What defines a martyr?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I looked in the dictionary and found these two definitions for a Martyr, they areâ?¦

1.a person who willingly suffers death rather than renounce his or her religion

2. a person who is put to death or endures great suffering on behalf of any belief, principle, or cause: a martyr to the cause of social justice.

I agree with these two definitions, BTW.

So why do so many say that Joseph and Hyrum were not martyrs? They love to note that Joseph fought back and so he did not willingly give his life. Is this a case of one group redefining what a martyr is to support their dogma?

I remember when Joseph agreed to return to Nauvoo and then on to Carthage. He (stopping along the way for one final look back) stated; I go as a lamb to the slaughter, but my conscience is void of offense toward God and man. He knew he was going to die and went anyway.

Are there any here who believe he was not a martyr?

Found this...

[hagoth7]

Apparently the operative rule is:

If they suffered or died for the beliefs, AND you respect them, then they're a martyr.

But if you don't like them and/or their beliefs, then they were simply grist for the mill.

I personally think that's a very dishonest approach, but that's the tack some take.

Hence the following:

"Their innocent blood...is an ambassador for the religion of Jesus Christ,

that will touch the hearts of honest men

among all nations..."

(D&C 135)

[kamenraider]

Joseph Smith, in his May 12, 1844 address, mentioned that the gospel would be preached to all the world by a witness. That's the meaning of the word 'martyr' in Greek as well. Could that possibly tie in to his March 9, 1841 remarks about an everlasting covenant being made between three personages before the earth was organized, relating to their dispensation of things to men on earth -- the Creator, the Redeemer, and the Witness or Testator?

[sleepyhead]

Hello PA Pa

>>>

1.a person who willingly suffers death rather than renounce his or her religion

2. a person who is put to death or endures great suffering on behalf of any belief, principle, or cause: a martyr to the cause of social justice.

I agree with these two definitions, BTW.

<<<

I'll go with these 2 definitions also. I don't believe JS was a martyr

1.a person who willingly suffers death rather than renounce his or her religion. The group who killed JS never asked him to renounce his religion. If he did renounce his visions they would have still wanted him dead.

2. a person who is put to death or endures great suffering on behalf of any belief, principle, or cause: a martyr to the cause of social justice. The death of JS had more to do with him being the general of his army.

>>>I remember when Joseph agreed to return to Nauvoo and then on to Carthage. He (stopping along the way for one final look back) stated; â??I go as a lamb to the slaughter, but my conscience is void of offense toward God and manâ?. He knew he was going to die and went anyway.<<<

Suppose an individual prior to his shipping out to Irag, Afghanistan, WW II, etc. has an inkling that they will die. Are these people all martyrs?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Suppose an individual prior to his shipping out to Irag, Afghanistan, WW II, etc. has an inkling that they will die. Are these people all martyrs?

No they are soldiers. God love em!

BTW, If you are free today, thank a solider.

[sleepyhead]

No they are soldiers. God love em!

BTW, If you are free today, thank a solider.

Hello Pa Pa,

So using the above definitions what is the basis for defining JS as a martyr. JS was a general of his little army.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Hello Pa Pa,

So using the above definitions what is the basis for defining JS as a martyr. JS was a general of his little army.

Do you mean the Army he would not use to save himself. Nice try.

[Scott Lloyd]

Hello Pa Pa,

So using the above definitions what is the basis for defining JS as a martyr.

Joseph Smith was imprisoned in Carthage as the result of a conspiracy by the mob to get him in a place where they could easily kill him. At any point up to this time, if he had renounced his religious principles, they would have left him alone. That makes him a martyr, since, by definition, a martyr is anyone who refuses to renounce his principles as a condition for being allowed to remain alive.

JS was a general of his little army.

This sneering little aside does violence to the truth. Joseph Smith was the leader of the Nauvoo Legion, a state-chartered militia. Such militias were very common in 19th Century America. The neighboring towns of Carthage and Warsaw each had a militia.

When the governor of Illinois demanded the members of Nauvoo Legion surrender their state-issued arms, they complied without resistance.

[birdgirl]

Hang on, I'm seeing different stories here. I heard recently that JS was arrested for ordering the destruction of a printing press. Is that really why he was arrested and did he do that? I read that he appointed himself the Lieutenant General (3 star, highest rank at the time) of the Nauvoo legion which was the largest standing militia in the US at the time. If that is true he was more than a soldier or run of the mill military leader. I also read that he sent for help but it was too late. Is that accurate? Was he murdered for saying he was a prophet or for polygamy, polyandry and political and financial reasons? Can the issues really be separated? I guess I'd like to know what facts are generally accepted and what is disputed. Great topic by the way.

[hagoth7]

...Was he murdered for saying he was a prophet or for polygamy, polyandry and political and financial reasons? Can the issues really be separated?

I'll repeat:

Apparently the operative rule is:

If they suffered or died for the beliefs, AND you respect them, then they're a martyr.

But if you don't like them and/or their beliefs, then they were simply grist for the mill.

I personally think that's a very dishonest approach, but that's the tack some take.

Hang on, I'm seeing different stories here. I heard recently that JS was arrested for ordering the destruction of a printing press. Is that really why he was arrested and did he do that?

It was a factor, yes. As the mayor of the city, whose city council ordered the press destroyed, yes, to that degree he was involved.

Did he physically destroy the press himself? Nope.

However, there were a number of other charges/affidavits his enemies were piling up against him - in order to keep him there long enough to have him killed. So it's just one of the initial charges laid against him that time around.

I read that he appointed himself the Lieutenant General (3 star, highest rank at the time) of the Nauvoo legion which was the largest standing militia in the US at the time.

Would it matter what he called himself - if it was within his legal purview? And yes, it was reportedly the largest standing militia.

If that is true he was more than a soldier or run of the mill military leader.

Almost everything about him is "more than run of the mill". :0)

I also read that he sent for help but it was too late. Is that accurate?

He told the militia to stand down - and to surrender their arms, in compliance with the state governor's request.

The only real appeal he made was at the end, "O Lord my God..." [...when I in awesome wonder...?]

I hope some of that is helpful. :0)

[Scott Lloyd]

Hang on, I'm seeing different stories here. I heard recently that JS was arrested for ordering the destruction of a printing press. Is that really why he was arrested and did he do that?

The events are very involved, and saying that Joseph and his companions were in jail at Carthage because they ordered the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor is a myopic way of looking at them.

Briefly stated, the Expositor was a libelous publication. The Nauvoo City Council declared it a public nuisance and ordered the press destroyed after its first and only issue. This offends our present-day First Amendment sensibilities, but the fact is, it was very common at the time. Twenty printing presses had been destroyed in Illinois alone over the previous two decades without any such reaction as the Expositor incident engendered.

The publishers, who were intent on getting Joseph arrested so he could be more vulnerable to mobs, rushed to the county seat, Carthage, and obtained a warrant against the council for riot. The council members were released following a habeas corpus hearing.

Because of the imminent danger of mob violence, the Nauvoo leaders declared martial law. For this, they were charged with treason. One legal scholar I spoke with recently said it was and is highly irregular to bring a treason charge in connection with a state statute. In fact, there have only been two other such cases in history; both were subsequent to this incident, and neither bear any resemblance to it.

But the charge got Joseph and Hyrum to Carthage, where they were placed in the jail to await trial, and where they were vulnerable to assassination by the mobs.

I read that he appointed himself the Lieutenant General (3 star, highest rank at the time) of the Nauvoo legion which was the largest standing militia in the US at the time.

Again, it was a state-chartered militia, and every militia needs a leader. The oppression already suffered by the Latter-day Saints previously in Missouri and Ohio, and the on-going threat of mob violence, made the existence of a town militia in Nauvoo necessary for protection and the preservation of the public peace.

If that is true he was more than a soldier or run of the mill military leader.

Are you aware of any incidence of Joseph abusing his power as a militia commander?

I also read that he sent for help but it was too late. Is that accurate?

I don't know what you have in mind with this. He employed legal counsel to defend himself in the courts. Do you mean he sent for people to come storm the jail or do battle with the mobs? I'm not aware of anything of that nature.

Was he murdered for saying he was a prophet or for polygamy, polyandry and political and financial reasons? Can the issues really be separated?

They don't need to be for him to qualify as a martyr. He refused to back down from his principles as a price for being allowed to remain alive. He thus qualifies.

[Jaybear]

At any point up to this time, if he had renounced his religious principles, they would have left him alone. That makes him a martyr, since, by definition, a martyr is anyone who refuses to renounce his principles as a condition for being allowed to remain alive.

While, if true, that would make Smith a martyr by any definition.

But, in your zeal to place a martyr's crown on Smith, you don't get to make up facts.

So where is your evidence that had he renounced his religious principles, they would have left him alone. I was under the impression that there was chaotic gunfight.

Just the facts please.

Briefly stated, the Expositor was a libelous publication. The Nauvoo City Council declared it a public nuisance and ordered the press destroyed after its first and only issue.

Let me guess, the Nauvoo City Counsel found the Expositor libelous, because it falsely accused the leaders of the LDS Church, including Smith of engaging in polygamy.

This offends our present-day First Amendment sensibilities, but the fact is, it was very common at the time.

Not just our first amendment sensibilities, but our due process sensibilities as well. What opportunity did Smith provide to the publishers to prove that the allegations were true, before their property was seized and destroyed?

Twenty printing presses had been destroyed in Illinois alone over the previous two decades without any such reaction as the Expositor incident engendered.

How many had been destroyed under color of authority.

BTW, lynchings and mob violence was also common back then. That doesn't mean mob violence was legal or acceptable.

[LeSellers]

I read that he appointed himself the Lieutenant General (3 star, highest rank at the time) of the Nauvoo legion which was the largest standing militia in the US at the time.

Sorry. You don't have a clue. He did not "appoint himself" as the General of the legion. All officers in the militias of the united States of America in the mid-XIX were elected by the soldiery. It was thus that Joseph got his commission and his rank.

It's too bad that the facts get in the way of your mindless attack, isn't it?

If that is true he was more than a soldier or run of the mill military leader.

Well, it wasn't true as you portrayed it, but he was a good leader, and fulfilled his office in a more than admirable fashion.

He, by the way, was not subject to mandatory militia training because of the leg operation in his childhood. But he volunteered anyway.

LTG* Joseph Smith did not appoint himself as the general of the legion but he did lead that unit, and he was much more than a run-of-the-mill military leader. The question is, does any of this have the first thing to do with his martyrdom? The answer is no because he did not die on the battlefield (well, it was the battlefield of good v. evil, and evil apparently won that day). He died because evil men trumped up charges against him, used the power of the state to incarcerate him illegally, and then to murder him in cold blood under color of yellow.

* I used the

modern

Army abbreviation for Lieutenant General

Lehi

[BCSpace]

Agreed. They are martyrs.

[sleepyhead]

Agreed. They are martyrs.

1.a person who willingly suffers death rather than renounce his or her religion

2. a person who is put to death or endures great suffering on behalf of any belief, principle, or cause: a martyr to the cause of social justice.

I don't see the connection between anything written so far that would indicate that JS was a martyr according to the above definitions. He was not told to renounce his religion and it wouldn't have mattered if he had. He was killed because of the hostilities between the mormons and the non mormons.

[bluebell]

1.a person who willingly suffers death rather than renounce his or her religion

2. a person who is put to death or endures great suffering on behalf of any belief, principle, or cause: a martyr to the cause of social justice.

I don't see the connection between anything written so far that would indicate that JS was a martyr according to the above definitions. He was not told to renounce his religion and it wouldn't have mattered if he had. He was killed because of the hostilities between the mormons and the non mormons.

Wasn't he killed because he was mormon? Isn't that the same thing as 'a person who is put to death on behalf of any belief'?

I'm guessing that if JS had denounced mormonism, he would not have died in Carthage in 1844. Is there reason to believe differently?

[Cold Steel]

I heard recently that JS was arrested for ordering the destruction of a printing press. Is that really why he was arrested and did he do that? I read that he appointed himself the Lieutenant General (3 star, highest rank at the time) of the Nauvoo legion which was the largest standing militia in the US at the time. If that is true he was more than a soldier or run of the mill military leader. I also read that he sent for help but it was too late. Is that accurate? Was he murdered for saying he was a prophet or for polygamy, polyandry and political and financial reasons? Can the issues really be separated? I guess I'd like to know what facts are generally accepted and what is disputed.

Yes, he was charged with the destruction of the Expositor, a paper he and the Nauvoo council had branded a nuisance. Although this goes against what is now First Amendment rights, it wasn't viewed the same by the Latter-day Saints. Keep in mind that the Mormons had been driven from city to city and from place to place, always either having to abandon their property or sell it for far below market value. These acts of violence were always preceded by false reports and incendiary articles. Even when the Expositor first began publication, mobs were forming and acts of violence being perpetrated against the saints. Under the laws of the time, the city elders (including Smith) were legally within their rights. And in the Book of Mormon, all men could worship as they chose; however, it was against the Nephite law for any group to rise against another group and denigrate their religion. The reason is obvious in that it always incites violence in the end. All of Missouri had been turned against the saints, even people who might otherwise have been happy to count them as neighbors. So I understand why they did it. Was it advisable in hindsight? Probably not, but Joseph had been told that if he were faithful to the Lord, that he had about five more years to minister. As that time approached, he formed up the quorums, dispensed the keys of the kingdom to the apostles and rushed the finishing of the temple.

As for his military rank, yes, it was an appropriate rank for a militia that size. Joseph had great skill as an organizer and as a military leader, and had led troops in combat. And, again, yes, polygamy, or plural marriage, had been commanded of the Lord; however, horrendous violence had begun long before it was revealed and practiced. Did he send for help? Only to appease those in his company who were pleading for it. Already he had sent large numbers of the saints back; he'd made numerous statements about going to his death and being butchered and, on the way to Carthage, he made those who were accompanying him go back. So, in that case, no, he had taken no act to save his own life. In fact, he only discharged his pistol in an attempt to save the others. When it was clear that they were going to enter the room, he tried jumping out the small window into the mob below. Although John Taylor had been hit just standing near the window, Joseph was found to have been hit by only three balls. How that was possible is anyone's guess.

According to Jewish legends, the Messiah ben Joseph (who was to precede the great Messiah ben David, or Christ), not only was supposed to be a descendant of Joseph, a restorer; he was supposed to be a military leader. His coming was associated with the return of Elijah, and a restoration of Israel as a nation and temple work. Much of the legend seems to shadow a prophecy in the Book of Mormon about the coming of a great prophet who would translate the record. Many feel there are numerous elements of the Messiah ben Joseph legend that correspond to Joseph Smith, including his death in a great battle with anti-messianic forces. Since Israel has already gathered as a nation, this legendary figure should have already appeared. The prophet could have escaped, but he came back. He could have ordered an accompanying force, but he didn't. Help was far away and, according to those with him, a spirit of deep despair had descended on them all. Miles away, various apostles received revelation that something was horribly wrong. Parley P. Pratt told his missionary companion that he felt a spirit of darkness, and he ordered him to put away all their pamphlets and books. Joseph had also called for the Twelve to return to Nauvoo before his death, so few doubt that he was unaware of his fate.

.

[birdgirl]

Sorry. You don't have a clue. He did not "appoint himself" as the General of the legion. All officers in the militias of the united States of America in the mid-XIX were elected by the soldiery. It was thus that Joseph got his commission and his rank.

It's too bad that the facts get in the way of your mindless attack, isn't it?

bird**** said:

If that is true he was more than a soldier or run of the mill military leader.

Well, it wasn't true as you portrayed it, but he was a good leader, and fulfilled his office in a more than admirable fashion.

He, by the way, was not subject to mandatory militia training because of the leg operation in his childhood. But he volunteered anyway.

LTG* Joseph Smith did not appoint himself as the general of the legion but he did lead that unit, and he was much more than a run-of-the-mill military leader. The question is, does any of this have the first thing to do with his martyrdom? The answer is no because he did not die on the battlefield (well, it was the battlefield of good v. evil, and evil apparently won that day). He died because evil men trumped up charges against him, used the power of the state to incarcerate him illegally, and then to murder him in cold blood under color of yellow.

* I used the

modern

Army abbreviation for Lieutenant General

Lehi

Dude, it was a sincere question- sorry you felt attacked (mindlessly even)! I just asked for clarification because I've heard so many different things, my bad. What is with the bird**** reference? Not cool but whatever, I can take it. You are a shining beacon of Christlike love. Thanks for the info.

[Joseph Antley]

The mob didn't kill Joseph Smith because of his position as head of the militia or because he approved the destruction of a printing press. They killed him and Hyrum (and they would have killed anyone who stood in their way) because of their religion.

Anyone who says otherwise is doing so either ignorantly or dishonestly, either way reflecting their desire to further discredit the Prophet in the fear that giving him status as a "martyr" gives credit to Mormonism, something they desperately don't want.

[Pahoran]

While, if true, that would make Smith a martyr by any definition.

But, in your zeal to place a martyr's crown on Smith, you don't get to make up facts.

That's right; only you get to do that. We leave it to you to "jaybear" us.

And Scott has not impinged upon your prerogatives here.

So where is your evidence that had he renounced his religious principles, they would have left him alone. I was under the impression that there was chaotic gunfight.

There is always a point after which the martyr's opportunity to renounce his faith ceases to operate. Once the kindling is fully alight, once the blade starts to descend, once the trapdoor is opened, once the first bullet is fired.

Which, of course, is why Scott said "At any point up to this time." Which, of course, you knew, which fully explains why you chose to ignore that and talk only about while the bullets were flying.

And to an honest commentator, a hundred muskets against one pepperbox pistol, one single-shot and a couple of walking sticks is a massacre. Only to the most determined spin-doctor does it become a "gunfight."

I never cease to be amused by the indignation which anti-Mormons such as yourself express at the fact that Joseph had the temerity to shoot back; amused, but not surprised. After all, those were your guys he was shooting at.

Just the facts please.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!

You missed your vocation, Jaybear. You should change the first part of your screenname to "Fozzie."

Let me guess, the Nauvoo City Counsel found the Expositor libelous, because it falsely accused the leaders of the LDS Church, including Smith of engaging in polygamy.

No.

The Expositor was libellous because it made a wilfully false description of plural marriage that was designed to inflame the local mobs to violence.

But of course, you don't think there was anything wrong with that. Like I said, those were your guys.

Not just our first amendment sensibilities, but our due process sensibilities as well. What opportunity did Smith provide to the publishers to prove that the allegations were true, before their property was seized and destroyed?

Considerably more opportunity than your heroes provided Joseph and Hyrum to defend the allegations against them. After all, the publishers survived to take the matter to court.

Joseph and Hyrum, in case you didn't notice, did not.

The sanctimonious hypocrisy of an anti-Mormon talking about "due process" in this context is staggering.

Absolutely staggering.

How many had been destroyed under color of authority.

BTW, lynchings and mob violence was also common back then. That doesn't mean mob violence was legal or acceptable.

BTW, not only did Abraham Lincoln cause newspapers to be suppressed "under color of authority," he even incarcerated their editors for years without due process.

But hey -- Abe wasn't a Mormon, so that's all good, isn't it?

Regards,

Pahoran

[John Larsen]

I think this is a very interesting question with many nuances. I think there are three main issues for those who are hesitant to call him a martyr:

1. He fought back. This is not to say that he was unjustified in his defense, but there seems to be some hesitancy in calling someone a martyr who died in a jail gunfight. The violent actions taken against Joseph were clearly wrong, but the circumstances surrounding the death fail the martyr gut test for many.

2. The direct cause of his arrest was the sacking of the printing press. To outsiders, this seems to be an action that goes beyond religious expression. So even though believers tend to view Joseph's imprisonment purely in religious terms--thus the martyr connection, that thread is not as clear cut to those who do not give Joseph the prophet deference.

3. Joseph was acting in many roles at the time of his death. He was a political candidate for president, he was Mayor, and he was the General of the army. To illustrate, Joseph had taken to wearing his military uniform quite often and many of his followers had stopped calling him "Brother Joseph" or "the Prophet" and started to call him "General Smith". On top of this, he had himself crowned "King of the World". People who ascend to high political office and are assassinated are seldom called martyrs. Because Joseph's religious roles and political roles were so intertwined, it is difficult to tell how much his detractors were enemies of the politically powerful Joseph vs. the Prophet Joseph.

[hooberus]

Why does the rather lengthy LDS Carthage jail tour OMIT to tell visitors about Joseph's gun and his use of it (as well as those hit by his bullets) ?

(They do discuss the bullets that him and the other LDS persons.)

[John Larsen]

The mob didn't kill Joseph Smith because of his position as head of the militia or because he approved the destruction of a printing press. They killed him and Hyrum (and they would have killed anyone who stood in their way) because of their religion.

Anyone who says otherwise is doing so either ignorantly or dishonestly, either way reflecting their desire to further discredit the Prophet in the fear that giving him status as a "martyr" gives credit to Mormonism, something they desperately don't want.

That is a bold claim. Since you are willing to accuse ignorance and dishonest to those who do not believe as you do, I am sure you would be happy to provide us your sources on the mindset of the mob.

[hagoth7]

Why does the rather lengthy LDS Carthage jail tour OMIT to tell visitors about Joseph's gun and his use of it (as well as those hit by his bullets) ?

I haven't been through the tour in several years, so I honestly can't say what the tour does or doesn't tell you in the here and now.

If they don't mention it, that's their right. It's a minor quibble, frankly.

If I were free to say what I wished, I would likely mention it with many tour groups. (In what I deemed its proper context.)

Here's an example or three.

What's your take on the Alamo - and those who stood their ground there - refused to retreat - even though there was no real hope of rescue/survival.

Or the Battle of Thermopylae - and Sparta's 300?

I don't have a problem with a man of God defending his friends, and standing his ground against overwhelming numbers.

Is there a reason I should?

I'd suggest reading this.

Might change your take on a few important things.

[Jaybear]

I don't have a problem with a man of God defending his friends, and standing his ground against overwhelming numbers.

Is there a reason I should?

Why ask critics? To my knowlege, they have never criticized Smith for this.

That is a question you need to address to your Church leaders. Apparently, to them, the fact that Smith had a gun and shoot back, detracts from the image of Smith that they want to present.

Pahoran: I never cease to be amused by the indignation which anti-Mormons such as yourself express at the fact that Joseph had the temerity to shoot back; amused, but not surprised. After all, those were your guys he was shooting at.

You have a very active imagination Pahoran. At no point have I ever expressed indignation that Smith fought back. Nor would I. I simply asked for evidence that Smith was "killed for his religious beliefs."

But, I get it. Your belief the Smith was a martyr is sacrosanct, such that any one who dares question the assumptions underlying your beliefs are on the same level as those who actually killed Smith.

BTW, not only did Abraham Lincoln cause newspapers to be suppressed "under color of authority," he even incarcerated their editors for years without due process.

But hey -- Abe wasn't a Mormon, so that's all good, isn't it?

Would this have been during the civil war, while the country was under martial law?

Pahoron: No.

The Expositor was libellous because it made a wilfully false description of plural marriage that was designed to inflame the local mobs to violence.

But of course, you don't think there was anything wrong with that. Like I said, those were your guys.

Nitpick if you wish, that what apologists do best. But, the mere fact that Smith was engaged in polygamy was an inflammatory accusation. No, I don't think there is anything wrong with a newspaper exposing Smith's polygamy.

The notion that the press must be destroyed because otherwise it would "inflame local mobs." in hindsight seems rather foolish and counterproductive. That you would seek justify the action, for that same reason Smith offered, knowing that the consequences of that action, demonstrates the desperation of the apologetic mindset.

Pahoron: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!

You missed your vocation, Jaybear. You should change the first part of your screenname to "Fozzie."

Personal insults aside, where is the evidence that JS was killed because of his religious beliefs.

Its your claim. If you are going to insult me for having the audacity to refuse to accept your claim at face value, where the evidence?