Why Martyrdom?

[Storm Rider]

The "martyr complex" is a human phenomenon not limited to religion. Extreme signs of some mental/emotional illness or instability manifest in the martyr complex. It is very, very common. And it is tied to the aphorism, "in this life the most important thing to learn is, who to blame". When someone takes the world to be at fault, and not themselves, the martyr complex kicks in. And in extreme cases it is deadly. Iggy was insane.

Joseph and Hyrum Smith, on the other hand, were victims of mobocracy, and imho were not martyred despite what Mormon tradition asserts. They were murdered for flouting the Constitution in the name of unpopular religion, that's what pushed "the mob" over the edge....

So a martyr cannot be killed by a mob; I assume that it must be by a noble judge that condemns the martyr to death and then the mob actually does not participate, but only cheers the murder of the individual? Strange approach and it seems more a legalistic construct to block the obvious. You stated, "they were murdered" for their unpopular religion....and the early followers of Christ were murdered for....an unpopular religion. So the difference is.....the era they were killed? hung on crosses? Do you know how many early martyrs were actually killed by mobs? It is in the tens if not hundreds.

[Tacenda]

So a martyr cannot be killed by a mob; I assume that it must be by a noble judge that condemns the martyr to death and then the mob actually does not participate, but only cheers the murder of the individual? Strange approach and it seems more a legalistic construct to block the obvious. You stated, "they were murdered" for their unpopular religion....and the early followers of Christ were murdered for....an unpopular religion. So the difference is.....the era they were killed? hung on crosses? Do you know how many early martyrs were actually killed by mobs? It is in the tens if not hundreds.

Or millions....

[Questing Beast]

I think that you are missing something. What you are missing is the letter itself and its tone. It is an epistle from a possible martyr for his faith. But not for him alone but for the others in jail too. It is an epistle of faith and what the future of the priesthood had in store for it as a group. But also, it set the tone of what was to become a huge sacrifice for the members, both men and women when they headed to Nauvoo and eventually to the Rockies.

Such a tone for an epistle could have also been written by the early christians as they languished in their own prisons waiting for their judgement.

I'm not missing that. Obviously the "epistle" was to the whole church, but especially to the fellow priesthood holders whose leaders were in prison. What I find disagreeable is the later excerpts from the epistle to make up three Sections of the D&C, singling out JS as the ONE spoken to and of, when in fact the whole epistle is meant to include everyone. JS did not receive some metaphysical experience separate from his dictation, yet that is exactly how Sections 121, 122 and 123 are presented, and how the Church portrays them in its media.

[Questing Beast]

Maybe it wasn't a revelation. No where in the introduction does it mention a 'revelation'. But it does state 'Prayer and Prophecies': 'Word of the Lord'; and 'Duty of' But then when in Nauvoo, section 124 states 'Revelation'

However, I think much was happening in that letter. What started out as a collective letter became something much more that was noticed at the time of writing it or later after the event. It is a marvelous epistle of fortitude and perseverance. And faith. And it should be read as such.

Yes, much is happening in the WHOLE letter/epistle.

I disagree with the "Church's" propensity to take a whole document and excerpt it, or even alter it and sometimes add to it. If "God" was right the first time, what business has man to do with altering the original? Check the differences, the deletions, alterations and interpolations in the Book of Commandments and the first edition of the D&C (1833 and 1835 respectively). I find no justification for making the changes, other than the demands of religion-making, i.e. the works of men, no matter how well-meaning. God has nothing to do with it....

[why me]

Yes, much is happening in the WHOLE letter/epistle.

I disagree with the "Church's" propensity to take a whole document and excerpt it, or even alter it and sometimes add to it. If "God" was right the first time, what business has man to do with altering the original? Check the differences, the deletions, alterations and interpolations in the Book of Commandments and the first edition of the D&C (1833 and 1835 respectively). I find no justification for making the changes, other than the demands of religion-making, i.e. the works of men, no matter how well-meaning. God has nothing to do with it....

The section from liberty jail was in 1839. I have no idea how it could have been in the 1835 or 33 edition. Can you explain? I do have the 1880 version and it seems to match quite well.

[Bernard Gui]

Joseph Smith Jr. was killed because he was a Mormon. That makes him a martyr.

Hyrum Smith was killed because he was a mormon. That makes him a martyr.

If you are killed because of your religious beliefs you are a martyr. It does not matter that the straw that broke the camels back was his political activity. That was just the finishing piece on built up hatred over him being a Prophet.

Do you think Joseph and Hyrum sought for martyrdom like Ignatius and Polycarp?

[MormonMason]

Yes, much is happening in the WHOLE letter/epistle.

I disagree with the "Church's" propensity to take a whole document and excerpt it, or even alter it and sometimes add to it. If "God" was right the first time, what business has man to do with altering the original? Check the differences, the deletions, alterations and interpolations in the Book of Commandments and the first edition of the D&C (1833 and 1835 respectively). I find no justification for making the changes, other than the demands of religion-making, i.e. the works of men, no matter how well-meaning. God has nothing to do with it....

Obviously you have not noticed when Biblical prophets did the same thing with their revelations. Yes, even Prophets and other inspired authors in the Bible sometimes revised their own revelations or even the revelations of other prophets in their own writings. Read carefully and compare, and you will see.

In the case of Joseph, many of these additions were a result of combining multiple revelations into one. In other cases they were clarifications of specific phrases and words. In yet other cases, some passages were revisions of things men would and often did misunderstand otherwise. In yet other cases, some of the revelations were taken from larger works and only portions used. It is a prophet's prerogative when under the direction and permission of God to do so.

God reveals but it is up to man to word it and convey it to man. Unfortunately, it is not a precise science and sometimes prophets can think of better ways to say something. When that happens revisions are inevitable. Unfortunately, so far as the Bible goes, most of the original texts were long ago destroyed so we see less of this sort of thing. We are fortunate indeed to see what we have left show the same kinds of happenings with prophets revising their words and the words of other prophets/sacred writers.

[MormonMason]

Maybe it wasn't a revelation. No where in the introduction does it mention a 'revelation'. But it does state 'Prayer and Prophecies': 'Word of the Lord'; and 'Duty of' But then when in Nauvoo, section 124 states 'Revelation'

However, I think much was happening in that letter. What started out as a collective letter became something much more that was noticed at the time of writing it or later after the event. It is a marvelous epistle of fortitude and perseverance. And faith. And it should be read as such.

The letter contains inspired counsel and actual revelations as part of the letter. Just because Beast keeps missing them does not mean that they aren't there.

[MormonMason]

The section from liberty jail was in 1839. I have no idea how it could have been in the 1835 or 33 edition. Can you explain? I do have the 1880 version and it seems to match quite well.

He may be referring in the case of the letter to what the Tanners have published about it by comparing a page from the Times and Seasons that contained a version of the letter with the publication in the Doctrine and Covenants. It is shown in the same material by them concerning modifications between the 1833 Book of Commandments and 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, which might have confused the Beast a bit.

The Tanners, however, did not have the benefit of seeing the actual letter in the original when they wrote what they did. Someone modified the letter in the Times and Seasons to remove references to the God of gods, and other such like stuff. Of course, the Tanners have a nasty habit of leaving out context and very pertinent information regarding the situation when it suits them.

[tyler90az]

Do you think Joseph and Hyrum sought for martyrdom like Ignatius and Polycarp?

No

[tyler90az]

I decided to read The Martyrdom of Polycarp it is a writing done by church fathers and also eye witnesses. The idea that martyrdom is a ticket to heaven is a very Catholic thought. Which makes sense if you look at the time this doctrine was prominent. In the writing it says, "purchasing by the endurance of a single hour remission from eternal punishment." This is not a restored Gospel doctrine, a true doctrine. Even then as you read further it says, "brethren, we praise not them that give themselves up, since the gospel doth not so teach." That seems a clear indication the doctrine was to never just give yourself up. It was a doctrine that meant if you do not deny the Christ via word you will make it to heaven. As Latter-day Saints we do not believe one single moment will get us seated with Heavenly Father. Prophets in these latter-days have declared it is the sum total of our acts or who we become not a singular act.

[Bernard Gui]

I decided to read The Martyrdom of Polycarp it is a writing done by church fathers and also eye witnesses. The idea that martyrdom is a ticket to heaven is a very Catholic thought. Which makes sense if you look at the time this doctrine was prominent. In the writing it says, "purchasing by the endurance of a single hour remission from eternal punishment." This is not a restored Gospel doctrine, a true doctrine. Even then as you read further it says, "brethren, we praise not them that give themselves up, since the gospel doth not so teach." That seems a clear indication the doctrine was to never just give yourself up. It was a doctrine that meant if you do not deny the Christ via word you will make it to heaven. As Latter-day Saints we do not believe one single moment will get us seated with Heavenly Father. Prophets in these latter-days have declared it is the sum total of our acts or who we become not a singular act.

Polycarp may have been ordained a bishop by the apostle John, which makes him a pre-apostasy authority.

Edited May 26, 2013 by Bernard Gui

[tyler90az]

Yea, I am going to have to read his work.

[why me]

The letter contains inspired counsel and actual revelations as part of the letter. Just because Beast keeps missing them does not mean that they aren't there.

Yes, you are right. However, in the introduction they are not defined as such. And that was my point. I also think that the entire letter is not a revelation. It is an epistle that contains inspired text. That is my text on it.

[why me]

He may be referring in the case of the letter to what the Tanners have published about it by comparing a page from the Times and Seasons that contained a version of the letter with the publication in the Doctrine and Covenants. It is shown in the same material by them concerning modifications between the 1833 Book of Commandments and 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, which might have confused the Beast a bit.

The Tanners, however, did not have the benefit of seeing the actual letter in the original when they wrote what they did. Someone modified the letter in the Times and Seasons to remove references to the God of gods, and other such like stuff. Of course, the Tanners have a nasty habit of leaving out context and very pertinent information regarding the situation when it suits them.

I find it strange how people or former members can be influenced by such information without investigating it in more detail. Members who suddenly become doubtful seem to believe most what the critics 'preach'.

[MormonMason]

Yes, you are right. However, in the introduction they are not defined as such. And that was my point. I also think that the entire letter is not a revelation. It is an epistle that contains inspired text. That is my text on it.

Oh, I also know that not all of the letter is direct revelation. But, portions are and other portions clearly are inspired counsel, particularly the portion that became Section 121 that breaks into the pattern of revelation.

[MormonMason]

I find it strange how people or former members can be influenced by such information without investigating it in more detail. Members who suddenly become doubtful seem to believe most what the critics 'preach'.

People like the Tanners are good at what they do. People take a look at a few of the sources that they quote, find they are fairly or completely accurate, and stop there. Those who continue beyond the places where most stop come to realize the shell game the Tanners play with their sources. That is one reason why people fall for such things so often. For some, it gives the reader the excuses they are looking for to break commandments and leave the Church so they can continue living as they want to do.

For many years I used to meet with Evangelicals and others who either had left the Church or were thinking about it. 9 times out of 10 I found after interviewing them, sometimes for hours, that the underlying reason was that they had broken the law of chastity and had lost the Spirit and/or never were all that active to begin with. The other 1 out of 10 thought they had some valid doctrinal or other reason to leave and were pretty freaked out about what they had read. After further meetings that 1 out of 10 would return. The other 9 out of 10 never did so long as I knew them.

[Tacenda]

People like the Tanners are good at what they do. People take a look at a few of the sources that they quote, find they are fairly or completely accurate, and stop there. Those who continue beyond the places where most stop come to realize the shell game the Tanners play with their sources. That is one reason why people fall for such things so often. For some, it gives the reader the excuses they are looking for to break commandments and leave the Church so they can continue living as they want to do.

For many years I used to meet with Evangelicals and others who either had left the Church or were thinking about it. 9 times out of 10 I found after interviewing them, sometimes for hours, that the underlying reason was that they had broken the law of chastity and had lost the Spirit and/or never were all that active to begin with. The other 1 out of 10 thought they had some valid doctrinal or other reason to leave and were pretty freaked out about what they had read. After further meetings that 1 out of 10 would return. The other 9 out of 10 never did so long as I knew them.

Wrong, have you read/heard the report from John Dehlin on why people leave? The statistics from his polls, showed that it wasn't because of sin. But do agree once they leave their lifestyles change. I think it's very handy to use that reason though, so some won't wonder why people leave. BTW, when did you conduct these interviews? If it was more than 5 to 10 yrs. ago, then yes that could be the reason, but not any longer, since the internet. Which brings to mind something I read about membership records, does the church count dead members?

[MormonMason]

Wrong, have you read/heard the report from John Dehlin on why people leave? The statistics from his polls, showed that it wasn't because of sin. But do agree once they leave their lifestyles change. I think it's very handy to use that reason though, so some won't wonder why people leave. BTW, when did you conduct these interviews? If it was more than 5 to 10 yrs. ago, then yes that could be the reason, but not any longer, since the internet. Which brings to mind something I read about membership records, does the church count dead members?

John Dehlin slants his statistics. He also lies and censors his blogs by cutting out a lot that addresses his concerns. I have seen his antics for myself and others have experienced the same. In my opinion he is not a trustworthy source of membership statistical information.

I also know what I have experienced while working with such people. It is no exaggeration to state that 9 out of every 10 people with whom I met over more than two decades span and spent time interviewing about their desires to leave the Church or why they left started with breaking the law of chastity. The other 1 out of 10 were for other reasons which included simply being freaked out by something they read and by undue influence of Evangelicals.

Unfortunately, the people I interviewed had my promise not to reveal their personal information so no interview was ever published in any way. But I know what I was told over all that time. Feel free to continue to disagree since I cannot prove anything otherwise concerning this without recorded and detailed statistical information.

[MormonMason]

BTW, when did you conduct these interviews? If it was more than 5 to 10 yrs. ago, then yes that could be the reason, but not any longer, since the internet. Which brings to mind something I read about membership records, does the church count dead members?

I conducted the last interview of that kind over 5 years ago.

As to Church membership statistics and deceased members, if there is no clear death record and a body is missing but the member is not confirmed dead, I seem to recall that a person can be left on the rolls for somewhere between 99 or 110 years (I don't recall for a certainty which one it is but it is in the ballpark). Those are the only deceased members whom I am aware of would remain on the rolls of the Church under such circumstances. When there is a clear death record the name is removed from the active general Church membership roll. The number of such records is not all that large a number as one might think.

Now, before you fly off the handle and go off the deep end over this, consider how you would feel if you weren't dead but only went missing, and your name was taken off the rolls of the Church in the absence of a recorded death. Imagine how you would feel should you resurface and find that you had been taken off the rolls of the Church just because you went missing for a number of years. I'd be pretty upset about it if it happened to me. Perhaps you wouldn't be upset about it but that is why things are done this way. After the waiting period the names are removed from the general Church membership rolls.

[theplains]

FAIR is made up of human beings who have given their own interpretation of the event. They stress the political motivation. However, one could also stress the religious motivation when one considers the persecution that Joseph received throughout his church life.

Chapter 29 of Rough Stone Rolling seems to have a pretty detailed account of the last six

months of Smith's life and the persecution that he faced. Apparently, the persecution arose

from those within the LDS Church who viewed him as a fallen prophet.They had intended

to use the Expositor to expose/criticize him, so he had the press destroyed. According to

pages 537-538, "They held on to the Book of Mormon and the more conventional Christian

doctrines of the earth Church. What they hated was polygamy, the Kingdom of God, and

the tyranny of Joseph Smith. They wanted to reform Mormonism from within ..."

These Mormons hoped to incite mob hatred against Joseph Smith ... but it doesn't mention

what percentage of the mob was Mormon who opposed some teachings of Smith.

Page 621 of Gospel Doctrine records, "... for both realized and expressed their conviction,

before starting on the journey to Carthage, that they were going to their death. They might

have escaped; in fact, had but a few days before made the start for the Rocky Mountains,

but were recalled by the groundless fears of false friends who made the accusation that

they were fleeing from dangers that were equally as great towards the peace and happiness

of the members of the Church as they could possibly be towards themselves".

I can see that he was a martyr in the sense that he sacrificed his life in the hopes of

preserving the lives of other Latter-day Saints, but don't view it as a martyr like Stephen

who died for his faith. As for going out like a lamb ... RSR shows that he went out in a

gunfight ... evening alluding to a Masonic call.

Regards,

Jim

[why me]

I can see that he was a martyr in the sense that he sacrificed his life in the hopes of

preserving the lives of other Latter-day Saints, but don't view it as a martyr like Stephen

who died for his faith. As for going out like a lamb ... RSR shows that he went out in a

gunfight ... evening alluding to a Masonic call.

Regards,

Jim

When Joseph was in Liberty Jail, he was prepared to go out like a lamb. He was facing the death sentence when he was in liberty jail. I did not hear him renounce his faith. Just the opposite. However, in Carthage, we need to understand that he witnessed his brother Hyrum shot dead in the face. Think of the shock of seeing this and he also had others with him in jail. So, he picks up a six shooter and fires three bullets at an armed mob of a hundred. Hardly a gun fight. He then runs to the window. Now did he begin a mormon distress signal or did he find himself saying what he said as a way to face his maker before he was shot. He must have known that no mason could save him at that moment. So, he was a martyr. And if he did not witness his brother being shot in the face, he would have most likely faced death peacefully.

[why me]

Chapter 29 of Rough Stone Rolling seems to have a pretty detailed account of the last six

months of Smith's life and the persecution that he faced. Apparently, the persecution arose

from those within the LDS Church who viewed him as a fallen prophet.They had intended

to use the Expositor to expose/criticize him, so he had the press destroyed. According to

pages 537-538, "They held on to the Book of Mormon and the more conventional Christian

doctrines of the earth Church. What they hated was polygamy, the Kingdom of God, and

the tyranny of Joseph Smith. They wanted to reform Mormonism from within ..."

These Mormons hoped to incite mob hatred against Joseph Smith ... but it doesn't mention

what percentage of the mob was Mormon who opposed some teachings of Smith.

Regards,

Jim

I already included what the Warsaw Signal said about him. The paper said that his days were numbered. The exmormons knew that it would not take much to incite the mobs. The people were already fired up. It just took the right match. I don't think that William Law wanted Joseph Smith dead. He most likely wanted to put pressure on the leadership to abandon polygamy. But...like a dry forest, it doesn't take much to get the fire started causing a terrible outcome.

[Questing Beast]

The section from liberty jail was in 1839. I have no idea how it could have been in the 1835 or 33 edition. Can you explain? I do have the 1880 version and it seems to match quite well.

Sorry to be confusing. I was illustrating that this interpolation, excerpting propensity has been with the Church since the beginning, predating the excerpting of the "epistle" of 1839 into Sections 121, 122 and 123, and leaving out ninety percent of the epistle....

[Questing Beast]

Obviously you have not noticed when Biblical prophets did the same thing with their revelations. Yes, even Prophets and other inspired authors in the Bible sometimes revised their own revelations or even the revelations of other prophets in their own writings. Read carefully and compare, and you will see.

In the case of Joseph, many of these additions were a result of combining multiple revelations into one. In other cases they were clarifications of specific phrases and words. In yet other cases, some passages were revisions of things men would and often did misunderstand otherwise. In yet other cases, some of the revelations were taken from larger works and only portions used. It is a prophet's prerogative when under the direction and permission of God to do so.

God reveals but it is up to man to word it and convey it to man. Unfortunately, it is not a precise science and sometimes prophets can think of better ways to say something. When that happens revisions are inevitable. Unfortunately, so far as the Bible goes, most of the original texts were long ago destroyed so we see less of this sort of thing. We are fortunate indeed to see what we have left show the same kinds of happenings with prophets revising their words and the words of other prophets/sacred writers.

Everything you argue for here reinforces my problem with "revelation". Anyone can do it the way that you advocate for. Isaiah is so-interpolated, and the original "Isaiah" had nothing at all to do with the later additions coming under his name. And so it has always been with religion-makers....