Zakuska Posted September 30, 2011 Author Posted September 30, 2011 (edited) Is Joseph Smith a martyr based on *insert your own personal agenda driven definition of martyr*?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.Well if its so boring for ya, Why do you post then?Bored again? Edited September 30, 2011 by Zakuska
seriously honestly Posted September 30, 2011 Posted September 30, 2011 (edited) 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.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.Exactly, thus making him not a martyr for the faith (somehow, I think you know this already) Edited September 30, 2011 by seriously honestly
Zakuska Posted September 30, 2011 Author Posted September 30, 2011 (edited) Exactly, thus making him not a martyr for the faith (somehow, I think you know this already)I do?Becket (also known as Saint Thomas of Canterbury, Thomas of London,[1] and later Thomas à Becket;[note 1] circa 1118 – 29 December 1170) was Archbishop of Canterbury from 1162 until his murder in 1170. He is venerated as a saint and martyr by both the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion. He engaged in conflict with Henry II of England over the rights and privileges of the Church and was assassinated by followers of the king in Canterbury Cathedral. Soon after the death of Thomas Becket, Pope Alexander III canonized him.Well you would think that the Christian church would know, since it's they who venerate him as such after all. Edited September 30, 2011 by Zakuska
Deborah Posted September 30, 2011 Posted September 30, 2011 Well you would think that the Christian church would know, since it's they who venerate him as such after all.People seem to forget that politics and religion were very much intertwined at that time and it is hard to separate the two.
seriously honestly Posted September 30, 2011 Posted September 30, 2011 I do?I could be wrong, but you seem to admit his death was not religiously motivated.Well you would think that the Christian church would know, since it's they who venerate him as such after all.I disagree with them for the reasons I stated and don't believe he is a martyr.
Zakuska Posted September 30, 2011 Author Posted September 30, 2011 People seem to forget that politics and religion were very much intertwined at that time and it is hard to separate the two.Politics is really what the whole thing is about. Why did Pharoah try to kill Moses and the other infants. Because the hebrews were becoming to numerous and a political threat to control. The same thing happend with Herod and Christ. Herod heard a new king was in town and he felt a threat to his throne. You know survival of the rich and famous. The new lion King killing the pride of the previous ruler.At this time the Government was a Theocracy basically receiving edicts from Rome and since the Arche Bishops were the ones to anoint the Kings the kings felt they were the pupet masters, because they had been given their appointment by someone higher than they. The Bishops and the Popes didn't want to relenquish the Secular Immunity that they had enjoyed for so long.
Zakuska Posted September 30, 2011 Author Posted September 30, 2011 (edited) I could be wrong, but you seem to admit his death was not religiously motivated.I did have to do with religion because the religious leaders didn't want to give up their secular immunity, being "Gods anointed" mouth pieces as Becket called it.I disagree with them for the reasons I stated and don't believe he is a martyr.And thats your perogitive using your own special definition of Martyr. Edited September 30, 2011 by Zakuska
seriously honestly Posted September 30, 2011 Posted September 30, 2011 And thats your perogitive using your own special definition of Martyr."special definition"?
selek1 Posted September 30, 2011 Posted September 30, 2011 Since the destruction of the Expositor has been brought up as somehow disqualifying Joseph as a martyr, it should be pointed out that Joseph also fares very well when compared to Sir Thomas More- also a Catholic martyr.More used the power of the State to persecute Protestants for the crime of possessing books and materials to which he (More) objected.He often imprisoned such people in his own home (as well as more traditional prisons), and is credibly alleged to have tortured those whom he considered heretics- though he flatly denied the allegations.Joseph- at worst- destroyed a printing press. Thomas More destroyed lives and the liberty of his fellow Englishmen on a scale Jospeh could never hope to attain.Joseph destroyed a paper which libeled the Saints and demanded their persecution. More persecuted his fellow Christians in the name of his sectarian ideology.More, too, was executed when he refused to cede control over the Church to the state- in this case, by refusing to acknowledge the aforementioned Henry VIII as supreme head of the Church..It is also interesting to note that those who would deny Jospeh "martyr" status based upon his "lying" must also deny More.Thomas More engaged in exactly the same sort of non-denials and weasel wording over his alleged "treason" as Joseph did over his alleged "polygamy".http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_More 1
Zakuska Posted October 1, 2011 Author Posted October 1, 2011 (edited) <snip>Thomas More engaged in exactly the same sort of non-denials and weasel wording over his alleged "treason" as Joseph did over his alleged "polygamy".http://en.wikipedia....iki/Thomas_MoreSir Thomas More..."...also known by Catholics as Saint Thomas More, was an English lawyer..."Well that disqualifies him right off the bat! Edited October 1, 2011 by Zakuska
russianwolfe Posted October 1, 2011 Posted October 1, 2011 Hugh Nibley talks about the Council of Nicea in (I think) The World and the Prophets and points out that some of the people who attended were labeled martyrs even though they were still alive.Does anybody know where he got this information? Can I read it on line?Marvin
selek1 Posted October 1, 2011 Posted October 1, 2011 Sir Thomas More..."...also known by Catholics as Saint Thomas More, was an English lawyer..."Well that disqualifies him right off the bat! Yep....you know how bad those lawyers can get!
Calm Posted October 1, 2011 Posted October 1, 2011 I could be wrong, but you seem to admit his death was not religiously motivated.Wasn't Christ's death more political than otherwise (since he was challenging the establishment)?
Calm Posted October 1, 2011 Posted October 1, 2011 (edited) Yep....you know how bad those lawyers can get! Glad to see you, selek. edited to fix name, auto spellcheck running amok. Edited October 1, 2011 by calmoriah
Zakuska Posted October 1, 2011 Author Posted October 1, 2011 (edited) You know Ive been looking over recountings of the story of Thomas Becket... and it seems to me that someone has been white washing the history...Heres some examples:On December 29th, 1170, four knights from the court of King Henry II burst into Canterbury Cathedral as the Archbishop was on his way to Vespers. Just inside the cloister door, they murdered Thomas Becket, whose defense of the rights of the Church had angered the King. His last words were: 'I accept death for the name of Jesus and for the Church.' On the 29 December 1170, four knights, believing the king wanted Becket out of the way, confronted and murdered Becket in Canterbury Cathedral.When the knights arrived at Canterbury Cathedral on 29th December 1170, they demanded that Becket pardon the men he had excommunicated. When Becket refused, they hacked him to death with their swords.The Death of Thomas Becket at Canterbury CathedralWhen they met Becket they first demanded that he should do as the king wished, but he firmly refused. At dusk that same day they entered Canterbury Cathedral, again seeking for him. "Where is the traitor, Thomas Becket?" one of them cried. Becket boldly answered, "Here am I--no traitor, but a priest of god." As he finished speaking the knights rushed upon him and killed him. The people of England were horrified by this brutal murder. Becket was called a martyr and his tomb became a place of pious pilgrimage. The Pope canonized him and for years he was the most venerated of English saints.No mention of Thomas grabbing the knight by the knap of the neck and using his super human Holy Ghost infused strength to lift him from the floor, with one arm, shake him and dump him in a worthless pile on the floor, before being hacked to death by the others like a bleeting sheep. Edited October 1, 2011 by Zakuska
selek1 Posted October 1, 2011 Posted October 1, 2011 You know Ive been looking over recountings of the story of Thomas Becket... and it seems to me that someone has been white washing the history...No mention of Thomas grabbing the knight by the knap of the neck and using his super human Holy Ghost infused strength to lift him from the floor, with one arm, shake him and dump him in a worthless pile on the floor, before being hacked to death by the others like a bleeting sheep.CONSPIRACY!!!!!!!!!Them dang Anglicans are HIDING THE TRUTH!!!!!!!!Ummmmm........sorry.My inner-Tanner suddenly leaked out...
Scott Lloyd Posted October 2, 2011 Posted October 2, 2011 Glad to see you, selek. edited to fix name, auto spellcheck running amok.Yes, welcome back to selek.
selek1 Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 Thanks, all, for the welcome and Nemesis for the special dispensation which allowed me to return.
Pahoran Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 To me the operative statement is:There are many accepted definitions of the term "martyr" I prefer the tightest definition, where one who would willingly face death rather than renounce their faith. By that definition, Smith was not a martyr.Of course he was. Don't be so ridiculous.Joseph willingly faced death rather than renounce his faith. That is a fact that only the most obdurate anti-Mormons deny.For Smith, I see it as a problem that he lied about polygamy, even to his wife, rather than face the consequences of the doctrine.Which has absolutely nothing to do with the question at hand. Joseph was a witness (Greek, martyria) of Jesus Christ and the Restoration of the Gospel.To classify Smith as a martyr, you have to adopt a broad definition, which would include David Koresh, John SInger, Martin Luther King, and I suppose the persons that Joseph Smith shot during the attack (if they were killed).You know Jaybear, I'm sure you could be more offensive if you tried. Off-hand I can't think how, but I'm sure you would be up to the challenge.If you want to believe Smith is a martyr, that is your business. But don't be so surprised and offended when not everyone agrees.Since you can only "disagree" by resorting to heavy-duty special pleading, I think your jaybearing actually supports the fact that Joseph was a martyr.Regards,Pahoran 2
Jaybear Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 Of course he was. Don't be so ridiculous.Joseph willingly faced death rather than renounce his faith. That is a fact that only the most obdurate anti-Mormons deny.Which has absolutely nothing to do with the question at hand. Joseph was a witness (Greek, martyria) of Jesus Christ and the Restoration of the Gospel.You know Jaybear, I'm sure you could be more offensive if you tried. Off-hand I can't think how, but I'm sure you would be up to the challenge.Since you can only "disagree" by resorting to heavy-duty special pleading, I think your jaybearing actually supports the fact that Joseph was a martyr.Regards,PahoranI understand completely. You throw out petty insults to mask your inability to engage in an intelligent, substantive, civil discussion with someone that doesn't share your veneration of all things Mormon. If you will redact from your post, the personal insults that detract from the issue at hand, I would be glad to respond to any substantive criticism of my opinion that you feel is warranted. I won't be holding my breath.
Ares Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 I understand completely. You throw out petty insults to mask your inability to engage in an intelligent, substantive, civil discussion with someone that doesn't share your veneration of all things Mormon. If you will redact from your post, the personal insults that detract from the issue at hand, I would be glad to respond to any substantive criticism of my opinion that you feel is warranted. I won't be holding my breath.If you find something offensive report it. Don't try to play moderator.Your comparisons to David Koresh were reported and you were allowed to continue. Perhaps this should have been stopped at that point?
Ares Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 Please don't get my thread locked!The thread will stay open. Individual participants may find themselves unable to comment.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 (edited) Your comparisons to David Koresh were reported and you were allowed to continue. Perhaps this should have been stopped at that point?Which were hardly less offensive or inflammatory than his comparisons of Joseph Smith to those who murdered him. Pahoran's words were right on point. Edited October 3, 2011 by Scott Lloyd
Jaybear Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 Which were hardly less offensive or inflammatory than his comparisons to the murderers of Joseph and Hyrum Smith. Pahoran's words were right on point.You are taking offense where none was conveyed or intended. I simply pointed out the existence of two irreconcilable assumptions:(1) JS was by definition a martyr, and(2) the term "martyr" is a rare and honorable title.Those who desire to preserve their belief that Smith was a martyr, by adopting an expansive definition of the term, (died for a cause, religious or political) do so at great cost to their second belief.By pointing out that adopting a definition of "martyr" which is so broad in scope that it brings in people who are of disreputable character, I am not offering a criticism of Joseph Smith, I am offering a criticism of the proposed definition of the term martyr.As you are a professional writer, I would expect you to understand the difference.
Recommended Posts