Joseph Smith...martyr Or Not?

[halconero]

Because we need to stop derailing the other thread:

[Gray]

It's a question of what definition you're using. I don't think it's an important question, though, respectfully 

[The Nehor]

With the actual definition of the word: Yes.

With accumulated cultural baggage: Maybe

[JLHPROF]

Because we need to stop derailing the other thread:

 

Martyr - to be put to death for a cause or belief (religious or otherwise).

 

So yes, Joseph was a martyr.

[Coreyb]

sure he is, just more for polygamy and theocracy rather than the book of mormon

[Kenngo1969]

Halconero,

 

Muchisisimas Gracias!!!  Thank you!!!  If you were here, I would hug you ... in an [Ahem!] exceedingly manly way, of course!

 

P.S.: Of course, to cover all of the topics addressed in the other thread, you'll need to start about ten new ones ("Does the Church lie about its history in manuals?" et cetera.)

Edited February 14, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[halconero]

sure he is, just more for polygamy and theocracy rather than the book of mormon

 

Fair point, but I would interject and say that his last actions definitely serve as a testimony to the Book of Mormon. The fact that one of his last actions was to study the Book of Mormon, and bear testimony of it, reflect on his feelings towards it even in his last moments.

[CV75]

sure he is, just more for polygamy and theocracy rather than the book of mormon

I think D&C 135:1 speaks to the announcement of the martyrdom, which seals the testimony of the books (D&C and Book of Mormon). “Bringing them forth” in verse 6 speaks to the requisite restoration of the testimonies and covenants contained within the books in order for the books to be published and disseminated. Joseph and Hyrum were killed for their testimonies but also for the restored testimonies of Christ (as "another testament") and His covenants, which covenants some have reduced from the sealing power of Elijah and the Kingdom of God to polygamy and theocracy. Verse 3 describes the actual basis for Joseph’s martyrdom in the first and last sentences. His mission and his works encompassed far more than biased deconstruction can recognize.

[Scott Lloyd]

Not intending to sound immodest, because I really like my post from the other thread, I'm pasting it in here:

 

Okay, I'll say one thing about the earliest christian practice of martyrdom (and I guess it is on topic in a way because it is one of the 5 points where Tom specifically deals with items of church history).   Jesus, was crucified, we are told willingly.   He didn't fight back, he was innocent of any crime, and he told Peter to put away his sword.   

That account wasn't forgotten and the very earliest martyrs also went to their deaths in similitude of the sacrifice of Jesus of Nazareth.   They didn't fight back.   Ignatius is a very early example, who used his walk to martyrdom to teach, (whether you agree with him or not), to admonish and to set an example of peaceful and passive resistance.  It worked.  The christian movement grew for one reason or another, and even fierce critics like Galen would later comment on this aspect of Christian practice as something he 'did' admire, along with all the other things that he didn't.


 

This subject comes up every so often on this board. I regret that others seem determined to derail this thread with it, but I can't leave this post unresponded to.

 

Here's a link to a past thread on this topic. I will be quoting relevant posts here that I, and perhaps others, made on that thread back in 2007:

 

Anyone with an agrarian background will attest that animals, when they have the sense that they are in danger, are anything but passive. The die is cast for the lamb going to the slaughter, but that doesn't mean the lamb is passive during the procedure.

Similarly, I am convinced that the die was cast when Joseph Smith submitted to the authorities at Carthage, and my conviction is that the Prophet knew it. But that doesn't mean he was required to submit passively for the Bible imagery to apply, especially when caring friends who were with him were in danger themselves. (Suppose Peter, when standing with Christ at the time the soliders took him, was on the verge of being killed as well. Would Christ have done nothing to prevent the disciple's death? Who knows? There was much for Peter to accomplish in his life.)

If anything, Joseph's resistance devolves to the further condemnation of the mobbers who murdered him, as they had to try that much harder to carry out their evil deed.

 

 

Here's a good comment from alter idem:

 

No...this is a strange way to look at this situation. When Joseph made the statement of going "as a lamb to the slaughter" he was referring to going to Carthage and allowing himself to be taken by his enemies. He felt that he was walking into certain death--which he was.

Joseph and his companions were sitting ducks in an upper room of the Jail. They did not "kick a hornets nest"-- a murderous mob descended on them in the jail and at this point, Joseph made a futile attempt to defend himself and his friends by shooting back at those who were shooting at them. Why should his desire to defend himself and his companions make him something other than a martyr. A martyr is someone who seals his testimony with his blood. Joseph and Hyrum were made martyrs by a deranged mob who took advantage of their vulnerable situation.

 

Here's a post I made when somebody said Joseph "kicked a hornet's nest" by putting up a defense:

 

"Kicked the hornet's nest"?

That's ridiculous! What do you think the mobbers would have done had Joseph not tried to fend them off? Given him a stern talking-to and then left?

 

Here's how Daniel Peterson responded to the same comment that I responded to:

 

Yes, he certainly upset them. And to think that, until then, they were so serene and orderly!

I don't know that his attempted defense of his brother and his friends was hopeless. Many people, though filled with violent hatred, back down when they find themselves staring into hot lead. And, in fact, Willard Richards and John Taylor did actually, contrary to their own expectations, survive the onslaught of the mob.

Your response reminds me, though, of a small portion of an article that I wrote some years back, entitled "'Shall They Not Both Fall into the Ditch?' What Certain Baptists Think They Know about the Restored Gospel," FARMS Review 10/1 (1998):

http://maxwellinstit...o...10&number=1

I have a paragraph in a section of that lengthy essay that bears the subtitle "Fuel on the Fire of the Auto-da-F�?©" in which I rewrite the story of Joseph's murder along lines suggested by certain anti-Mormons.

 

To the remark that to be a martyr one must passively submit to death (which notion I reject, by the way), Daniel Peterson responded:

 

Which Joseph actually did. Both when he voluntarily recrossed the Mississippi to be taken into custody and when he went to the window at Carthage.

In the interim, though, he did not passively submit to the murder of his brother or to the attempted murder of the two innocent friends who were merely visiting him in the jail. To which I say Bravo.

 

 

Here's an insightful post from Bluebell:

 

To be fair, joseph said that he was going 'like a lamb to the slaughter' on his way to carthage jail, and his conduct on the way to said jail does fit in with the 'commonly understood meaning' of the phrase.

JS, as a mortal man, could not have guessed his reaction when faced with armed men firing at him and his loved ones in a confined space, and i don't believe he even tried to gauge it.

I don't think his announcement of a 'lamb to the slaughter' was a prophecy of what his conduct at the time of his death would be but rather an announcement of his willingly submitting to an course that would lead to his death.

He certainly went like a lamb to the 'slaughter house'. His actions once there were not so meek.

 

 

I will here reiterate what I have said on a number of occasions when this subject has come up. All that is required for one to qualify as a martyr is to refuse to renounce one's convictions as a price for being allowed to remain alive. It is not requisite that one passively submit to being killed.

 

You said this:

 

The information about Joseph's (unjust) assassination is worth teaching to investigators  I think, but in a more balanced fashion.  If he is portrayed as an innocent participant, a lamb to the slaughter,  slayed simply for not wishing to deny the Book of Mormon (someone pm'd me with that reason yesterday as if it were historical fact), then members will be disappointed when they find out the messier and more complex history.      Lambs don't carry guns.   

 

What would you have us do to be more "balanced"? Propound the damnable falsehoood-by-implication that our antagonists do when they say Joseph "died in a shootout"?

 

 

Edited to add:

 

Wikipedia has this interesting table giving  "common features of stereotypical martyrdoms":

 

Common features of stereotypical martyrdoms^[6] 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.

 

 

I notice there is nothing in there about passively submitting to death.

 

I notice further how well the Prophet Joseph Smith fits these listed qualifications.

[Coreyb]

Without a doubt his testimony and feelings about the book of Mormon were still strong with him in his last hours. As the largest tangible evidence of his prophetic calling, it can be seen to represent what his life's mission was about. However, based on the rhetoric of The Warsaw Signal and The Nauvoo Expositor that I have read, fantastic sexual allegations and massive political control in the county connected with the Church (not to mention the destruction of the "whistle-blower") seem to be what angered the mobsters enough to storm the jail and murder Joseph. 

[Scott Lloyd]

Without a doubt his testimony and feelings about the book of Mormon were still strong with him in his last hours. As the largest tangible evidence of his prophetic calling, it can be seen to represent what his life's mission was about. However, based on the rhetoric of The Warsaw Signal and The Nauvoo Expositor that I have read, fantastic sexual allegations and massive political control in the county connected with the Church (not to mention the destruction of the "whistle-blower") seem to be what angered the mobsters enough to storm the jail and murder Joseph. 

By trying to isolate one or two reasons why Joseph Smith suffered martyrdom, you end up grossly over-simplifying the scenario.

 

For example, the concentration of political power in Nauvoo stemmed from the refusal of the Church's enemies in Missouri, earlier in Ohio and later in Illinois, to let the Latter-day Saints live in peace.

 

The suppression of the Expositor was an effort to prevent incitement of further persecution and violence by outsiders, apostates and traitors.

 

And all of this ultimately stemmed from Joseph's endeavor to introduce a new religious order in society while being harassed in a milieu of violence and bigotry.

 

Put it all together, and the inescapable conclusion is that Joseph suffered martyrdom for his religious convictions.

[MiserereNobis]

From a Catholic point-of-view, martyrs are witnesses of the Faith (the Greek "martus" means "witness) by refusing to deny it, even at the loss of their own lives.  If someone is tortured for refusing to deny the Faith, but is not killed, we call them confessors, because they have confessed the Faith.  There has always been the sense that martyrs and confessors did not fight back, but accepted their deaths so that they could be crowned with palms.  Christians were not told to seek death, but to accept it willingly and passively when it came, for the glory of Christ.  From this point-of-view, calling Joseph Smith a martyr seems a bit odd -- it clashes with the Christian sensibility of the term since he fought back.

 

An example might be the Cristero war in Mexico, late 1920s, when Catholics fought the Federal government because of its anti-Catholic laws.  Many Catholics died fighting, but the only ones considered martyrs were those who did not take up arms but refused to deny the Faith.  Most of these were priests that continued to offer the Sacraments and were executed for doing so.

 

Having said all this, I think attacking Joseph Smith over this point is quite ridiculous because it is such a small and minor point.  I might not personally think of Joseph Smith as a martyr, but I'm not going to waste any energy telling people otherwise *shrug*

Edited February 13, 2014 by MiserereNobis

[Scott Lloyd]

 

Having said all this, I think attacking Joseph Smith over this point is quite ridiculous because it is such a small and minor point.  I might not personally think of Joseph Smith as a martyr, but I'm not going to waste any energy telling people otherwise *shrug*

Seems to me you just did.

 

Again, from a normative (as opposed to an esoteric) perspective, the key identifying factor is that the person refuses to renounce his convictions as a condition for being allowed to remain alive, not whether or not the person resists the infliction of death.

Edited February 13, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[MiserereNobis]

Seems to me you just did.

 

Well, what I guess I meant was that I wouldn't bring it up myself, because I think it so trivial a point, but I thought I would respond to this thread here since a few posts mentioned the traditional Christian view of martyrdom.

 

Again, from a normative (as opposed to an esoteric) perspective, the key identifying factor is that the person refuses to renounce his convictions as a condition for being allowed to remain alive, not whether or not the person resists the infliction of death.

 

Sure, I get that.  I just wanted to clarify the traditional Christian point-of-view, that's all.  You're more than welcome to have your martyr

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, what I guess I meant was that I wouldn't bring it up myself, because I think it so trivial a point, but I thought I would respond to this thread here since a few posts mentioned the traditional Christian view of martyrdom.

 

 

 

Sure, I get that.  I just wanted to clarify the traditional Christian point-of-view, that's all.  You're more than welcome to have your martyr

Not wishing to be difficult here, but I don't even concede the "traditional Christian point-of-view," if that is meant to encompass the New Testament apostolic period. I understand that Paul exhausted every legal recourse before finally suffering death for his faith. Is he not to be regarded a martyr?

 

I'll grant your right to an esoteric definition so long as there is no endeavor to impose it as a normative one.

[Garden Girl]

This topic comes up every few months and the argument back and forth about what constitutes being a martyr... and someone invariably brings up that Joseph "fought back" thus nullifying him as a martyr... and like a few posts before mine here that "martyrs don't carry guns."  If I'm not mistaken, when Joseph and his friends went back to Carthage and he said he was "going like a lamb to the slaughter" he did not carry a gun... rather, the small pea shooter was smuggled in to him when they were being held in the jail.  When the mob attacked and he saw they were bent upon killing his beloved brother and their friends with them, he stuck his arm out the door and fired blindly into the mob that was pushing from the other side... killing no one and wounding just a couple of the mob... he then went over to the window... 

IMO, Joseph was a martyr, pea shooter or not... he was killed... murdered... at the hands of a rabid mob bent on murder... because of what he believed and in trying to save his brother and the others. 

 

GG

[Scott Lloyd]

Not wishing to be difficult here, but I don't even concede the "traditional Christian point-of-view," if that is meant to encompass the New Testament apostolic period. I understand that Paul exhausted every legal recourse before finally suffering death for his faith. Is he not to be regarded a martyr?

 

I'll grant your right to an esoteric definition so long as there is no endeavor to impose it as a normative one.

I remembered and found this thoughtful essay from Danel Bachman in BYU Studies.

 

Here's a relevant passage as to whether a marytr can resist death. Notice he makes the same point I did about Paul legally resisting the infliction of death:

 

 

Can a Martyr Resist Death?

Naysayers of Joseph Smith’s qualifying point to four elements of his resistance, any one of which, they say, would remove him from the honored ranks of the martyrs. First, he used a gun. Second, he tried to escape by trying to jump out the window. Third, he allegedly called on the Nauvoo Legion to rescue him. And fourth, he violated his own statement that he was going “like a lamb to the slaughter.”

In response to these objections, some important questions about a comparison of Joseph Smith with traditional Christian martyrs arise. Jesus, Stephen, and Paul are the epitome of Christian martyrs. While the accounts or the deaths of Jesus and Stephen state or imply their passive acceptance of death, the conclusion that martyrs do not resist death based on these examples is superficial. While Jesus finally accepted judgment and death at the hands of the Jews and Romans in Jerusalem, he did resist earlier attempts against his life. Likewise, Paul resisted being put to death through Rome’s legal and judicial system, apparently taking advantage of every provision of Roman law that might bring an acquittal. Similarly, Abinadi fled from the wrath of the people of Noah on his first visit among them. So one has to ask why do some critics distinguish between the resistance of Jesus and Paul and that of Joseph Smith? Is Joseph’s disallowed because it was violent and extralegal? Is only nonviolent and legal resistance permitted by martyrs? If so, on what basis is this criterion decided?

Moreover, the circumstances in Carthage seem different from those of most other Christian martyrs’ deaths. Prisoners typically do not have weapons in prison as Joseph Smith did, nor do they have innocent cell mates present who are not under indictment but are simply there as supporting friends. One can legitimately ask how Stephen or Paul might have reacted under similar circumstances. In addition, were martyrs usually surprised by a hostile illegal lynch mob as were Joseph and Hyrum? Most, it seems, had time to contemplate their fate and presumably their reactions to it after the authorities had condemned them to death. In Carthage, no such sentence had been passed; the prisoners were not awaiting execution, only adjudication of their case. Consequently, the comparison between Joseph and Hyrum and most typical Christian martyrs does not appear to be completely analogous.

Nevertheless, we do have some indications from another period of Church history that may speak to this issue. In November 1838 Joseph and Hyrum were sentenced to be shot by a quasi-military court-martial. An examination of the records of that period reveals no effort on the part of either man to violently resist their fate either personally or by rallying their supporters. Joseph explained:

Hyrum, however, writing a month later speaks of no spiritual premonitions. His straightforward statement was:As far as I was concerned, I felt perfectly calm, and resigned to the will of my heavenly Father. ... And notwithstanding that every avenue of escape seemed to be entirely closed, and death stared me in the face, and that my destruction was determined upon, as far as man was concerned; yet, from my first entrance into the camp, I felt an assurance, that I with my brethren and our families should be consolation to my soul, in the depth of sorrow and distress, bade me be of good cheer, and promised deliverance.

In pondering whether martyrs may resist death, we find still another question presents itself: Who and what determines the time of martyrdom, and how does the martyr-to-be know the time has arrived? If one agrees that Abinadi’s fleeing from king Noah, or Paul’s using the Roman judicial system, or Jesus’ “passing through the midst” of the crowd at Nazareth (Luke 4:30) are, in effect, resisting, martyrdom, and that they differ from Joseph Smith’s defiance only in degree, then one is led to ask why did Abinadi, Paul, and Jesus resist? Why didn’t they submit to the will of their opponents when they were first threatened? Obviously, in the cases of Abinadi and Jesus, they resisted because their missions were not complete. The same may also be true of Paul in that it gave him time to take the gospel to Rome, although that point is not as explicit in the record of his story as it is in those of Abinadi and Jesus. Since Joseph was only awaiting the disposition of his case, and not yet on “death row,” is it reasonable to assume that he knew when and how his own martyrdom was to take place, and should have faced it more calmly than he did?I thank God that I felt a determination to die, rather than deny the things which my eyes had seen, which my hands had handled, and which I had borne testimony to, wherever my lot had been cast; and I can assure my beloved brethren that I was enabled to bear as strong a testimony, when nothing but death presented itself, as ever I did in my life. My confidence in God was likewise unshaken. (23)

Jesus’ martyrdom differs in at least one major respect from those of Abinadi, Paul, Joseph, and Hyrum, and that is that he was not powerless to change the outcome, while they succumbed to forces beyond their control. Perhaps that is the true meaning of the “lamb to the slaughter” metaphor, where the emphasis is on the slaughter and the powerlessness of the lamb to resist it, rather than the lamb’s nonresistance. Indeed, those familiar with sheep tell me that once a sheep becomes aware of the danger it faces, its anxiety and resistance can be quite pronounced, though futile (Welch).

Two questions about resistance remain. Why did Joseph attempt to jump out the window? Nobody knows for certain, but Willard Richards believed that “Joseph, seeing there was no safety in the room, and probably thinking that it would save the lives of his brethren ... if he could escape, turned calmly from the door, dropped his pistol on the floor, and sprang into the window” (Jessee 16). If, indeed, the Prophet was attempting to save Willard Richards and John Taylor, that would be in keeping with one of his reasons for going to Carthage as we shall soon see.

Finally, did Joseph request the Nauvoo Legion to come and extricate him from incarceration? In 1984 Mark Hofmann published a letter dated 27 June 1844 purporting to be from Joseph Smith to Jonathon Dunham, which ordered Dunham to leave the defense of Nauvoo to Captain Singleton, and to bring as many of the Legion as possible with him to Carthage. Richard Anderson has shown that letter to be a forgery, probably based upon secondhand stories published in Fawn Brodie’s No Man Knows My History (Anderson, “Joseph Smith’s Martyrdom” 14). Every evidence is that the scenario portrayed in the History of the Church, that Joseph placed Dunham and the rest of the Legion under the direction of Governor Ford and Captain Singleton, is correct and that those orders were never changed or rescinded. Joseph’s attitude and posture the entire time was one of submission and cooperation with Governor Ford rather than one of resistance.

I recommend reading the entire article. It quells a number of arguments on this subject.

Edited February 13, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

This topic comes up every few months and the argument back and forth about what constitutes being a martyr... and someone invariably brings up that Joseph "fought back" thus nullifying him as a martyr... and like a few posts before mine here that "martyrs don't carry guns."  If I'm not mistaken, when Joseph and his friends went back to Carthage and he said he was "going like a lamb to the slaughter" he did not carry a gun... rather, the small pea shooter was smuggled in to him when they were being held in the jail.  When the mob attacked and he saw they were bent upon killing his beloved brother and their friends with them, he stuck his arm out the door and fired blindly into the mob that was pushing from the other side... killing no one and wounding just a couple of the mob... he then went over to the window... 

IMO, Joseph was a martyr, pea shooter or not... he was killed... murdered... at the hands of a rabid mob bent on murder... because of what he believed and in trying to save his brother and the others. 

 

GG

Well said, Garden Girl. Except I don't think it was called a pea shooter.

 

It was what was known as a pepperbox pistol, notoriously unreiliable. A pepperbox is a sort of revolver on which a cluster of barrels revolve, as opposed to a revolving cylinder.

[Sleeper Cell]

From a Catholic point-of-view, martyrs are witnesses of the Faith (the Greek "martus" means "witness) by refusing to deny it, even at the loss of their own lives.  If someone is tortured for refusing to deny the Faith, but is not killed, we call them confessors, because they have confessed the Faith.  There has always been the sense that martyrs and confessors did not fight back, but accepted their deaths so that they could be crowned with palms.  Christians were not told to seek death, but to accept it willingly and passively when it came, for the glory of Christ.  From this point-of-view, calling Joseph Smith a martyr seems a bit odd -- it clashes with the Christian sensibility of the term since he fought back.

 

 

In other words, Joseph Smith forfeited his martyr’s crown because he tried to save the lives of other people. Are you saying that a true Christian martyr would have willingly accepted their deaths also, so he could be crowned with palms?.     

Edited February 13, 2014 by Sleeper Cell

[Tacenda]

Well, he definitely fits the definition of a marytr, I guess. But I say it with hesitancy, if he shot and killed anyone, though he didn't know what was coming through that door and was shooting in self defense. ETA: Just read where GG said he didn't kill anyone, do you have a reference GG?

Edited February 13, 2014 by Tacenda

[TrespassersW]

From a Catholic point-of-view, martyrs are witnesses of the Faith (the Greek "martus" means "witness) by refusing to deny it, even at the loss of their own lives.  If someone is tortured for refusing to deny the Faith, but is not killed, we call them confessors, because they have confessed the Faith.  There has always been the sense that martyrs and confessors did not fight back, but accepted their deaths so that they could be crowned with palms.  Christians were not told to seek death, but to accept it willingly and passively when it came, for the glory of Christ.  From this point-of-view, calling Joseph Smith a martyr seems a bit odd -- it clashes with the Christian sensibility of the term since he fought back.

 

An example might be the Cristero war in Mexico, late 1920s, when Catholics fought the Federal government because of its anti-Catholic laws.  Many Catholics died fighting, but the only ones considered martyrs were those who did not take up arms but refused to deny the Faith.  Most of these were priests that continued to offer the Sacraments and were executed for doing so.

 

Having said all this, I think attacking Joseph Smith over this point is quite ridiculous because it is such a small and minor point.  I might not personally think of Joseph Smith as a martyr, but I'm not going to waste any energy telling people otherwise *shrug*

This post has given me insight into this criticism that I've never had before. I think I understand it better now. Thank you.

[halconero]

Well, what I guess I meant was that I wouldn't bring it up myself, because I think it so trivial a point, but I thought I would respond to this thread here since a few posts mentioned the traditional Christian view of martyrdom.

 

 

 

Sure, I get that.  I just wanted to clarify the traditional Christian point-of-view, that's all.  You're more than welcome to have your martyr

 

You definitely raise some interesting points, and I think this could be another point where Latter-day Saint practice differs from that of orthodox Christianity.

 

We have a couple martyrs in our scriptures and history that died in the midst of battle.

 

David W. Patten led the Mormon forces at the Battle of Crooked River in 1838. He led a charge crying "God and Liberty!" before being shot in the stomach. His last words were "Whatever you do else, O do not deny the faith," after which he addressed the others in the room saying, "I feel that I have kept the faith, I have finished my course, henceforth there is laid up for me a crown, which the Lord will give me." Moments after this, about 10 PM, he died. About David W. Patten's death, Joseph Smith said "There lies a man who has done just as he said he would—he has laid down his life for his friends."

 

After Patten's death, Wilford Woodruff wrote, "Thus fell the noble David W. Patten as a martyr for the cause of God and he will receive a martyr's crown. He was valiant in the testimony of Jesus Christ while he lived upon the earth. He was a man of great faith and the power of God was with him. He was brave to a fault, even too brave to be preserved... Many of the sick were healed and devils cast out under his administration."

 

He's also directly referred to in scripture, wherein the Lord says "David Patten I have taken unto myself; behold, his priesthood no man taketh from him."

 

We also have reference to the same treatment being given to the Nephite dead in the great war described in Alma:

 

"Nevertheless, we may console ourselves in this point, that they have died in the cause of their country and of their God, yea, and they are happy."

 

This, along with the quote from Joseph "Peace be still, bury the hatchet and the sword, the sound of war is dreadful in my ear. [but] any man who will not fight for his wife and children is a coward and a b*****d," seem to indicate the extension of mormon martyrdom to those who died in the active defense of their faith and family.

 

I know you said that you conceded us our martyr, but I just wanted to point out that this points to an emergent and diverging tradition from Catholic/Orthodox martyrs.

Edited February 13, 2014 by halconero

[Palerider]

According to the onine dictionary:

 

Martyr:

 

a person who willingly suffers death rather than renounce his or her religion. (my bold)

 

 

Although his murder was unjust, uncalled for, and terribly unfortunate, I don't believe Joseph Smith was a martyr. That especially in view of his not going willingly.

 

Personally, I would have much preferred to see the results of his anticipated trial.

[Wiki Wonka]

Well said, Garden Girl. Except I don't think it was called a pea shooter.

 

It was what was known as a pepperbox pistol, notoriously unreiliable. A pepperbox is a sort of revolver on which a cluster of barrels revolve, as opposed to a revolving cylinder.

 

The Prophet and the Pistol: A Perspective on the Martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum Smith

 

http://www.ldsmag.com/article/1/13518

 

 

 

Although it was referred to as a “six shooter,” the pepper-box pistol was not a revolver in the normal sense. It incorporated six individual barrels, it was difficult to aim and tended to be unreliable. The June 2013 Ensign features a painting Greater Love Hath No Man, by Casey Childs. [ii] The artwork features all three items in the display case. Joseph, Hyrum and Willard Richards are attempting to hold the door shut as the mob attempts to enter the room. John Taylor is holding his walking stick. In Hyrum’s left pocket is the single shot pistol brought into the jail by Fullmer, and in Joseph’s left pocket, clearly visible, is the pepper-box pistol given to him by Wheelock.

 

[Thinking]

 

According to the onine dictionary:

 

Martyr:

 

a person who willingly suffers death rather than renounce his or her religion. (my bold)

 

 

Although his murder was unjust, uncalled for, and terribly unfortunate, I don't believe Joseph Smith was a martyr. That especially in view of his not going willingly.

 

Personally, I would have much preferred to see the results of his anticipated trial.

 

 

From Wikipedia:

A martyr...is somebody who suffers persecution and death for advocating, refusing to renounce, and/or refusing to advocate a belief or cause, usually a religious one. In its original meaning, the word martyr, meaning witness, was used in the secular sphere as well as in the New Testament of the Bible. The process of bearing witness was not intended to lead to the death of the witness, although it is known from ancient writers (e.g. Josephus) and from the New Testament that witnesses often died for their testimonies.

 

I think we can all find the definition of martyr that will justify our labeling of Joseph Smith.