Martyrs Don'T Fight Back...

[stemelbow]

My comments were not ambiguous. The definitions

I provided was clear.

Its not complicated. Joseph Smith was not given the choice to renounce his visions/faith and live.

Sure he was. I mean he wasn't once they broke in and started shooting, sure. But long before that, or even short before that, it should be recongized that if he renounced his faith the mob wouldn't have came after him. They wouldn't have a reason to. it seems your ambiguity, while you wish to pin it on me, is your fault. And that's cool. just to be clear, I think I'm settled. You withhold the tag "martyr" from Joseph smith even though he was persecuted and killed for his faith, because the killers and persecutors did not stop before they proceeded with killing and persecuting to gvie him the option to renounce his faith. As i said, you are free to think whatever you like, in my book. I enourage it, but that doesn't mean tat which you choose to think is reasonable at all.

[Jaybear]

The difinition of martyr - like the meaning behind other symbols, belongs to the people who claim ownership.

Arguing that Joseph Smith is not a martyr is as sensible as non-mormons claiming the inverted pentagram on the Nauvoo Temple is a satanic symbol instead of a reminder of Christ as the designers intended.

You are correct. Symbols have different meaning, just as words have different meaning. Despite my effort to make it clear that I don't consider Smith to be a martyr, as I understand the word, I seem to have offended the Mormons.

[Zakuska]

You are correct. Symbols have different meaning, just as words have different meaning. Despite my effort to make it clear that I don't consider Smith to be a martyr, as I understand the word, I seem to have offended the Mormons.

So was Becket a Martyr? He doesn't fit your definition.

[frankenstein]

Not all martyrs are martyrs for a good cause.

the cause does not matter, as it would seem a martyr is a martyr .

"Martrys don't _______ " is as pointless a conversation as what makes a religion a cult, what is a christian, etc etc etc. Two people opposed to each other, and who doggedly cling to their own personal agenda driven definitions of words will almost never agree.

[Jaybear]

And theres the rub Jaybear.

You consider the Jihadists, Marytrs because they flew planes into the towers in the name of religion. You also consider Good Christians like Becket a Marytr even though he died fighting not because of his faith but because he refused arrest and being brought before the King to answer for his actions.

What would Joseph Smith have to have done in your perspective to deserve the title Martyr? Died trying to shoot and killed every last Missourian? That would have been "religious zealotry" in your eyes?

You are trying to have your cake and eat it too Jaybear.

You are making this much too complicated. You are looking for insults where none is intended.

Joseph Smith was not forced to make a life and death decision to renounce his faith or die.

I associate martyrdom with religious zealotry, because its only the religious that say things like "deserve the title Martyr".

Sure he was. I mean he wasn't once they broke in and started shooting, sure. But long before that, or even short before that, it should be recongized that if he renounced his faith the mob wouldn't have came after him. They wouldn't have a reason to. it seems your ambiguity, while you wish to pin it on me, is your fault. And that's cool. just to be clear, I think I'm settled. You withhold the tag "martyr" from Joseph smith even though he was persecuted and killed for his faith, because the killers and persecutors did not stop before they proceeded with killing and persecuting to gvie him the option to renounce his faith. As i said, you are free to think whatever you like, in my book. I enourage it, but that doesn't mean tat which you choose to think is reasonable at all.

When was the day and hour that Smith was given the choice to renounce his faith and live or face certain death. It was not his religious beliefs that brought him to the jail, it was his decision to destroy the Expositor.

You are safer more reasonable grounds by adopting a broader definition of the word, martyr than you are by trying to twist the facts to bring Smith within the traditional meaning of the term.

[KevinG]

Yup.

It kind of puts the silliness to the anti-mormon argument that Joseph wasn't a martyr. (I don't know if Jaybear is aware of that long standing argument against the Mormons account of Joseph's death.)

[KevinG]

You are making this much too complicated. You are looking for insults where none is intended.

Joseph Smith was not forced to make a life and death decision to renounce his faith or die.

I associate martyrdom with religious zealotry, because its only the religious that say things like "deserve the title Martyr".

When was the day and hour that Smith was given the choice to renounce his faith and live or face certain death. It was not his religious beliefs that brought him to the jail, it was his decision to destroy the Expositor.

You are safer more reasonable grounds by adopting a broader definition of the word, martyr than you are by trying to twist the facts to bring Smith within the traditional meaning of the term.

The decision to destroy the Expoistor was in his view defending the faith from calumny.

The decision to go to Carthage was a conscious decision to face his death as opposed to running away from the mobs (which was an option).

[Jaybear]

So was Becket a Martyr? He doesn't fit your definition.

If he doesn't fit the definition, then by that definition he was not a martyr.

I suspect that those who consider him a martyr would disagree with your assertion that he doesn't fit that definition.

From what you have described, I would tend agree with them. But I would need to know clearly, if he had the choice to renounce his faith, accept the authority of the king and live.

[Zakuska]

You are making this much too complicated.  You are looking for insults where none is intended.

Joseph Smith was not forced to make a life and death decision to renounce his faith or die.  

I associate martyrdom with religious zealotry, because its only the religious that say things like "deserve the title Martyr".

When was the day and hour that Smith was given the choice to renounce his faith and live or face certain death.   It was not his religious beliefs that brought him to the jail, it was his decision to destroy the Expositor.

You are safer more reasonable grounds by adopting a broader definition of the word, martyr than you are by trying to twist the facts to bring Smith within the traditional meaning of the term.

Hmmm... the only charge that was leveled at Joseph while in Carthage was treason.  For declaring Martial law and calling out his state given malitias with the right to bare arms for the protection of his people.

The destruction of the Expositor was a civil matter which couldn't by any strech of a definition have anything to do with the destruction of the tabloid rag.  He even pledged to pay for any reparations.

Edited September 30, 2011 by Zakuska

[stemelbow]

When was the day and hour that Smith was given the choice to renounce his faith and live or face certain death. It was not his religious beliefs that brought him to the jail, it was his decision to destroy the Expositor.

So? Are you suggesting his death had nothing to do with his beliefs? I guess you can spin it that way if ya like.

You are safer more reasonable grounds by adopting a broader definition of the word, martyr than you are by trying to twist the facts to bring Smith within the traditional meaning of the term.

You just did the convenient twist of saying why he was brought to jail as if that somehow takes away the notion that he was killed by a mob who clearly opposed his religious convictions. Ah well.

[Jaybear]

The decision to destroy the Expoistor was in his view defending the faith from calumny.

Very pragmatic decision. Throw the new and everlasting covenant, God's revealed word under the bus to preserve the life of the institution of the LDS Church. Hardly something I would expect from a religious zealot.

[Zakuska]

If he doesn't fit the definition, then by that definition he was not a martyr.

I suspect that those who consider him a martyr would disagree with your assertion that he doesn't fit that definition.

From what you have described, I would tend agree with them. But I would need to know clearly, if he had the choice to renounce his faith, accept the authority of the king and live.

It sounds like you havent even watched the video to even know the story of what happened. Please go watch it and then try to answer that question again.

Edited September 30, 2011 by Zakuska

[KevinG]

Very pragmatic decision. Throw the new and everlasting covenant, God's revealed word under the bus to preserve the life of the institution of the LDS Church. Hardly something I would expect from a religious zealot.

Care to elaborate? It sounds like you are claiming Joseph destroyed revelations meant for the world in order to preserve the earthly organization of the LDS Church.

So if an organization was to attempt to publish, say our Temple ceremonies, we should just let them because to do otherwise would be in opposition to the way God reveals things to his people?

That's a pretty cynical view.

Edited September 30, 2011 by DaddyG

[frankenstein]

Care to elaborate? It sounds like you are claiming Joseph destroyed revelations meant for the world in order to preserve the earthly organization of the LDS Church.

So if an organization was to attempt to publish, say our Temple ceremonies, we should just let them because to do otherwise would be in opposition to the way God reveals things to his people?

That's a pretty cynical view.

those who obey the laws of God have no need to break the laws of man, one of mans laws being freedom of press and speech (I am not referring to the expositor).

[Deborah]

The decision to go to Carthage was a conscious decision to face his death as opposed to running away from the mobs (which was an option).

He went back because the saints were undergoing such persecution and thought if their prophet came back it would cease and begged him to return; I don't think they had any idea what the consequences would be as Joseph was always able to get through such things before. In the end Joseph believed if he turned himself in the saints might be relieved of some of the harassment for at least awhile and he didn't want to run away but had been urged to do so by those close to him. However, he also knew if he went back it would be to his death. Note how careful he was to select who went with him. He didn't want Hyrum there but knew there was no talking him out of it. He made sure BY and others were not around. The others who went lived through the ordeal and of course John Taylor became prophet.

Whether some want to term the prophet's death as martyrdom or not, the fact is he willingly went into the arms of the enemy, never denied his faith, tried to defend his friends and in the end his blood was spilt to seal his testimony. Needless to say his death was a shock to his followers who like the disciples of Christ did not understand the full consequences of what facing the enemy would be this one last time.

[Deborah]

those who obey the laws of God have no need to break the laws of man, one of mans laws being freedom of press and speech (I am not referring to the expositor).

Shutting down the Expositor had nothing to do with the laws of God, nor was it breaking the law at the time which gave Joseph as civil authority to take action to protect the people from instigators of mob action, which the Expositor was. The only "crime" was destroying private property which Joseph agreed to recompense.

[frankenstein]

Shutting down the Expositor had nothing to do with the laws of God, nor was it breaking the law at the time which gave Joseph as civil authority to take action to protect the people from instigators of mob action, which the Expositor was. The only "crime" was destroying private property which Joseph agreed to recompense.

Ugh I have dalin h oaks and he claims there wad no legal justification and before anyone starts he makes this statement after he analyzes a couple of cases that happened after js death. When I get to a bigger keyboard I will post his statement

Anyways since I was not referring to the expositor in the first place there was no reason to make a post about the expositor

Edited September 30, 2011 by frankenstein

[seriously honestly]

Oh but he is considered a Marytr. You can read more about him here.

http://en.wikipedia....i/Thomas_Becket

Theres an Altar and shrine in the Cathedral dedicated to him on the spot where he died. (scroll half way down)

Theres a Candel which burns 24/7 on the spot where his sarcofagus used to be (Scoll a little further)

His sarcophagus was removed and burned and the ashes strewn to the wind by Henry the VIII the great-great-...-grandson of King Henry II who's knights had killed Becket.

I was referring to Joseph Smith. But even after reading that, I'm even less inclinded to think of Becket as a martyr. The king wasn't acting out against scripture, Becket was excommunicating anyone who disagreed with himself, and refusing to submit to the king (per 1 Peter 2:13-14) and answer for his actions. Then you have four over zealous knights that don't go after him because of his faith, but because of what appears to be misunderstanding and ultimately killing for insubordination. As that page says, "It was not until Becket refused their demands to submit to the king's will that they retrieved their weapons and rushed back inside for the killing."

[Zakuska]

Beckets sordid history is quite intresting... and more detailed than the video. It follows the pattern of much of what Anti-Mormons claim about Joseph Smith.

It appears Beckets death was a result of his refusal to sign a document that would limit the rights of English Clergy men and give Secular courts the ability to prosecute clergy for their crimes. The king was getting rid of the asylum clause of the clergy. So in other words, he was fighting to retain and expand the Theocracy!

Now were have I heard that before?!

Primacy

Becket was nominated as Archbishop of Canterbury in 1162, several months after the death of Theobald. His election was confirmed on 23 May 1162 by a royal council of bishops and noblemen.[1] Henry may have hoped that Becket would continue to put the royal government first, rather than that of the church. The famous transformation of Becket into an ascetic occurred at this time.

Becket enthroned as Archbishop of Canterbury from a Nottingham Alabaster in the Victoria & Albert Museum

Becket was ordained a priest on 2 June 1162 at Canterbury, and on 3 June 1162 was consecrated as archbishop by Henry of Blois, the Bishop of Winchester and the other suffragan bishops of Canterbury.[1]

A rift grew between Henry and Becket as the new archbishop resigned his chancellorship and sought to recover and extend the rights of the archbishopric. This led to a series of conflicts with the king, including that over the jurisdiction of secular courts over English clergymen, which accelerated antipathy between Becket and the king. Attempts by King Henry to influence the other bishops against Becket began in Westminster in October 1163, where the King sought approval of the traditional rights of the royal government in regards to the church.[1] This led to Clarendon, where Becket was officially asked to sign off on the King’s rights or face political repercussions.

[edit]

Next being convicted of Treason (Unlike Joseph Smith) and fearing for his life, Becket runs from the law and finds Asylum in France.

The Constitutions of Clarendon

Main article: Becket controversy

For more details on this topic, see Constitutions of Clarendon.

King Henry II presided over the assemblies at Clarendon Palace on 30 January 1164 of most of the higher English clergy. In sixteen constitutions, he sought less clerical independence and a weaker connection with Rome. He employed all his skills to induce their consent and was apparently successful with all but Becket. Finally, even Becket expressed his willingness to agree to the substance of the Constitutions of Clarendon, but he still refused to formally sign the documents. Henry summoned Becket to appear before a great council at Northampton Castle on 8 October 1164, to answer allegations of contempt of royal authority and malfeasance in the Chancellor's office. Convicted on the charges, Becket stormed out of the trial and fled to the Continent.[1]

Henry pursued the fugitive archbishop with a series of edicts, aimed at all his friends and supporters as well as Becket himself; but King Louis VII of France offered Becket protection. He spent nearly two years in the Cistercian abbey of Pontigny, until Henry's threats against the order obliged him to return to Sens. Becket fought back by threatening excommunication and interdict against the king and bishops and the kingdom, but Pope Alexander III, though sympathising with him in theory, favoured a more diplomatic approach. Papal legates were sent in 1167 with authority to act as arbitrators.[1]

In 1170, Alexander sent delegates to impose a solution to the dispute. At that point, Henry, offered a compromise that would allow Thomas to return to England from exile.[1]

http://en.wikipedia....i/Thomas_Becket

After ther King starts persucting Beckets friends and family, Then threatening the order who were harboring Becket, so to protect them he leaves. (Kind of Like Joseph Smith comming back to Carthage to easy persecution of his friends and family) Becket fights back with threats of excommunication. The Pope sends arbiters and resolves the situation with diuplomacy.

Only to have Becket return from France and carry out his plans of vengance and retribution anyway.

How can anyone claim this man died as a Martyr!

Edited September 30, 2011 by Zakuska

[Deborah]

Anyways since I was not referring to the expositor in the first place there was no reason to make a post about the expositor

Then what was the "freedom of the press" referring to?

You mean this statement from Dallin Oaks:

"...but as a young law professor pursuing original research, I was pleased to find a legal basis for this action in the Illinois law of 1844. The amendment to the United States Constitution that extended the guarantee of freedom of the press to protect against the actions of city and state governments was not adopted until 1868, and it was not enforced as a matter of federal law until 1931."

http://lds.org/gener...query=Expositor

[seriously honestly]

Beckets sordid history is quite intresting... and more detailed than the video. It follows the pattern of much of what Anti-Mormons claim about Joseph Smith.

It appears Beckets death was a result of his refusal to sign a document that would limit the rights of English Clergy men and give Secular courts the ability to prosecute clergy for their crimes. The king was getting rid of the asylum clause of the clergy. So in other words, he was fighting to retain and expand the Theocracy!

Now were have I heard that before?!

Next being convicted of Treason (Unlike Joseph Smith) and fearing for his life, Becket runs from the law and finds Asylum in France.

http://en.wikipedia....i/Thomas_Becket

After ther King starts persucting Beckets friends and family to get to him. Becket fights back with threats of excommunication. The Pope sends arbiters and resolves the situation with diuplomacy.

Only to have Becket return from France and carry out his plans of vengance and retribution anyway.

How can anyone claim this man was a Marytr!

Did the king ever order him killed because of his faith? And Becket "expressed his willingness to agree to the substance of the Constiution of Clarendon, but he still refused to formally sign the documents"

Edited September 30, 2011 by seriously honestly

[Zakuska]

Did the king ever order him killed because of his faith?

The king never ordered him killed period.

It was the King who was the diplomate in the situation, as is seen in the case of Henry offering a compromise, which aloud Becket and his family to return from exile. Only to spit in Henry's face and reek vengance on Christmas eve anyway.

And Becket "expressed his willingness to agree to the substance of the Constiution of Clarendon, but he still refused to formally sign the documents"

Correct. expressed willingness and still refused. His pride and lust for power and immunity from the secular law as was enjoyed by the clergy at the time wouldn't allow him too.

Edited September 30, 2011 by Zakuska

[frankenstein]

You mean this statement from Dallin Oaks:

Dalin H. Oaks, Utah Law Review 9, Suppressuion of the Navuoo Expositor, page 891, Winter 1965

The principle applied in these cases was that set forth in Blackstone's discussion of nuisances, which the council studied and used as authority for its abatement ordinance.165 The very passage relied on by the council made this distinction for, as pointed out by B. H. Roberts, "the destruction of libelous `prints and papers' can scarcely be held to sustain the action of destroying a `printing press.'" 166

These cases make clear that there was no legal justification in 1844 for the destruction of the Expositor press as a nuisance. Its libelous, provocative, and perhaps obscene output may well have been a public and a private nuisance, but the evil article was not the press itself but the way in which it was being used.

Edited September 30, 2011 by frankenstein

[Zakuska]

Dalin H. Oaks, Utah Law Review 9, Suppressuion of the Navuoo Expositor, page 891, Winter 1965

The principle applied in these cases was that set forth in Blackstone's discussion of nuisances, which the council studied and used as authority for its abatement ordinance.165 The very passage relied on by the council made this distinction for, as pointed out by B. H. Roberts, "the destruction of libelous `prints and papers' can scarcely be held to sustain the action of destroying a `printing press.'" 166

These cases make clear that there was no legal justification in 1844 for the destruction of the Expositor press as a nuisance. Its libelous, provocative, and perhaps obscene output may well have been a public and a private nuisance, but the evil article was not the press itself but the way in which it was being used.

Deborah already addressed this. Even Joseph Smith himself said to Ford that the destruction of the press itself was perhaps not waranted and he pleged reparations if the Civil Courts found the council guilty on that count. (Think Judge Brown here)

But under the law on the books at the time they had every right to confiscate and destroy the printed paper itself.

There are 2 issues here:

1) Confiscation and destruction of the Newspaper. (Lawful)

2) Physical damage and destruction of the machine [press] itself (Not Justified)

Rulling for the defendants in the amount of $400 dollars. Boring!!! Lets move on.

Edited September 30, 2011 by Zakuska

[frankenstein]

Is Joseph Smith a martyr based on *insert your own personal agenda driven definition of martyr*?

Boring!!! Lets move on.

yes, boring.

Are mormons christians....boring.

Is everything religion a cult....boring.

Engaging in a cat and mouse of philosophical wits with persons who are entirely opposed to the LDS Church....boring.

Edited September 30, 2011 by frankenstein