Why Martyrdom?

[Robert F. Smith]

It's odd how this particular angry mob only chose to go after Joseph and Hyrum instead

of any other non-LDS Christian who chose to follow commandments and callings given

to them by Jesus Christ.

From what I read, Joseph Smith was escaping from arrest. Someone accused him of

deserting the Saints so he returned. That and accusations of treason/burning a press/&

polygamy led to his arrest (and possibly mob anger). Not sure where you are getting your

"for Christ" rationale.

Regards,

Jim

And yet, the righteous are frequently the victims of irrational anger. Why might that be?

[volgadon]

Try the Psalms. "For thy sake we are killed all the day long."

[MormonMason]

I can see that some people here need to read closely and carefully Fox's Book of the Martyrs. Not all died. Not all just sat there and took their lumps (some fought back bravely). Yet, all were classed as martyrs. Check also the original definition of the word "Martyr." Joseph and Hyrum Smith fit within the original conception of the term, no matter how many want to whine their ways out of it.

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo

[Robert F. Smith]

The evidence that Joseph was the victim of a Whig assassination plot is tenuous at best. As far as I can tell, Wicks's and Foister's thesis hasn't gained any traction among LDS historians (see, e.g., the reviews in the Journal of Mormon History, Dialogue, BYU Studies, and Western Historical Quarterly). Indeed, Stephen C. Taysom concludes his review with the statement: "It is unlikely that this book will cause any major revision of our understanding of Smith's murder, and it would be remarkable indeed if the event came to be viewed as an 'assassination.'" Joseph Smith's murder wasn't a spontaneous mob action, but neither was it political assassination.

Yeh, and (in a large conspiracy, with multiple targets) Lincoln was not assassinated for political reasons having directly to do with the slaveholding South. Both Joseph Smith and Elijah Lovejoy spoke out forcefully on the need to end slavery -- Joseph running for President on a platform to end slavery -- but that couldn't possibly have resulted in his assassination. Same for Martin Luther King Jr. He wasn't killed over race, was he? The politics of assassination couldn't possibly be as American as apple pie, could it?

Reminds me of the accepted dogmas of history that we are constantly told, e.g., about the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Who among the great LDS historians understands that many of the crucial major players in that event had a history together? How many realize that Major John D. Lee, Captain Alexander Fancher, and even General Albert Sidney Johnston had a history together in which they all participated in the extermination of entire groups of Indians (including women and children) during the so-called Black Hawk War of 1832. Captain Abraham Lincoln led a militia group during that War but saw no action. Yet every one of these men died by gunshot. How ironic but proper that their chickens should come home to roost.

[Nevo]

How many realize that Major John D. Lee, Captain Alexander Fancher, and even General Albert Sidney Johnston had a history together in which they all participated in the extermination of entire groups of Indians (including women and children) during the so-called Black Hawk War of 1832. Captain Abraham Lincoln led a militia group during that War but saw no action. Yet every one of these men died by gunshot. How ironic but proper that their chickens should come home to roost.

So it was proper and fitting that Lincoln was murdered because he had been a participant in the 1832 Black Hawk War—even though the closest he ever got to combat was burying the mutilated bodies of fellow militiamen? Good grief.

[Bernard Gui]

Could this be the scriptural basis?

Truly, truly, I say to you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it stays alone: but if it die, it brings forth much fruit. He that loves his life shall lose it; and he that hates his life in this world shall keep it to life eternal. If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honor. (John 12:24-26.)

Or this?

For I think that God has set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle to the world, and to angels, and to men. (1 Cor. 4:9.)

Or this?

Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection: And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yes, moreover of bonds and imprisonment (Heb. 11;35-36.)

How does a horrible death obtain a better resurrection? More damage to be repaired?

[Bernard Gui]

Probably a dispensational thing. The Apostles knew their mission was short and they did not take a lot of steps to try to preserve the Church for the future because they knew it was a matter of saving a few handfuls of souls, dying, and the faith dying with them. Death was a relief in the end because they knew they were going to eventually lose (though of course those they did help to salvation won). In those circumstances martyrdom is an honorable death and even something to maybe look forward to. In most cases that does not apply to us. We get to eventually win and survival does not mean living longer into a dark night with hope only for yourself as the lights of the gospel go out.

This sounds a bit like cop-assisted suicide.

[Bernard Gui]

Try the Psalms. "For thy sake we are killed all the day long."

What do you think "for thy sake" "means

[The Nehor]

This sounds a bit like cop-assisted suicide.

Only in the same sense as Abinadi would be considered such a suicide. It was inevitable so why not look forward to it.

[Bernard Gui]

Only in the same sense as Abinadi would be considered such a suicide. It was inevitable so why not look forward to it.

Why does Ignatius desire the most gruesome death possible...for the glory of God and the approval of the church?

[Scott Lloyd]

The following table may be useful in defining martyr and martyrdom. It comes from A. J. Wallace and R. D. Rusk, Moral Transformation: The Original Christian Paradigm of Salvation (New Zealand: Bridgehead, 2011), pp. 218, by way of Wikipedia. (Pardon, I can't get the tabular format to transfer over in the copy-and-paste.)

The astute reader will readily see that Joseph Smith meets the qualifications in every respect and, if we are to accept this definition as normative, those who deny his status as martyr have no persuasive grounds for doing so.

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.

Edited May 22, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[The Nehor]

Why does Ignatius desire the most gruesome death possible...for the glory of God and the approval of the church?

Masochism?

Could also be a desire to experience closeness with other martyrs and the Savior. Pain is also a teacher. Intense pain taught me about the atonement. I gained a new respect for it after I experienced the excruciating pain of kidney stones.....the kind of pain that makes me afraid I am not going to die.

[blueadept]

Why does Ignatius desire the most gruesome death possible...for the glory of God and the approval of the church?

From my understanding, Ignatius was the recognized leader of the Christian church at that time and he wanted to follow the example as shown by Christ himself.

From the Catholic perspective, Jesus is seen as the groom and the church is seen as the spouse (bride). He was willing to die for his bride and that seemed to be the most gruesome death that was possible at that time. Why wouldn't Ignatius (and most of the early Christian followers at that time) want to follow Christ's example since the bride at that time was being persecuted? I believe history tends to show that whenever there was a lot of martyrdom (in the name of Christ), greater number of conversions tended to occur which frustrated the Romans in the early days. They had the mentality that if they killed the early Christian leaders, then the followers would scatter but what really happened is that the number of followers grew.

I remember a recent movie called 'The Greater Glory' where the Mexican government captured and killed the Catholic priests and religious to control the influence that Rome could have in regards to Mexican affairs. In the long run, it didn't work out for the government and I would say there is a lot of Catholic influence there in Mexico.

My 2 cents

[Stroopwafel]

What is the scriptural basis for the quest for martyrdom?

I am not aware of any scripture that explicitly endorses martyrdom as a way to be had for saints. However, if you think about it, the idea of sacrifice has always sort of been surrounded by that of sanctity.

How does giving one's life in a horrific way gain the approval of God and the assurance of eternal life?

I can't talk for God, but for myself, I'd say giving one's life in a horrific way has a deep psychological impact for whoever assists to the event and for the generations after, which may serve to instill a certain passion about the given cause.

One thing though: "Characters of blood did they write on the way they went, and their folly taught that truth is proved by blood. But blood is the very worst witness to truth; blood tainteth the purest teaching, and turneth it into delusion and hatred of heart."

[Abulafia]

Bernard said : What is the scriptural basis for the quest for martyrdom?

How does giving one's life in a horrific way gain the approval of God and the assurance of eternal life?

I'm studying the works of Ignatius at the moment, and thought I might add some observations.

On a personal level, Ignatius has left the church at Antioch leaderless. From internal evidence in his writings it appears that there was some division in the Antiochene Church Community which brought him great sorrow. (He spends a lot of his time in his letters arguing for an organisation of Bishop, Council of Presbyters, and Deacons, and emphasises the importance of obeying and following the bishop as if he were the Lord).

Part of his reason for actively seeking Martyrdom (which may have been inevitable given the times) I think, may have been to atone for the sins of the early christian communities which by the time of his writing were beset by division and faction.

When Jesus was on the cross he tells one of the fellows who is being crucified with him that he would be with him in Paradise. There may be an early interpretation of this particular story as helping the early members to bypass an intermediate period, a 'get out of jail' card if you like, and go straight to paradise/heaven.

It may be that Jesus death on the cross was seen as a choice. Jesus as son of God and endowed with special powers was able at any time to avoid his fate. He chose not to. Jesus himself, so it could be argued, chose a gruesome death, and that gruesome death came to be seen as an "atonement" for sin by some of the early church communities. If Ignatius was influenced by Paul's teachings, he may have fed into this idea.

I don't know, but it appears that even some of the fiercest critics of the early christian communities, still expressed admiration for the way that they faced death, this in turn may have led to Constantine's later admiration for the group and to his 'conversion' to it, thus ensuring its (Christianity) survival.

Edited May 22, 2013 by Abulafia

[why me]

I don't know, but it appears that even some of the fiercest critics of the early christian communities, still expressed admiration for the way that they faced death, this in turn may have led to Constantine's later admiration for the group and to his 'conversion' to it, thus ensuring its (Christianity) survival.

The problem comes when a specific group defines martyrdom. For example, catholic apologists do not recognize Joseph's death as a martyrdom because he chose to defend himself. And yet, one can say that Joseph was murdered because of his religion as was Hyrum. I have no problem with going to one's death peacefully as they did in the early christian communities. But is this the only way that one can be considered a christian martyr?

Edited May 22, 2013 by why me

[why me]

Bernard said : What is the scriptural basis for the quest for martyrdom?

How does giving one's life in a horrific way gain the approval of God and the assurance of eternal life?

There is no scriptural basis for such a martyrdom unless we consider Christ a martyr. Christ went to his death because he knew that this was what was expected of him. He needed to die for our sins. I don't think that this makes him a religious martyr. I also don't view his death as an act of indulgence for assurance of eternal life.

[Bernard Gui]

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0102.htm

Bernard said : What is the scriptural basis for the quest for martyrdom?

How does giving one's life in a horrific way gain the approval of God and the assurance of eternal life?

I'm studying the works of Ignatius at the moment, and thought I might add some observations.

On a personal level, Ignatius has left the church at Antioch leaderless. From internal evidence in his writings it appears that there was some division in the Antiochene Church Community which brought him great sorrow. (He spends a lot of his time in his letters arguing for an organisation of Bishop, Council of Presbyters, and Deacons, and emphasises the importance of obeying and following the bishop as if he were the Lord).

Part of his reason for actively seeking Martyrdom (which may have been inevitable given the times) I think, may have been to atone for the sins of the early christian communities which by the time of his writing were beset by division and faction.

When Jesus was on the cross he tells one of the fellows who is being crucified with him that he would be with him in Paradise. There may be an early interpretation of this particular story as helping the early members to bypass an intermediate period, a 'get out of jail' card if you like, and go straight to paradise/heaven.

It may be that Jesus death on the cross was seen as a choice. Jesus as son of God and endowed with special powers was able at any time to avoid his fate. He chose not to. Jesus himself, so it could be argued, chose a gruesome death, and that gruesome death came to be seen as an "atonement" for sin by some of the early church communities. If Ignatius was influenced by Paul's teachings, he may have fed into this idea.

I don't know, but it appears that even some of the fiercest critics of the early christian communities, still expressed admiration for the way that they faced death, this in turn may have led to Constantine's later admiration for the group and to his 'conversion' to it, thus ensuring its (Christianity) survival.

Thank you very much for the insights. You haven't been around here for a while, right?

Those interested should read Ignatius' invaluable description of the Martyrdom of Polycarp http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0102.htm

[theplains]

And NT apostles appealed to the Romans in order to not be executed. Were early Christians killed for just their belief or because they refused to do something or did something contrary to what the prevailing authority wanted? Weren't they often accused of treason? Weren't there often involved mobs that shouted for their death?

Yes.

The accusations of treason, etc. grew out of their attempts to bring heaven to earth the best way that they knew how in their attempts to fulfill God's Will.

In Smith's case, I think it was different. See this FAIR article.

Thanks,

Jim

[theplains]

If he were to renounce his cause, as the mobs wanted him to do, he would have violated Christ's commandments.

From what I read in the FAIR article, it seems to have been politically motivated. Nothing

about the mobs coming to the jail to get him to renounce his cause. They were there to

kill him, not to talk with him.

Regards,

Jim

[why me]

From what I read in the FAIR article, it seems to have been politically motivated. Nothing

about the mobs coming to the jail to get him to renounce his cause. They were there to

kill him, not to talk with him.

Regards,

Jim

It was an accumulation of years of hatred and prejudice against the mormons. The press were rallying the mobs to chase the mormons out. All sorts of religious connotations were used against the mormons. Joseph, being the mormon religious leader, would always be in line of press fire and hostility. Do you actually believe that Joseph's religion had nothing to do with his death or previous persecution?

[why me]

http://www.newadvent...athers/0102.htm

Thank you very much for the insights. You haven't been around here for a while, right?

Those interested should read Ignatius' invaluable description of the Martyrdom of Polycarp http://www.newadvent...athers/0102.htm

Your links are basically from a catholic apologist website. Like I said, the catholic apologists seem to define just what a martyrdom is and what makes a martyr a martyr. However, this should not be allowed to stand.

The jews at Masada were also martyrs for their faith and they died fighting. One can also claim that the jews in the warsaw ghetto were also martyrs and they died fighting.

Although it may seem noble to die willingly and peacefully for the faith, it is not necessarily the only way to be a martyr.

Edited May 23, 2013 by why me

[Bernard Gui]

Your links are basically from a catholic apologist website. Like I said, the catholic apologists seem to define just what a martyrdom is and what makes a martyr a martyr. However, this should not be allowed to stand.

The jews at Masada were also martyrs for their faith and they died fighting. One can also claim that the jews in the warsaw ghetto were also martyrs and they died fighting.

Although it may seem noble to die willingly and peacefully for the faith, it is not necessarily the only way to be a martyr.

The link is to the text of Ignatius' letter. There are other sources for the text. I agree with your view of martyrdom. I'm curious why some passionately seek it.

[Robert F. Smith]

So it was proper and fitting that Lincoln was murdered because he had been a participant in the 1832 Black Hawk War—even though the closest he ever got to combat was burying the mutilated bodies of fellow militiamen? Good grief.

Yeh, good grief, Charlie Brown!

A little thought might have told you that I was speaking of the murderers, not Lincoln. However, there is something you should know:

Honest Abe did say that during the Civil War the govt could "plow around the Mormon stump," but that they would eventually get theirs, i.e., stump removal time would come. Lincoln was no friend to the Mormons.

Edited May 23, 2013 by Robert F. Smith