Control The Definition, Control The Debate…

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I often find myself involved in debates about Joseph Smith, and if he qualifies as a martyr. Those who seek to control the debate guard very closely the term “Martyr”. So I pull the following definition from Wiki…in which does Joseph not qualify? Isn’t (other than Christ) a martyr, a believer who is out of options? Why would fighting back make someone less of a martyr?

Common features of stereotypical martyrdoms

1. (A hero) A person of some renown who is devoted to a cause believed to be admirable. 2. (Opposition) People who oppose that cause.

3. (Foreseeable risk) The hero foresees action by opponents to harm him or her, because of his or her commitment to the cause.

4. (Courage and Commitment) The hero continues, despite knowing the risk, out of commitment to the cause.

5. (Death) The opponents kill the hero because of his or her commitment to the cause. 6. Audience response The hero’s death is commemorated. People may label the hero explicitly as a martyr. Other people may in turn be inspired to pursue the same cause.

They do the same with the term Christian.

[LeSellers]

I often find myself involved in debates about Joseph Smith, and if he qualifies as a martyr. Those who seek to control the debate guard very closely the term “Martyr”. So I pull the following definition from Wiki…in which does Joseph not qualify? Isn’t (other than Christ) a martyr, a believer who is out of options? Why would fighting back make someone less of a martyr?

Indeed.

In the animal kingdom, the rule is, eat or be eaten; in the human kingdom, define or be defined.

Lehi

Edited June 16, 2011 by LeSellers

[Ahab]

I often find myself involved in debates about Joseph Smith, and if he qualifies as a martyr. Those who seek to control the debate guard very closely the term “Martyr”. So I pull the following definition from Wiki…in which does Joseph not qualify? Isn’t (other than Christ) a martyr, a believer who is out of options? Why would fighting back make someone less of a martyr?

Common features of stereotypical martyrdoms

1. (A hero) A person of some renown who is devoted to a cause believed to be admirable. 2. (Opposition) People who oppose that cause.

3. (Foreseeable risk) The hero foresees action by opponents to harm him or her, because of his or her commitment to the cause.

4. (Courage and Commitment) The hero continues, despite knowing the risk, out of commitment to the cause.

5. (Death) The opponents kill the hero because of his or her commitment to the cause. 6. Audience response The hero’s death is commemorated. People may label the hero explicitly as a martyr. Other people may in turn be inspired to pursue the same cause.

They do the same with the term Christian.

When someone tells me what they think or know or accept as the truth, I take it as what they think or know or believe to be true.

When I really want to know what is true, I ask God.

[thesometimesaint]

Pa Pa:

By definition JS qualifies as a hero and a martyr. He died trying to save his brothern and his friends.

Edited June 16, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[Glenn101]

In the end, it does not really matter for Joseph, what the world thinks of him. What matters is what God thinks of him. It may matter also, what God thinks of those who disparage Joseph Smith.

Glenn

[ozpoof]

Doesn't the reasons why he was killed by "the Mob" have something to do with the application of the term "martyr"?

If Joseph was killed because he was standing up for what he believed, he could be called a martyr.

If he removed his garments, drank wine in the last day, and was eluding a mob of angry men who's daughters had been approached by Smith to enter into plural marriages (which he was hiding from the general public), he was neither standing up for what he believed in, nor was made a martyr.

[bookofmormontruth]

Doesn't the reasons why he was killed by "the Mob" have something to do with the application of the term "martyr"?

If Joseph was killed because he was standing up for what he believed, he could be called a martyr.

If he removed his garments, drank wine in the last day, and was eluding a mob of angry men who's daughters had been approached by Smith to enter into plural marriages (which he was hiding from the general public), he was neither standing up for what he believed in, nor was made a martyr.

Nice use of quotations around "the Mob".

Let me help you out. Replace "the Mob" with hundreds of cowardly men who had to paint their faces to hide their identity (who is really hiding?) so they could murder two innocent men who were promised by the governor of Illinois that they would be "protected". These same men murdered, raped and pillaged the Saints over the years.

I would also recommend that you remove yourself from the lies of anti-Mormon regurgitation (which you conveniently have no sources) because it clearly shows that you don't have your facts straight on why they freely offered themselves to end up in Carthage jail.

Since you will not follow this recommendation because you will find absolutely anything to justify leaving the Lord's Church and make light of those who were murdered innocently. How does the anti-Mormon regurgitation explain how and why Hyrum Smith was shot point blank in the face? Since you have an obvious disgust for Joseph Smith, please tell me what Hyrum Smith did "wrong" and why he "deserved" to be murdered?

What about John Taylor? Did he deserve to be shot up several times? What about the women and children who were murdered and raped by "the Mob"?

Edited June 18, 2011 by bookofmormontruth

[Deborah]

If he removed his garments, drank wine in the last day, and was eluding a mob of angry men who's daughters had been approached by Smith to enter into plural marriages (which he was hiding from the general public), he was neither standing up for what he believed in, nor was made a martyr.

You are so ignorant there is no point in even responding but your bitterness against the church drips from every word. As previously indicated you really ought to know the history before spouting such drivel. There is always more to the story than the blurbs you read on anti sites, but as indicated in other threads you aren't interested in the truth, only in attacking the church.

[Chris Smith]

The tactics they employ, do we do the same?

I seem to recall some discussions where the definition of the term "marriage" was closely guarded.

This is simple warfare over resources. When it comes to issues of sacredness and identity, words are valuable symbolic capital. To assert ownership of popular words is to assert a kind of cultural monopoly that can greatly facilitate proselyting and member retention. This kind of resource-war is in the nature of conservative, competitive institutions. Get used to it.

[Deborah]

When it comes to issues of sacredness and identity, words are valuable symbolic capital. To assert ownership of popular words is to assert a kind of cultural monopoly that can greatly facilitate proselyting and member retention.

Interesting point. However, "marriage" is more than just a word. It is a ritual that has been performed since the beginning of history and probably before, to unite a man and woman, primarily for procreation but also as a political means to bring peace to warring nations, increase power in wealthy families and for all kinds of reasons valuable to both churches and the state.

Therefore to say that claiming the word marriage asserts a cultural monopoly is a little disingenuous. Marriage has had all kinds of purposes, but always between a man and a woman, and even when political, under the auspices of the church.

I think that trying to change the definition of marriage is more than trying to usurp the word. It is a means of gaining acceptance for a lifestyle that many find contrary to the will of God and the benefit of the state. So in a sense you are right, it is a war and because of what is involved likely to be a long and bitter one.

[Chris Smith]

Many different rituals have been performed under the name of marriage, just as many different institutions and theologies have claimed the name of "Christianity". There's nothing inherently illegitimate about a "novel" ritual or theology recycling an old word to describe itself. Words, after all, have no inherent meaning. They mean whatever we decide they mean. They are agreed-upon conventions.

However, recycling a "sacred" word such as "marriage" or "Christianity" is a kind of cultural power play, and inevitably provokes a reaction from the groups who have previously benefited from the word. It's a lot like a trademark dispute. Is the word "marriage" the intellectual property of cultural conservatives? Can they "copyright" it to prevent it from being used by groups with competing ritual products? Similarly, is the word "Christianity" the intellectual property of Catholics and Protestants? That's basically what's at issue here. Ultimately, each case will be decided through a sheer contest of institutional power. It won't, in the end, be a matter of what is the "true" definition of marriage or Christianity. It will be a matter of which of these institutions has the power and the will to set the terms of public discourse.

I think that trying to change the definition of marriage is more than trying to usurp the word. It is a means of gaining acceptance for a lifestyle that many find contrary to the will of God and the benefit of the state.

That's basically what I'm saying. To claim the term is to claim a certain amount of legitimacy and prestige. Mormons claim words like "Christian" and "martyr" for the same reasons, and Protestants and Catholics fight those appropriations just as bitterly. It's not about the "true" meanings of the words; there are no "true" meanings. Instead, it's about advancing an institutional agenda by controlling symbolic resources.

Edited June 18, 2011 by Chris Smith

[HeatherAnn]

You are so ignorant there is no point in even responding but your bitterness against the church drips from every word. As previously indicated you really ought to know the history before spouting such drivel. There is always more to the story than the blurbs you read on anti sites, but as indicated in other threads you aren't interested in the truth, only in attacking the church.

When someone starts name calling, IMO, it reflects more about them than the person they're calling names.

History is "his story" - there are different versions, but they're all different perspectives of what happened.

What is most important, IMO, is how believing in the history we choose to believe in, influences us NOW.

If we elevate Joseph Smith as a God, does that do us well, spiritually?

If we hate Joseph Smith for all of his imperfections, does that do us well, spiritually?

[ThomasJoseph]

I'm not sure about the martyr argument, but I know

That if someone has a different definition than you, the conversation is lost before it began.

Controlling definitions is key to understanding anything you say, and being understood for what you mean.

Don't rebuke a fool or you'll be rebuked.

[Deborah]

I'm not sure about the martyr argument, but I know

I am. From Wiki: A martyr (Greek: μάρτυς, mártys, "witness"; stem μάρτυρ-, mártyr-) is somebody who suffers persecution and death for refusing to renounce a belief or cause, usually religious.

That if someone has a different definition than you, the conversation is lost before it began.

Indeed, which is why Ammon is such a good example of a missionary in the BOM. He first clarified who God was in terms of who the king understood.

But this is the point in the argument for "gay" marriage. We are at an impasse not because the definition isn't clear but because some want to change what the meaning is and has been traditionally, just as the word "gay" has lost its original meaning and people don't dare use it in its original meaning.

Controlling definitions is key to understanding anything you say, and being understood for what you mean.

Once again it's not so much a matter of controlling a definition as standing for a principle, certainly as in the case of marriage. A group can define marriage for example however they like but that won't change what it is in the eyes of God or those who believe. The argument however is about whether marriage is so denigrated that it has no meaning at all to the rest of the world.

[ThomasJoseph]

Marriage.

is it a union?

or a union between man and woman?

Once again it's not so much a matter of controlling a definition as standing for a principle

The definition can't change to God, but it can to men.

To control the argument you must control the definition or you've lost your principal.

[Franktalk]

Marriage.

is it a union?

or a union between man and woman?

The definition can't change to God, but it can to men.

To control the argument you must control the definition or you've lost your principal.

Men come in all forms and hold many beliefs. To think that I could or you could change men in their beliefs is a fools game. The arguments that take place are a complete waste of time. But we go through the exercise because we are to support our beliefs. From my perspective I support my beliefs by using scripture as a tool of truth, universal truth. But many don't see scripture the way I do. They have their own way of reading the verses and come to completely different conclusions about what it says. So in these cases where two people hold to two different universal truths nothing will ever change. But if one of the two holds to ideas of man and they hear scripture then they may if God desires it change their heart. The meaning of words is bypassed by spiritual communication. This is where all real change happens. The arguments of man just show who is a sheep and who is a goat. Of course that statement may start another argument as to what a goat is. Is living by example the ultimate communication?

Don't take this too serious.

[keith_brian]

I often find myself involved in debates about Joseph Smith, and if he qualifies as a martyr. Those who seek to control the debate guard very closely the term “Martyr”. So I pull the following definition from Wiki…in which does Joseph not qualify? Isn’t (other than Christ) a martyr, a believer who is out of options? Why would fighting back make someone less of a martyr?

Common features of stereotypical martyrdoms

1. (A hero) A person of some renown who is devoted to a cause believed to be admirable. 2. (Opposition) People who oppose that cause.

3. (Foreseeable risk) The hero foresees action by opponents to harm him or her, because of his or her commitment to the cause.

4. (Courage and Commitment) The hero continues, despite knowing the risk, out of commitment to the cause.

5. (Death) The opponents kill the hero because of his or her commitment to the cause. 6. Audience response The hero’s death is commemorated. People may label the hero explicitly as a martyr. Other people may in turn be inspired to pursue the same cause.

They do the same with the term Christian.

I am pretty sure that, Joseph Smith removing his garments and drinking wine notwithstanding, that Smith was indeed a martyr. I am fine with granting that label to him, but I am not sure how it changes much. The central question of the church (as with other religions) is whether the doctrines and practices of the church are "true" and whether God exists, not whether individual members of the church believe that they are true.

Using the same logic and your definition above, I think that we could safely apply the definition of "martyr" to several other people throughout history, including David Koresh, Palestinian suicide bombers, and even many Japanese soldiers fighting in World War II. So, martyr is kind of a broadly applicable word, which doesn't necessarily suggest (at least to me) that the cause the person was martyred for was right -- or wrong either.

[Deborah]

I am pretty sure that, Joseph Smith removing his garments and drinking wine notwithstanding, that Smith was indeed a martyr.

Where is everyone getting this idea that Joseph removed his garments? Remember that not drinking wine was not a commandment at that time. It was just what it is called a word of Wisdom.

[LeSellers]

Where is everyone getting this idea that Joseph removed his garments?

From his journal, as I recall. He said it was too hot to wear them. 'course, they were wool.

Lehi

Edited June 19, 2011 by LeSellers

[Deborah]

Form his journal, as I recall. He said it was too hot to wear them. 'course, they were wool.

Lehi

I was wondering if he removed them because he knew what was coming and didn't want them desecrated. I'd like to see the source.

[LeSellers]

I was wondering if he removed them because he knew what was coming and didn't want them desecrated. I'd like to see the source.

Elder John Taylor confirmed the saying that Joseph and Hyrum and himself were without their robes in the jail at Carthage, while Doctor Richards had his on, but corrected the idea that some had, that they had taken them off through fear. W. W. Phelps said Joseph told him one day about that time, that he had laid aside his garment on account of the hot weather.

—George D. Smith (ed), An Intimate Chronicle The Journals of William Clayton, 222-24.

Enjoy,

Lehi

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I seem to recall some discussions where the definition of the term "marriage" was closely guarded.

For 1,000's of years.

[ERMD]

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone. "It means just what I choose it to mean - neither more or less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."

--Lewis Carroll

[Chris Smith]

For 1,000's of years.

If you mean to suggest that conflict about the shape and meaning of marriage is nothing new, then you're correct. However, if you mean to suggest that marriage has meant the same thing to everyone in the world for thousands of years, then obviously you're wrong.

The acceptance of gay marriage on the part of liberals is simply the logical conclusion of a long sequence of changes in our modern American moral universe. These changes included the following:

1) Americans came to define marriage as primarily a romantic relationship rather than an economic, political, or reproductive alliance. This raised the question, why can't gays get married if they love each other?

2) Americans came to strongly value self-determination in marriage, as opposed, for example, to arranged marriages. This raised the question, what right does anyone have to tell a gay person he can't marry another man?

3) Americans, including Christians, came to see sex as a legitimate expression of love and pleasure within a marriage, as opposed to the old view which saw sex as exclusively for purposes of reproduction. This led to an acceptance of oral and **** sex between heterosexual couples, and raised the question of why gays couldn't do the same.

4) Americans came to view the imposition of religious values and customs as a misuse of the law, as opposed to the law's proper functions of protecting citizens and enforcing their rights. This raised the question, what right do Christians have to interfere with other people's private contractual relationships and private sexual behavior?

I think what most intrigues me about the gay marriage debate is that those on the conservative side of the issue basically take the above four developments for granted. You don't usually see them arguing that marriage isn't about love, or that people shouldn't choose their own partners, or that sex for pleasure within marriage is a sin, or even that they should be able to impose their religious values on others through the law. These developments, so unthinkable for Christians a few hundred years ago, are simply too entrenched in our modern national culture for conservatives to even consider challenging them. Instead, they're basically reduced to arguing that we can't admit gay marriage exists, because if we do then our kids might have to learn about it in school.

Edited June 20, 2011 by Chris Smith