated patriot. It was France she died for, not Catholicism. Her trial was ecclesiastical (ostensibly for heresy), but the motivation of her accusers and the prosecution was purely political. The trial was, after all, held by nominal Catholics against a Catholic woman.

Lehi

[Vex]

No.

I believe she was a religiously motivated patriot. It was France she died for, not Catholicism. Her trial was ecclesiastical (ostensibly for heresy), but the motivation of her accusers and the prosecution was purely political. The trial was, after all, held by nominal Catholics against a Catholic woman.

Lehi

Correct me if I'm wrong, she was then considered a martyr after later review of the case stated she was innocent.

She was captured by the English, tried by an ecclesiastical court and burned at the stake when she was nineteen years old. Twenty-four years later, the Holy See reviewed the decision of the ecclesiastical court, found her innocent, and declared her a martyr.

The Holy See being the following

The Holy See is the episcopal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, commonly known as the Pope, and is the preeminent episcopal see of the Roman Catholic Church, forming the central government of the Church.

...

While all episcopal sees can be referred to as holy, the expression "the Holy See" (without further specification) is normally used in international relations (as well as in the canon law of the Catholic Church)[2] to refer to the central government of the Catholic Church.

[annewandering]

He wasn't exactly trying to be a martyr so how did he miss a cut?

WE consider him a martyr. It hardly matters if you do not.

[LeSellers]

Correct me if I'm wrong, she was then considered a martyr after later review of the case stated she was innocent.

So, does it take a pronouncement by the Catholic Church to declare someone a martyr?

The fact remains that she was executed for her political stance, not her religious views. As oyu said, she was later declared innocent of heresy. Her offenses were political, the religous charges were a mere convenience.

This is exactly the opposite of the case with Joseph: for him, the political charge (treason) was the subterfuge, the religious was the primary. I believe it was Dan Jones who, leaving the jail at Carthage, received a warning not to attempt a return. The "guard" told him that there was no chance that Joseph would leave Carthage alive, because "[they] had gone to too much trouble to get him there," that effort being the Expositor incident. Thomas Sharp and fiends* knew Joseph and the Saints would have to do something about the rag, and they knew they could rouse the rabble into a mod. Sharp had been attacking the Saints, Joseph in particular, for years.

*Thanks to Boris and Natasha (Rocky and Friends).

Lehi

[Vex]

So, does it take a pronouncement by the Catholic Church to declare someone a martyr?

The fact remains that she was executed for her political stance, not her religious views. As oyu said, she was later declared innocent of heresy. Her offenses were political, the religous charges were a mere convenience.

This is exactly the opposite of the case with Joseph: for him, the political charge (treason) was the subterfuge, the religious was the primary. I believe it was Dan Jones who, leaving the jail at Carthage, received a warning not to attempt a return. The "guard" told him that there was no chance that Joseph would leave Carthage alive, because "[they] had gone to too much trouble to get him there," that effort being the Expositor incident. Thomas Sharp and fiends* knew Joseph and the Saints would have to do something about the rag, and they knew they could rouse the rabble into a mod. Sharp had been attacking the Saints, Joseph in particular, for years.

*Thanks to Boris and Natasha (Rocky and Friends).

Lehi

And your point? She was still killed for her beliefs and/or cause (whether political or religious), which fits the definition of martyr. Joseph also fits the definition of martyr. So do a slew of others fit the definition of martyr.

[Lightbearer]

It is amazing to what lengths the enemies of the Prophet Joseph Smith will go to to try to discredit his "martyr status" so as to belittle him as being a Prophet of God. Just one point about defending himself disqualifying him as a martyr, does anyone have the charity to consider that perhaps he (like Peter did) was defending his brother and friends? Not just trying to "save his on skin"? Just maybe he was not thinking of himself, if he had he would have stayed away from Carthage, he would have continued westward, but his "friends" called him a coward, so he went back and faced certain death at the hands of bloodthirsty men. Yes he used a defective pistol (6 shots tops) against a mob of over 100 armed men? I am tired of self-righteous hypocrites who try to tarnish his memory... just like the demons in the flesh who thirsted for his blood and who painted their cowardly faces to put him to death and then drove the Saints (many who became martyrs that died on the journey) to a desert wasteland that nobody wanted beyond the boundaries of the United States. So please do not rejoice like the devils in hell did at the cold blooded murder of innocent men who trusted in the Lord and who will receive the martyr's crown if anyone in history does.

[Mudcat]

It is amazing to what lengths the enemies of the Prophet Joseph Smith will go to to try to discredit his "martyr status" so as to belittle him as being a Prophet of God.

In part, I feel that members of other Christian faiths are the ones who take issue with his martyrdom. I don't think I have heard an athiest make the comment that he shouldn't be considered a martyr. Granted there are many Christians who disagree with the possibility of JS being a Christian.

So I think it might be better termed, that some might not consider him a Christian martyr and self define martyrdom with very microscopic view.

I think regardless of how someone feels about him being a Christian is irrelevant to his martyrdom, and such a view is not consistent of widely accepted definitions of martyrdom.

[emeliza]

In part, I feel that members of other Christian faiths are the ones who take issue with his martyrdom. I don't think I have heard an athiest make the comment that he shouldn't be considered a martyr.

I thought Jaybear was an atheist.

[Sentinus]

He wasn't exactly trying to be a martyr so how did he miss a cut?

WE consider him a martyr. It hardly matters if you do not.

By the same logic I could say that it hardly matters if you do.

I am following the intent of this message board which is to discuss thoughts and opinions to learn from each other, why are you here?

Regards,

Sentinus

[Sentinus]

It is amazing to what lengths the enemies of the Prophet Joseph Smith will go to to try to discredit his "martyr status" so as to belittle him as being a Prophet of God. Just one point about defending himself disqualifying him as a martyr, does anyone have the charity to consider that perhaps he (like Peter did) was defending his brother and friends? Not just trying to "save his on skin"? Just maybe he was not thinking of himself, if he had he would have stayed away from Carthage, he would have continued westward, but his "friends" called him a coward, so he went back and faced certain death at the hands of bloodthirsty men. Yes he used a defective pistol (6 shots tops) against a mob of over 100 armed men? I am tired of self-righteous hypocrites who try to tarnish his memory... just like the demons in the flesh who thirsted for his blood and who painted their cowardly faces to put him to death and then drove the Saints (many who became martyrs that died on the journey) to a desert wasteland that nobody wanted beyond the boundaries of the United States. So please do not rejoice like the devils in hell did at the cold blooded murder of innocent men who trusted in the Lord and who will receive the martyr's crown if anyone in history does.

It is amazing to what lengths the enemies of the Prophet Joseph Smith will go to to try to discredit his "martyr status" so as to belittle him as being a Prophet of God.

What I find amazing is how quickly many LDS will jump to conclusions regarding intent when discussing Joseph Smith and all things "Mormon". My opinions on Martyr status have absolutely nothing to do with why I would or wouldn't consider him a prophet.

Maybe its just easier for you to assume everyone is out to persecute you and your beliefs instead of simply sticking to the discussion at hand.

Regards,

Sentinus

[Lightbearer]

What I find amazing is how quickly many LDS will jump to conclusions regarding intent when discussing Joseph Smith and all things "Mormon". My opinions on Martyr status have absolutely nothing to do with why I would or wouldn't consider him a prophet.

Very slick, you should be in politics you are very good a dodging. So you consider yourself an enemy of the Prophet Joseph Smith? Really it doesn't take a rocket scientist or a prophet to figure out your "intent" for being here.

Maybe its just easier for you to assume everyone is out to persecute you and your beliefs instead of simply sticking to the discussion at hand.

I am sticking to the discussion at hand, you are the one derailing this thread with your "Martyr denial" remarks, you also seem to be the one with the persecution complex you even dedicated a whole thread to wanting to know why posters on this board bristle at you subtle condescending attitude. This is a Mormon Apologetics board and I am here to defend the Church and it's teachings from those who want to undermine and ridicule my faith, if you do not like it when people do not bow and surrender to your innuendo and delusions of superiority then I am sorry maybe you should go to the "board which cannot be named" and you may find a fan club there.

Oh and I did notice that you did not address any of my defense of the prophet... just averted and complained.

[Scott Lloyd]

Not 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.

Antagonistic or not, you are laboring under a misconception.

I have never encountered a normative definition of martyr that requires a person must passively accept the infliction of injury or death for him to qualify for martyrhood. Rather, it is the refusal to renounce one's convictions as a condition for being allowed to live that makes one a martyr.

CFR

My comments reflect an interview I did a couple of weeks ago with Jeffrey Walker and Gordon Madsen, two attorneys and scholars working on the Legal and Business Series of the Joseph Smith Papers Project.

In short, the charge stemming from the destruction of the Expositor was riot (for which they had already been acquitted by the municipal court in Nauvoo, by the way; this was double jeopardy). But Joseph and Hyrum were not held on that charge; they and others posted bond. They were held on a charge of treason, for which bail could not be posted.

It was and still is highly irregular to charge a person with treason in connection with a state statute. Treason is a federal offense pertaining to disloyalty to the nation. In fact, there are only two other instances in the history of the United States in which a person was charged with treason in connection with a state statute. Both of them bore no resemblance to the Carthage case, and both of them occurred afterward and thus could not have been a precedent.

The treason charge was a manipulation of the law to get the Smith brothers held in jail at Carthage, where they would be vulnerable to the mob that killed them. The grounds for the treason charge are unclear, but underpinning it was Joseph's declaration of martial law to protect the people of Nauvoo from mob violence, a fear that was justified, as later events bear out. So, as Walker expressed to me, Joseph and Hyrum were martyred for trying to protect their people. Their presence in the jail on that day was not due to the destruction of the Expositor.

Incidentally, my article based on my interview with Walker and Madsen will be published in the Church News this Saturday.

[Scott Lloyd]

I prefer the first option: 1. a person who willingly suffers death rather than renounce his or her religion.

In other words, faced with a choice of renouncing his convictions or being killed, the martyr chooses the latter.

That was the case with Joseph Smith.

That the victim would have taken an avenue of defense or escape, if one had been available, does not in any way nullify the fact that the victim was a martyr.

In an effort to define martyrdom, what you are actually defining is suicide.

[Sentinus]

Very slick, you should be in politics you are very good a dodging. So you consider yourself an enemy of the Prophet Joseph Smith? Really it doesn't take a rocket scientist or a prophet to figure out your "intent" for being here.

I am sticking to the discussion at hand, you are the one derailing this thread with your "Martyr denial" remarks, you also seem to be the one with the persecution complex you even dedicated a whole thread to wanting to know why posters on this board bristle at you subtle condescending attitude. This is a Mormon Apologetics board and I am here to defend the Church and it's teachings from those who want to undermine and ridicule my faith, if you do not like it when people do not bow and surrender to your innuendo and delusions of superiority then I am sorry maybe you should go to the "board which cannot be named" and you may find a fan club there.

Oh and I did notice that you did not address any of my defense of the prophet... just averted and complained.

Another great example of what I was talking about.

Very slick, you should be in politics you are very good a dodging

You can't "dodge" when no specific question was asked to an individual. Feel free to assume I am dodging if you ask ME a specific question and I refuse to answer but instead move on to something else.

So you consider yourself an enemy of the Prophet Joseph Smith?

As I have said before NO. Nor do I consider myself an enemy of the LDS church. However it is clear that you and others here have made other assumptions.

Really it doesn't take a rocket scientist or a prophet to figure out your "intent" for being here.

Thats it keep thinking you have all the answers its safer that way.

I am sticking to the discussion at hand, you are the one derailing this thread with your "Martyr denial" remarks,

Reread the thread and pay close attention, I derailed nothing. Orion88 asked a question to which others responded. Upon further investigatiion you will find that Mudcat the creator of the thread more than once continued kind and respectful dialogue with me regarding the "Martyr" topic. In fact other people of the LDS pursuasion also participated. But whatever it takes to paint me in the light you want... Right?

you also seem to be the one with the persecution complex you even dedicated a whole thread to wanting to know why posters on this board bristle at you subtle condescending attitude.

Funny I never said anything about persecution complex. More assumption on your part.

You also must not have read my thread that you deemed evidence of my "persecution complex", it was a sincere attempt to find common ground with posters like you, who have already determined my intent and reasons for posting here without first even coming close to trying to know me. In fact I find your willingness to bring up said thread in the light you have as further proof that you are not interested in being understanding or considerate with me, only in attempting to make me out to be the villain. Sorry for trying to reach out and build bridges of understanding. Feel free to ignore my posts there are others here willing to play nice, and leave assumptions behind.

this is a Mormon Apologetics board and I am here to defend the Church and it's teachings from those who want to undermine and ridicule my faith,

You are right "This is a Mormon apologetics board" but I see no reason to assume or create animosity where none exists. Nor, do I see any reason to become spiteful or antagonistic, if you have a question regarding my intent feel free to ask a clarifying question instead of assuming you already know. Since nothing I have said here was intentionally done in an "attacking" manner you should have no need to "defend" anything. I have said multiple times I am here to learn and am willing to be corrected. Are you?

if you do not like it when people do not bow and surrender to your innuendo and delusions of superiority then I am sorry maybe you should go to the "board which cannot be named" and you may find a fan club there.

WOW such strong words in response. I wish for noone to bow down, nor have I attempted to provide illusion to my superiority. In fact I can demostrate many times here that I have been willing to state that I was wrong or that someone else had made good or even great points. My willingness to bow out and be agreeable can be shown in this very thread. Yet all you see is negative, and then suggest I go elsewhere to post & gain a fan club. If I was interested in a fan club surely I wouldn't come here. I am however interested in discussing with LDS people my thoughts and opinions, and learn from their response and opinions. I am learning even now in my dialogue with you. Good thing I don't judge the whole by the actions of the few. Where else do you reccomend I go to discuss with mainly LDS?

Seriously man relax, and communicate.

In my supposed "persecution thread" I made mention that I felt that too many times we as posters get zeroed in on the 10% difference and ignore the 90% that we hold in common. When I talk with you and other LDS I assume only that we hold way more in common than we hold in difference. If you and I were neighbors or even in the same ward boundries I am sure we would get along fine. Try and remember that even posters here are your neighbor. If you feel I am out of line feel free to call me on it anytime in a PM, or E-mail, I assure you that any misunderstanding will not go uncorrected, and if offense is taken and I am in the wrong you will find I am quick to apologise.

Regards,

Sentinus

Regards,

Sentinus

[Sentinus]

Antagonistic or not, you are laboring under a misconception.

I have never encountered a normative definition of martyr that requires a person must passively accept the infliction of injury or death for him to qualify for martyrhood. Rather, it is the refusal to renounce one's convictions as a condition for being allowed to live that makes one a martyr.

My comments reflect an interview I did a couple of weeks ago with Jeffrey Walker and Gordon Madsen, two attorneys and scholars working on the Legal and Business Series of the Joseph Smith Papers Project.

In short, the charge stemming from the destruction of the Expositor was riot (for which they had already been acquitted by the municipal court in Nauvoo, by the way; this was double jeopardy). But Joseph and Hyrum were not held on that charge; they and others posted bond. They were held on a charge of treason, for which bail could not be posted.

It was and still is highly irregular to charge a person with treason in connection with a state statute. Treason is a federal offense pertaining to disloyalty to the nation. In fact, there are only two other instances in the history of the United States in which a person was charged with treason in connection with a state statute. Both of them bore no resemblance to the Carthage case, and both of them occurred afterward and thus could not have been a precedent.

The treason charge was a manipulation of the law to get the Smith brothers held in jail at Carthage, where they would be vulnerable to the mob that killed them. The grounds for the treason charge are unclear, but underpinning it was Joseph's declaration of martial law to protect the people of Nauvoo from mob violence, a fear that was justified, as later events bear out. So, as Walker expressed to me, Joseph and Hyrum were martyred for trying to protect their people. Their presence in the jail on that day was not due to the destruction of the Expositor.

Incidentally, my article based on my interview with Walker and Madsen will be published in the Church News this Saturday.

Perhaps I am under a misconception, one that after discussing this topic here with people has brought my ideas regarding the matter under the microscope. This to me is the HUGE advantage of posting here and elsewhere, I can test my ideas against others and see if they stand up to scrutinty. I feel you and others in this thread have offered good explanation for why they would consider Joseph a Martyr, and I have come to at least understand and appreciate this in a much broader way. I may not ultimately agree, but I can at least more clearly understand.

If you think about it PM me a link to your article I would love to read it, so far it sounds very well written and reasoned.

Regards,

Sentinus

[wenglund]

I feel inclined to say that I have found Sentinus' interactions on this thread and others to be reasonable, respectful, and at times enlightening even though they differ in opinion from my own. And, I think we all would do well to encourage his mode of discussion rather than rushing to judgement and condemning him/her and what he/she says.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Scott Lloyd]

Perhaps I am under a misconception, one that after discussing this topic here with people has brought my ideas regarding the matter under the microscope. This to me is the HUGE advantage of posting here and elsewhere, I can test my ideas against others and see if they stand up to scrutinty. I feel you and others in this thread have offered good explanation for why they would consider Joseph a Martyr, and I have come to at least understand and appreciate this in a much broader way. I may not ultimately agree, but I can at least more clearly understand.

If you think about it PM me a link to your article I would love to read it, so far it sounds very well written and reasoned.

Regards,

Sentinus

As it happens, the Church News Web site is now free of charge and accessible without subscription. Thus, you may freely access my articles and all of the Church News content at www.ldschurchnews.com

My story will be published in the print edition on Saturday and will be up on the Web by then at the latest, but I'm going to try to talk the editors into posting it on the Web before then.

[Sentinus]

As it happens, the Church News Web site is now free of charge and accessible without subscription. Thus, you may freely access my articles and all of the Church News content at www.ldschurchnews.com

My story will be published in the print edition on Saturday and will be up on the Web by then at the latest, but I'm going to try to talk the editors into posting it on the Web before then.

Thanks I was unaware of that.

Kind regards,

Sentinus

[Sentinus]

I feel inclined to say that I have found Sentinus' interactions on this thread and others to be reasonable, respectful, and at times enlightening even though they differ in opinion from my own. And, I think we all would do well to encourage his mode of discussion rather than rushing to judgement and condemning him/her and what he/she says.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thank you for your kindness and understanding, it will not go unappreciated nor have the many responses that you have offered here and in other threads.

Regards,

Sentinus

[hagoth7]

Those who wanted Joseph dead were building upon the initial treason charges by claiming Joseph's statements regarding Daniel 2 amounted to treason.

That reality directly supports the premise that his beliefs, and his testimony, were directly related to his death.

[Sentinus]

Those who wanted Joseph dead were building upon the initial treason charges by claiming Joseph's statements regarding Daniel 2 amounted to treason.

That reality directly supports the premise that his beliefs, and his testimony, were directly related to his death.

I have not heard this before, can you share any further info on the matter?

Regards,

Sentinus

[Mudcat]

I thought Jaybear was an atheist.

I suppose I stand corrected, I didn't know what Jaybear was.

You've blown my theory, thats for sure.

I'll have to go back to the top secret lab and put in a "pinch" of Godlessness to the formula.

[hagoth7]

I have not heard this before, can you share any further info on the matter?

Sure,

Daniel 2:44 reads:

And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

For centuries, God-fearing Christians like Isaac Newton looked forward to the fulfillment of this prophecy.

Like many people of his day (Daniel was a hot topic in the 1840's), the prophet Joseph commented frequently on Daniel.

However, on June 7, 1844, the Nauvou Expositor published the following distortion of Joseph's meaning, as a criticism for the viability of Joseph's candidacy for president of the United States:

"You are voting for a man who contends all governments are to be put down and the one established upon its ruins..."

(Oaks & Hill, Carthage Conspiracy, p. 14)

Such a statement was an alarmist attempt to distort Joseph's religious commentary on Daniel, and an endeavor to frame his comments not only as unpatriotic, but as outright treason. Note this was in the context of a national election. It was yellow journalism at its worst. And it was intended to whip up the local people into a frenzy against Joseph - essentially crying "fire" in a crowded room.

Notably, it was this same publication of the Expositor which led the City Council in Nauvou (where the Expositor was published) the very next day to begin debating the Expositor's apparent intent of inciting mob violence, and which resulted in the City Council declaring the Expositor a public nuisance the following Monday (three days after that Expositor issue). Right or wrong, the press was declared a public nuisance and destroyed. Thus to deny that Joseph's commentary on Daniel and his subsequent martyrdom are unrelated would require ignoring the clear trail of evidence.

To further demonstrate the link between the two (Joseph's affirmation of Daniel and his martyrdom) goes beyond the Expositor issue, in case Joseph was freed from the initial charges at Carthage, an affidavit claiming that Joseph's affirmation of Daniel amounted to treason had already been written up and signed by his enemies, to make sure they could hold him at Carthage long enough for mob sentiment to eventually have its way (i.e. to kill him).

So there are two connections. Whether we refer to the claims of the Expositor in Nauvou on June 7th, or of the affidavit in Carthage a few days later, Joseph was killed, at least in part, for believing and teaching Daniel's prophecies. He was thus killed for his faith, and for his testimony.

(That Daniel also foretold the timing of Joseph's martyrdom is perhaps a separate matter.)

============================================

Also, to the OP that Joseph's martyrdom was clearly seen not only as a release, but as a viable victory over the power of his enemies:

On June 18, 1844, days before he surrendered to trumped-up charges which he said would result in his death, Joseph stated:

"I would welcome death rather than submit to this oppression [mob rule];

and it would be sweet, oh, sweet, to rest in the grave

rather than submit to this oppression, agitation,

annoyance, confusion, and alarm upon alarm any longer.

....I do not regard my own life...for what can our enemies do?

Only kill the body, and their power is then at an end...."

(History of the Church, vol. VI, p. 499-500)