Joseph Smith's Martyrdom

[Cold Steel]

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. ... How do LDS interpret this triumph?

The same might be said of Christ. Quite often God allows the enemies of His work to seemingly triumph, but then turns it around on their heads. To think, Joseph Smith's enemies could not stop the work from going forth. It came as a stone without hands, a Kingdom that would not be left to another people. What did the martyrdom prove? It proved that this work was not dependent on Joseph Smith or any other man. Consider the prophecy about temples dotting the Earth. It's being fulfilled now, in our day, and who could have foreseen it? Unlike Muhammad and so many others who popped up and then were gone, leaving no one after them with any authority, Joseph and Hyrum Smith simply were the first of many who would follow. And if we're right about the messianic prophecies, with one of David and one of Joseph, it constitutes a fulfillment, for Messiah ben Joseph was said to be a restorer, one who would facilitate the gathering of Israel back to its homelands, he would restore temple worship and be killed by the anti-messianic forces. He also was associated with the return of Elijah.

Joseph was told in 1839 that if he remained true to his covenants, he had about five years left to complete his work. As he neared the 1844 time frame he showed increasing anxiety in completing that work. Finally, when he conferred all the keys of authority he held to the Twelve in the months preceding his death, he felt a huge release, according to Wilford Woodruff and others, similar to that of a school boy being let out for recess. He seemed to know that his work was finished, and he said on at least one occasion that while he had work to do he had the promise of his life, but that now he was as liable as any other man to die. Within weeks he and his brother Hyrum were killed.

Addendum: A recent show on the History Channel had a number of people who commented on how Jesus' first coming was a failure. Despite their learned backgrounds, they showed almost no knowledge or comprehension of the atonement. To them, Jesus would return the second time and "do it right this time." I was astounded, but that's apparently how some people feel. We can't be too anxious to write off a work of God because a principal is murdered, stoned or otherwise disposed of. Not only was Jesus murdered, so was Peter, Paul, Stephen and many others. In the new world, Alma restrains his companion from using his priesthood power to save Christians being put to the flame. Sometimes the Lord requires such.

[Vex]

Sentinus,

I know I'm jumping in a bit late, but bare with me...

Would you consider Joan of Arc a Martyr?

You never did answer this question. Would you mind terribly if you do so next reply? Thank you.

[wenglund]

For additional commentary and a well documented summary of the events leading up to Joseph's murder, see "Carthage Conspiracy Reconsidered: A Second Look at the Murder of Joseph and Hyrum Smith." (See in particular pages 8 and 9 and the top of page 12 for the rash of charges leveled against Joseph and the ploy of using multiple warrants to prevent his leaving Carthage).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Anijen]

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.

Ahh Mudcat you and Selek have a way with words.

a "pinch" of Godlessness

Classic!

[Cold Steel]

...

[Sentinus]

Sentinus,

You never did answer this question. Would you mind terribly if you do so next reply? Thank you.

I'm not familiar with the facts regarding her death. If she fought back and died under protest violently then no, if she went to her death willingly but protesting her innocence then yes, again while I am sure others may consider her death a martyrdom the way she endured death is parimount to my decision. Again I reiterate my conviction is only opinion and not something consider a matter of fact.

Regards,

Sentinus

[USU78]

I'm not familiar with the facts regarding her death. If she fought back and died under protest violently then no, if she went to her death willingly but protesting her innocence then yes, again while I am sure others may consider her death a martyrdom the way she endured death is parimount to my decision. Again I reiterate my conviction is only opinion and not something consider a matter of fact.

I do not vouch for the accuracy of the traditions concerning la Pucelle. She is said both to have recanted her story of her angelic visitors (possibly after her rape in prison) and to have recanted her recanting scant hours and/or days later.

It is quite possible this is Burgundian or Norman/English propaganda, attempting to discredit her. I wouldn't put it past anybody involved, the good Duke or Henry VI or any of their ministers or servants.

Every story I've read shows her thereafter meekly accepting her fate and asking that a cross be held up so that she could focus on it as she burned.

Revisionist history? Wishful thinking?

You decide.

If you'd like to look at a highly subjective and sympathetic treatment of Jeanne d'Arc's story, see if you can find Mark Twain's treatment. It's hard to come by these days, but will definitely bring a tear to you eye.

My own views are too clouded by Shaw, Twain, and Shakespeare to be dispassionate.

USU "Let the Frogs have their Sainte Nacionale, for Heaven's sake" 78

[Vex]

I'm not familiar with the facts regarding her death. If she fought back and died under protest violently then no, if she went to her death willingly but protesting her innocence then yes, again while I am sure others may consider her death a martyrdom the way she endured death is parimount to my decision. Again I reiterate my conviction is only opinion and not something consider a matter of fact.

Regards,

Sentinus

I imagine that she did fight, since they were at war with Britain. I can always accept your opinion as your opinion, though I may not agree with it. I think strictly defining a martyr as someone who willingly goes out without a fight seems to be a little narrow sighted and as such would rule out a lot of martyrs from history. This is why I think martyr is defined the way it is in the dictionary (with multiple definitions). Dying for your beliefs, whether political or religious, would mark a man as a martyr. Which raises an interesting question; could soldiers then be considered martyrs if they die in a war? I suppose they would just be accounted casualties of war and not martyrs of a government principle. Which would fly in the face of the Joan of Ark martyrdom.

My personal opinion on the matter is that Joan of Ark is a martyr, as are soldiers who fight in the war, as are those who die avoiding a war. They die with their principles for which they lived written in their hands and heart. Joseph fired back from a revolver blindly into a sea of men. Surely the prophet knew that a few rounds from the revolver would do nothing to stem the tide. He died for his beliefs and as such is a martyr in the strictest definition of the word. I suppose the definition of the word martyr would need to be called into question then if one is to apply willingly forfeiting ones life (which would bring up another interesting aspect of a prisoner put to death)... to which then must alter the Catholic stance on the subject as well. It's quite the sticky floor to which we subscribe the definitions of words isn't it?

[Sentinus]

I imagine that she did fight, since they were at war with Britain. I can always accept your opinion as your opinion, though I may not agree with it. I think strictly defining a martyr as someone who willingly goes out without a fight seems to be a little narrow sighted and as such would rule out a lot of martyrs from history. This is why I think martyr is defined the way it is in the dictionary (with multiple definitions). Dying for your beliefs, whether political or religious, would mark a man as a martyr. Which raises an interesting question; could soldiers then be considered martyrs if they die in a war? I suppose they would just be accounted casualties of war and not martyrs of a government principle. Which would fly in the face of the Joan of Ark martyrdom.

My personal opinion on the matter is that Joan of Ark is a martyr, as are soldiers who fight in the war, as are those who die avoiding a war. They die with their principles for which they lived written in their hands and heart. Joseph fired back from a revolver blindly into a sea of men. Surely the prophet knew that a few rounds from the revolver would do nothing to stem the tide. He died for his beliefs and as such is a martyr in the strictest definition of the word. I suppose the definition of the word martyr would need to be called into question then if one is to apply willingly forfeiting ones life (which would bring up another interesting aspect of a prisoner put to death)... to which then must alter the Catholic stance on the subject as well. It's quite the sticky floor to which we subscribe the definitions of words isn't it?

In the case of Joan her battlefield experience would have nothing to do with my thought process on her Martyr status. IF she did in fact recant her angelic visions, then this IMO would be the deal breaker. Again was she unjustly murdered while defending her rights and country, most definately.

I guess in the end using some of the definitions given we are all martyrs. I guess that is why I reserve such a microscopic view of the term. If everyone is special then special becomes nothing.

It surely is a "sticky floor", I liked that.

Regards,

Sentinus

For USU78 http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/2874

[Vex]

It surely is a "sticky floor", I liked that.

Regards,

Sentinus

For USU78 http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/2874

I found it fitting in this discussion.

[Scott Lloyd]

In the case of Joan her battlefield experience would have nothing to do with my thought process on her Martyr status. IF she did in fact recant her angelic visions, then this IMO would be the deal breaker. Again was she unjustly murdered while defending her rights and country, most definately.

I guess in the end using some of the definitions given we are all martyrs. I guess that is why I reserve such a microscopic view of the term. If everyone is special then special becomes nothing.

It surely is a "sticky floor", I liked that.

Regards,

Sentinus

While I am not a zealous advocate of Wikipedia, this passage from its entry on "martyr" does seem to apply to our discussion here. I am putting portions I want to emphasize in italics.

In the context of church history, from the time of the persecution of early Christians in the Roman Empire, being a martyr indicates a person who is killed for maintaining his or her religious belief, knowing that this will almost certainly result in imminent death (though without intentionally seeking death). Christian martyrs sometimes declined to defend themselves at all, in what they see as a reflection of Jesus' willing sacrifice. However, the definition of martyrdom is not specifically restricted to the Christian faith.

Usage of "martyr" is also common among Arab Christians (i.e. anyone killed in relation to Christianity or a Christian community, indicating that the English word "martyr" may not actually be a proper equivalent of its commonly ascribed Arabic translation.

Though often religious in nature, martyrdom can be applied to a secular context as well. The term is sometimes applied to those who use violence, such as those who die for a nation's glory during wartime. It may also apply to individuals who are killed or hurt in the struggle for independence, civil rights etc (eg. Bhagat Singh).

What I draw from the foregoing is that, while some martyrs passively accept death, that is not requisite for a person to be regarded as a martyr, even in the context of religion.

Incidentally, the apostle Paul (whom, I dare say, Christians would universally regard as a martyr for his faith) did not acquiesce to his own death. He exhausted every legal avenue of appeal to prevent it, it would seem.

[Scott Lloyd]

For additional commentary and a well documented summary of the events leading up to Joseph's murder, see "Carthage Conspiracy Reconsidered: A Second Look at the Murder of Joseph and Hyrum Smith." (See in particular pages 8 and 9 and the top of page 12 for the rash of charges leveled against Joseph and the ploy of using multiple warrants to prevent his leaving Carthage).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

This is a good article, Wade. Thanks for the link.

I have a comment on this paragraph:

The act of treason charged against the Mormons consisted in the alleged levying of war against the state by declaring martial law in Nauvoo, and ordering out the Legion to resist the posse comitatus. Their actual guilt would depend on circumstances. If their opponents [the anti-Mormons] merely intended to use the process of the law as cates paw to compass the possession of their persons for the purpose of murdering them afterwards, as the sequel demonstrates the fact to be, it might well be doubted whether they [the Mormons] were guilty of treason.

In my interview with Gordon Madsen and Jeff Walker, Madsen addressed the matter of the alleged resistance to the posse comitatus. He said the fact is there was no resistance by anyone, Nauvoo Legion or otherwise, when the constable went to Nauvoo to serve the warrant on Joseph Smith and the others. Gov. Thomas Ford himself stated so in his History of Illinois. In fact, the Nauvoo Legion (a state-chartered citizen militia) had already been disbanded by the governor and required to surrender their state-issued arms.

Clearly, the charge of treason, including the allegation of resistance to the posse comitatus, was without merit and merely a ruse by the mob to get Joseph Smith held in Carthage, where he could be murdered easily.

[Scott Lloyd]

Lance Starr, who posts on this board, has written a well-reasoned paper on the matter of whether Joseph Smith was a martyr. It is on the FAIR Web site and can be accessed from this page:

http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai241.html

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Martyrs are almost always a great lift to any cause

From â??Praise to the Manâ?â?¦â?Traders and Tyrants shall fight him in vainâ?

[LeSellers]

â?Traders and Tyrants shall fight him in vainâ?

What do merchants have to do with anything?

"The Fighting Storekeepers".

Lehi

[Vex]

What do merchants have to do with anything?

"The Fighting Storekeepers".

Lehi

I wouldn't even have caught it if you didn't make a comment. Good on ya!

[Scott Lloyd]

I wouldn't even have caught it if you didn't make a comment. Good on ya!

For those who may not be familiar with it, the line from the hymn "Praise to the Man" that Pa Pa was endeavoring to quote reads: "Traitors and tyrants now fight him in vain."

[Analytics]

In no meaningful sense did his enemies achieve their goal. They wanted to destroy Mormonism.

That just isnâ??t trueâ??the mob accomplished exactly what they wanted to. The enemies really, really didnâ??t like a theocratic city-state in their backyard governed by an autocratic prophet/mayor/general, especially one that was growing in political and military power as immigrants were gathering to this political Zion with religious zeal. They didnâ??t like how Joseph Smith acted above the law.

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.

The reason why the church eventually got along is because it learned the hard lessons the mob was teaching it. The prophet is no longer the mayor/general of a city state. The saints no longer gather to one location creating an ever-growing and threatening concentration of political and military power. The churchâ??s leaders no longer hide behind its own army to avoid being held accountable to state and federal officials. The church now basically stays out of politics. And the church now embraces traditional family values.

If the church would have continued as it was, it would be embraced by the modern world as much as the FLDS church is.

[Sentinus]

That just isnâ??t trueâ??the mob accomplished exactly what they wanted to. The enemies really, really didnâ??t like a theocratic city-state in their backyard governed by an autocratic prophet/mayor/general, especially one that was growing in political and military power as immigrants were gathering to this political Zion with religious zeal. They didnâ??t like how Joseph Smith acted above the law.

The reason why the church eventually got along is because it learned the hard lessons the mob was teaching it. The prophet is no longer the mayor/general of a city state. The saints no longer gather to one location creating an ever-growing and threatening concentration of political and military power. The churchâ??s leaders no longer hide behind its own army to avoid being held accountable to state and federal officials. The church now basically stays out of politics. And the church now embraces traditional family values.

If the church would have continued as it was, it would be embraced by the modern world as much as the FLDS church is.

Very good points.

Regards,

Sentinus