Martyrs Don'T Fight Back...

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

So far, I've not taken part in this thread, nor have I read most of it. But my definition of a martyr is this: one who refuses to renounce his cause or values as a condition for being allowed to remain alive.

It is my contention that this definition fits Joseph Smith well. I'm also prepared to acknowledge that it could take in others whose causes or values I disagree with. That is to say, I do not have to agree with a martyr to view him as a martyr. Nor do I believe that a person must accept death passively in order to be regarded as a martyr.

But to say that my definition covers the members of the lynch mob who murdered Joseph and Hyrum is absurd in the extreme if not intentionally inflammatory.

Edited October 3, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[Jaybear]

So far, I've not taken part in this thread, nor have I read most of it. But my definition of a martyr is this: one who refuses to renounce his cause or values as a condition for being allowed to remain alive.

It is my contention that this definition fits Joseph Smith well. I'm also prepared to acknowledge that it could take in others whose causes or values I disagree with. That is to say, I do not have to agree with a martyr to view him as a martyr.

But to say that it takes in the members of the lynch mob who murdered Joseph and Hyrum is absurd in the extreme if not intentionally inflammatory.

If you had actually read my posts, you would not have erroneously assumed that I said, suggested, or implied that this narrow definition to which you subscribe, would include members of the lynch mob.

As to Smith, when exactly was he given the chance to renounce his beliefs and live? The choice he had was to either flee the jurisdiction or submit to the authorities.

Smith had previously left New York, Ohio, and Missouri, I certainly would not assume that a flight from Illinois would be tantamount to renunciation of his beliefs.

[Scott Lloyd]

As to Smith, when exactly was he given the chance to renounce his beliefs and live? The choice he had was to either flee the jurisdiction or submit to the authorities.

Recorded statements from the Prophet clearly show that he assumed — correctly, as it turned out — that submission to the authorities in Carthage would culminate in his death.

He did so to stave off, if only momentarily, destruction of the people of Nauvoo at the hands of mobbers. He could have continued his flight from Nauvoo, eventually meeting up with his people after they departed for the Great Basin. In fact, I believe that may have been his initial intent.

At any time in a long string of oppression and persecution that afflicted Joseph and his people, if he had renounced his religious claims and abdicated his position of leadership, the mobs would have left him alone. But he did not, and they killed him. That makes him a martyr by my definition, which I see as a normative definition.

Edited October 3, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[Jaybear]

Recorded statements from the Prophet clearly show that he assumed — correctly, as it turned out — that submission to the authorities in Carthage would culminate in his death.

He did so to stave off, if only momentarily, destruction of the people of Nauvoo at the hands of mobbers. He could have continued his flight from Nauvoo, eventually meeting up with his people, who would flee to the Great Basin. In fact, I believe that may have been his initial intent.

Assuming that is all true, my question remains, at what point was he given the choice to renounce his beliefs and live?

If Smith knowingly gave up his life to save people of Nauvoo from the mobsters, akin to someone who threw them self on a grenade, that makes him a hero, not a martyr.

Edited October 3, 2011 by Jaybear

[Scott Lloyd]

Assuming that is all true, my question remains, at what point was he given the choice to renounce his beliefs and live?

If Smith knowingly gave up his life to save people of Nauvoo from the mobsters, akin to someone who threw them self on a grenade, that makes him a hero, not a martyr.

I've revised my post to more clearly answer your question. Please re-read it.

[Zakuska]

The difference between a Marytr and a Hero... One is dead the other doesn't have to be.

[Deborah]

I really don't understand Jaybear's obsession with this unless he's just trying to rile us.

[ldsfaqs]

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.

You seem confused....? By that definition, Joseph does most certainly fit.

He willingly faced death, and he wouldn't renounce his faith.

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.

You only think this because you choose to ignore certain evidences and believe the worst of Joseph.

The facts actually give tell that Joseph WAS "honest" about Polygamy. He never did practice polygamy, he practiced simple the "Sealing Ordinance" of Plurality of Wives, not Polygamy. Unless you are going to claim children who are sealed to their parents are actually practicing Polygamy, then you have a judgment problem. Yes, they aren't sealed as spouses, but they weren't Polygamist sealings either. You should learn the difference.

Joseph didn't lie to his wife either. She told him not to practice polygamy, and he didn't. And she new very well about the sealing ordinance, although possibly not at first. But, she did know it for a long time. One of Joseph's "wives" was one of her Relief society counselor's also, for something like a year, well after her knowing.

Anyway, Joseph didn't lie at all. He and the Church was accused of "Polygamy" and the Church didn't start polygamy until Utah. Thus, how can there be any LYING??? Thus, you ignore important facts to make such judgments. Just like anti's do about the blacks and the priesthood issue. It wasn't "blacks" that were denied the priesthood, it was only those of African decent, no matter the color. Plenty of blacks of various races and cultures were given the priesthood, India, central/south America, Islands, etc. Yes, some at different times when their lineage was determined, but the black and racism accusation is complete poppycock.

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).

Every one of those persons can certainly be classified as "martyrs" for some cause. Now, whether all were moral, honorable, good, etc., that's a different story. You think Joseph wasn't good or honorable, I think you're ignorant. The historical record is full of his good character. Only the lie by omission anti-mormon record shows Joseph as something less than good or honorable.

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.

Of course not everyone agrees, because not everyone is interested in the full truth and judging fairly. They love their drive-by anti-mormon media claims more.

[altersteve]

What I find absolutely hysterical is when people (i.e., Bill McKeever) make the absurd claim that Joseph Smith died in a "gun battle."

[ldsfaqs]

That is your definition. Smith would certainly be a martyr under your definition, as would everyone that died as a result of the attacks on 911, including the criminals.

Here is the one I prefer:

bsters Online: : a person who voluntarily suffers death as the penalty of witnessing to and refusing to renounce a religion

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

Dictionary.com: a person who willingly suffers death rather than renounce his or her religion.

Again, under those definitions Joseph certainly and entirely qualifies..... Or are you really trying to claim that Mob wasn't there persecuting him and the church, trying to kill him, and not trying to get him to renounce his so-called blasphemy?

[Scott Lloyd]

What I find absolutely hysterical is when people (i.e., Bill McKeever) make the absurd claim that Joseph Smith died in a "gun battle."

I find the statement intentionally and maliciously false. Because it is so odiously contemptible, I can't laugh at it.