Joseph Smith...martyr Or Not?

[Garden Girl]

In reading the various posts here, and the bantering about what constitutes a martyr... the point is made that a martyr must "willingly" suffer death... and certainly must not fight back...

The supreme example of a martyr being Jesus Christ... and of course he was a martyr, and I am so very thankful for his atoning sacrifice for all of us... I'd truly be lost without it...

That said, when reading the scriptural account of the events leading to his crucifixion, I am struck by his prayer in the Garden when he is praying to his Father... our Father...

"And they came to a place which was named Gethsemane... And he taketh with him Peter and James and John... And saith unto them, My soul is exceedingly sorrowful unto death: tarry ye here, and watch... And he went forth a little, and fell on the ground, and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him... And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me; nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt...

And he cometh and findeth them sleeping, and saith unto Peter, Simon, sleepest thou?  couldst not thou watch one hour?

Watch ye and pray, lest ye enter into temptation.  The spirit truly is ready, but the flesh is weak.

And again he went away, and prayed, and spake the same words..."

(What words?  The words asking that the cup be removed from him).  (Mark 14:32-39)

 

"And he was withdrawn from them about a stone's cast, and kneeled down and prayed... Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done...  And there appeared an angel unto him, strengthening him."   (Luke 22:41-43)

 

Jesus, knowing what awaited him, knelt and prayed, and his prayer, twice, was that he might be released... and knowing that his Father was all powerful, that the cup might be removed from him.  Yet being obedient to the Father, he went forward.  And his Father sent an angel to strengthen him.

Does the fact that Jesus asked to be released... constitute a moment of unwillingness?  Or that an angel was sent to strengthen him?  Of course not...

Does the fact that as Joseph saw his dear brother shot in the face and he reacted with his little pepperbox pistol as the mob overpowered him and his friends make him any less a martyr?  Not to me... he was murdered for who he was and what he believed...

 

GG

 

[Abulafia]

True, but all those Christians who died under the hands of the Roman Empire were Catholics

  Hmmm... Not sure about that MiserereNobis!

[why me]

I think it's amazing people didn't know JS had a gun. I came to be in the Church in 1982. At the time there was a 10 book paper back set available called the History of the Church of Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints. All of this stuff was in there. It's the first books we bought besides the Scriptures. I took a quick look at Deseret Books and didn't see the set. Is it no longer available? I donated mine about 2 years ago to a library.

You hit the nail on the head. Back in  the day members had a library with many church books. Much was in those books. What I remember is that most homes had BYs discourses, the history of the lds church etc. And wards had a person where one can order books from. And I am sure that many members on this forum have such libraries or they remember their parents having such libraries. Now...the situation is different. The internet has taken over and the critics are having their say, And members may not be buying books.

Edited February 13, 2014 by why me

[Abulafia]

Joseph is a Martyr, is every way. Trying to compare him with others who were not armed is silly. The reason other Martyrs had no weapon is because they were imprisoned and could not get one. The early Apostles and early martyrs did everything they could to preserve their life's, they ran, had themselves lifted down city walls in a basket (love that story about Paul) they did not just report to the Sanhedrin or Roman officials. Those Christian fed to lions did not stand in place. Joseph knew where he was going...he did turn himself in...Praise to the Man!

 Papa,  Not all.   Ignatius welcomed martyrdom.  Check this out.  It's from Ignatius (from Antioch) letter to the Romans.  This is early 2nd Century, a time when orthodoxy was by no means defined.   He is travelling from Antioch to Rome where he will meet his martyrdom.  He welcomes it as a similitude of the sacrifice of Jesus.  As GG mentions, Jesus is the ultimate example of passive resistance to aggression.  It is this example that Ignatius follows,indeed he sees it as some kind of sacrament I think.   

 

CHAPTER 4

4:1 I write to all the churches, and I bid all men

know, that of my own free will I die for God, unless

ye should hinder me. I exhort you, be ye not an

unseasonable kindness to me. Let me be given to the

wild beasts, for through them I can attain unto God. I

am God's wheat, and I am ground by the teeth of wild

beasts that I may be found pure bread [of Christ].

4:2 Rather entice the wild beasts, that they may

become my sepulchre and may leave no part of my body

behind, so that I may not, when I am fallen asleep, be

burdensome to any one. Then shall I be truly a

disciple of Jesus Christ, when the world shall not so

much as see my body. Supplicate the Lord for me, that

through these instruments I may be found a sacrifice

to God.

 

[why me]

 the fact that as Joseph saw his dear brother shot in the face and he reacted with his little pepperbox pistol as the mob overpowered him and his friends make him any less a martyr?  Not to me... he was murdered for who he was and what he believed...

When it is put that way it is amazing that people can't see him as a martyr. He died defending himself and his friends. He did not just kneel and give up the ghost and allow his friends to be murdered too.

[Buzzard]

 Papa,  Not all.   Ignatius welcomed martyrdom.  Check this out.  It's from Ignatius (from Antioch) letter to the Romans.  This is early 2nd Century, a time when orthodoxy was by no means defined.   He is travelling from Antioch to Rome where he will meet his martyrdom.  He welcomes it as a similitude of the sacrifice of Jesus.  As GG mentions, Jesus is the ultimate example of passive resistance to aggression.  It is this example that Ignatius follows,indeed he sees it as some kind of sacrament I think.   

 

 

Looking forward to death as a way to prove one's devotion to God or Christ or Country or Communism or whatever strikes me as seriously messed up. 

Joseph is not the Catholics martyr, he's not the EV's martyr, he's not America's martyr, he is OUR martyr, and we reserve the right to designate him as such. One can niggle over the details, but the definition passes the reasonableness test. 

[Abulafia]

Looking forward to death as a way to prove one's devotion to God or Christ or Country or Communism or whatever strikes me as seriously messed up. 

Joseph is not the Catholics martyr, he's not the EV's martyr, he's not America's martyr, he is OUR martyr, and we reserve the right to designate him as such. One can niggle over the details, but the definition passes the reasonableness test. 

 Buzzard, I am not arguing that Joseph is not a martyr, and that the church does not have the right to recognise him as such.   I am trying (very hard) to explain why some British Mormons are shocked when they learn that Joseph had a gun and used it.   It really doesn't fit the model of a 'lamb to the slaughter' in the way it was envisioned in Isaiah 53.  That's all.   You don't have to approve of people being disappointed, or even approve of them being shocked, I'm just trying to explain why some are.

[Abulafia]

To say that Ignatius is 'seriously messed up' because of what he wrote to the Romans, is a little short sighted I think.  What was he to do?  Run away, fight back?  He accepted and welcomed his fate and turned it into a sacrament.  I think (despite the fact that I disagree with a lot of the things he wrote) that that should be admired, if nothing else.

Jesus went to Jerusalem, knowing his fate (so we are told), are we now to say that Jesus himself was seriously messed up?

[JLHPROF]

 Buzzard, I am not arguing that Joseph is not a martyr, and that the church does not have the right to recognise him as such.   I am trying (very hard) to explain why some British Mormons are shocked when they learn that Joseph had a gun and used it.   It really doesn't fit the model of a 'lamb to the slaughter' in the way it was envisioned in Isaiah 53.  That's all.   You don't have to approve of people being disappointed, or even approve of them being shocked, I'm just trying to explain why some are.

 

Oh, wait till they hear the rumour that the prisoners were drinking at the time.  Oh, the WOW issues...

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Papa,  Not all.   Ignatius welcomed martyrdom.  Check this out.  It's from Ignatius (from Antioch) letter to the Romans.  This is early 2nd Century, a time when orthodoxy was by no means defined.   He is travelling from Antioch to Rome where he will meet his martyrdom.  He welcomes it as a similitude of the sacrifice of Jesus.  As GG mentions, Jesus is the ultimate example of passive resistance to aggression.  It is this example that Ignatius follows,indeed he sees it as some kind of sacrament I think.

I understand your point, but another question is Joseph trying to save his life or his brother and friends. Things would have been different if Joseph did not have his death and no other. Is a hero any less a hero when he dies in battle because he had a gun. Comparing anyone to Christ will always have (whomever it might be) that person wanting by comparison. By the standard listed by some would have Stephen the first martyr, no so if he raised his hand to deflect the stones being tossed. Joseph was free on the West side of the Mississippi, and yet at the behest of his brother Hyrum, went to his death...nor did he call upon his greatest weapon, the Nauvoo legion to save his life.

[Damien the Leper]

  Hmmm... Not sure about that MiserereNobis!

 

They weren't LDS in any sense and nor were they Protestants.

[why me]

Jesus went to Jerusalem, knowing his fate (so we are told), are we now to say that Jesus himself was seriously messed up?

Jesus knew that he had a calling and was expected to carry out that calling. So, it is no surprise what he did. However Ignatius is a different story. He was not the son of god sent to die for the sins of the other. I do think that people who believe that by going to their death without a struggle is noble because they are acting like christ. I can see such people with a martyr complex who believe that by doing so, they are christlike.

[sheilauk]

I understand that people in the West are conditioned to think that a martyr does not resist/fight back and so would be upset to learn Joseph used a gun.  In addition, these days in the UK, guns are an anathama and I don't think we understand the frontier mentality where having and using guns is second nature, which still seems a cultural idea in much of the USA now.  So, I can understand that some are upset.  However, I would point out to them that he was an innocent man trapped in a room with other innocent men and vastly outnumbered.  And whatever was used as the trigger, the underlying reason, why the men were so worked up was because he was mormon.

 

I've never been keen on passivity, I say fight back until the bitter end.  I admire Joseph and the others for not giving up and for fighting to protect each other.  And I don't think it really matters whether we say martyred or murdered because he was certainly murdered.

[CV75]

True, but all those Christians who died under the hands of the Roman Empire were Catholics

I don't see the two terms in this case as necessarily synonymous -- there were many martyrs before the term was first used in the 2nd century, and then there were many others before the appellation was incorporated into the name of the Roman Catholic / Western Church.

[Scott Lloyd]

Hopefully this helps you understand why most Christians of good will find it slightly odd when they hear that Joseph Smith was using a weapon when he died but is still considered a martyr.

Have you taken a poll?

And your wording strikes me as curious. "Most Christians of good will"?

What does this say about someone who does not dispute that Joseph Smith was a martyr? That he is likely not a Christian or, if he is, likely not one of good will?

I've granted that you're entitled to your own esoteric definitions and perhaps can attribute them to those of your own faith tradition (Roman Catholic). But when you begin speaking for all "Christians of good will" on this subject, you are getting outside your realm.

[MiserereNobis]

Have you taken a poll?

And your wording strikes me as curious. "Most Christians of good will"?

What does this say about someone who does not dispute that Joseph Smith was a martyr? That he is likely not a Christian or, if he is, likely not one of good will?

I've granted that you're entitled to your own esoteric definitions and perhaps can attribute them to those of your own faith tradition (Roman Catholic). But when you begin speaking for all "Christians of good will" on this subject, you are getting outside your realm.

 

I obviously did not convey what I meant.  I apologize.  What I meant (and I mentioned in a previous post) is that there are many Christians who are not "anit-Mormon" that find it odd that Joseph Smith is considered a martyr.  That's why I called them Christians of good-will, meaning Christians of good-will towards Mormons, as opposed to those of ill-will who try to use anything to attack the LDS church.  Those who use this martyrdom point to attack the LDS church are pretty silly, in my opinion.  But there are those who have no need or desire to attack the LDS church who still find it slightly odd to consider Smith a martyr.  That's what I meant.

 

I'm sorry if it came off differently.

[MiserereNobis]

I understand your point, but another question is Joseph trying to save his life or his brother and friends. Things would have been different if Joseph did not have his death and no other. Is a hero any less a hero when he dies in battle because he had a gun.

 

No, a hero is not any less a hero for using a gun.  No one has argued that.  The brave heros who fought and died in the Cristero war are heroes in every sense of the word.  From the Catholic prospective, however, they are not martyrs.

 

Comparing anyone to Christ will always have (whomever it might be) that person wanting by comparison.

 

Absolutely!  But we are to try and there are those who succeed better than others that we hold up for an example.

 

By the standard listed by some would have Stephen the first martyr, no so if he raised his hand to deflect the stones being tossed.

 

Well, I don't know about deflecting stones, but if he was throwing stones back then yes, he would not be considered the first martyr, and Catholics wouldn't feel weird about that.  But he didn't, so we honor him as the first martyr.

[Palerider]

From Wikipedia:

 

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

 

I don't think your definition differs in essence from mine.

 

"Wisdom is justified of her children."

[Palerider]

I understand that people in the West are conditioned to think that a martyr does not resist/fight back and so would be upset to learn Joseph used a gun.  In addition, these days in the UK, guns are an anathama and I don't think we understand the frontier mentality where having and using guns is second nature, which still seems a cultural idea in much of the USA now.  So, I can understand that some are upset.  However, I would point out to them that he was an innocent man trapped in a room with other innocent men and vastly outnumbered.  And whatever was used as the trigger, the underlying reason, why the men were so worked up was because he was mormon.

 

I've never been keen on passivity, I say fight back until the bitter end.  I admire Joseph and the others for not giving up and for fighting to protect each other.  And I don't think it really matters whether we say martyred or murdered because he was certainly murdered.

 

In America an individual is technically considered innocent until proven guilty. But no doubt, Joseph's "innocence" was coming into question or he wouldn't have been arrested.

 

I don't think he was murdered because he was a "Mormon". I think he was murdered because under the guise of his Mormonism he had created enough trouble for a lot of folks and broken enough laws that he had "ticked off" the wrong people.

 

As I stated earlier, his murder was tragic and un-called for. I would have much preferred to see the outcome of his pending trial. 

[why me]

I understand that people in the West are conditioned to think that a martyr does not resist/fight back and so would be upset to learn Joseph used a gun.  In addition, these days in the UK, guns are an anathama and I don't think we understand the frontier mentality where having and using guns is second nature, which still seems a cultural idea in much of the USA now.  So, I can understand that some are upset.  However, I would point out to them that he was an innocent man trapped in a room with other innocent men and vastly outnumbered.  And whatever was used as the trigger, the underlying reason, why the men were so worked up was because he was mormon.

 

I've never been keen on passivity, I say fight back until the bitter end.  I admire Joseph and the others for not giving up and for fighting to protect each other.  And I don't think it really matters whether we say martyred or murdered because he was certainly murdered.

True enough. i also think that most people are clueless of the situation that he was in. He saw his brother murdered and picked up the gun his brother had and used it to defend himself and the men who volunteered to be with him. He did a noble thing and all the survivors thought so too. As did the saints. No one thought of him as a coward.

[Scott Lloyd]

I obviously did not convey what I meant.  I apologize.  What I meant (and I mentioned in a previous post) is that there are many Christians who are not "anit-Mormon" that find it odd that Joseph Smith is considered a martyr.  That's why I called them Christians of good-will, meaning Christians of good-will towards Mormons, as opposed to those of ill-will who try to use anything to attack the LDS church.  Those who use this martyrdom point to attack the LDS church are pretty silly, in my opinion.  But there are those who have no need or desire to attack the LDS church who still find it slightly odd to consider Smith a martyr.  That's what I meant.

 

I'm sorry if it came off differently.

Thanks for clarifying.

[Scott Lloyd]

In America an individual is technically considered innocent until proven guilty. But no doubt, Joseph's "innocence" was coming into question or he wouldn't have been arrested.

 

Bunkum! Joseph was arrested because of mob mentality and hatred. The desire was to get him isolated away from the protection of friends and supporters so he could be easily killed.

 

I don't think he was murdered because he was a "Mormon". I think he was murdered because under the guise of his Mormonism he had created enough trouble for a lot of folks and broken enough laws that he had "ticked off" the wrong people.

 

I can't think of any "trouble" he created for anyone that would have justified even the most minor instance of persecution heaped upon him and his people, let alone murder.

 

I also can't think of any egregious violation of laws on Joseph's part. The suppression of the Expositor was to abate a public nuisance, a libelous newspaper established for the purpose of inciting or aggravating a spirit of mob violence. It deserved to be squelched.

 

And Joseph and the other city leaders pledged to pay the owners for the property loss.

 

Plural marriage may have violated the bigamy statute in Illinois, but the practice had not been publicly announced, and few people knew about it.

 

 

As I stated earlier, his murder was tragic and un-called for. I would have much preferred to see the outcome of his pending trial.

 

Are you aware the other members of the Nauvoo City Council stood trial in the Expositor incident and were acquitted?

 

Once Joseph was gone, the mobbers apparently didn't care too much about the Expositor anymore.

Edited February 14, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

One thing that's getting lost in the shuffle here is the important point made by Daniel Peterson in the quote I provided from the 2006 thread. If I may restate it here:

 

Even granting for the sake of argument that passive acceptance of death is an essential requirement for being a martyr, Joseph still qualifies. He did that when he returned across the river into Nauvoo and set out to surrender to the authorities. It was while he was on the road to Carthage that he made the famous statement about going as a lamb to the slaughter.

 

Further, he did it when he jumped from the window of the jail bedroom into certain death at the hands of the mobbers below.

 

The only time he resisted was in the moment when it was necessary to protect his friends from the mobbers coming into the bedroom. It is my considered and fervently held opinion that his defensive action with the firearm -- coupled with jumping from the window, thereby drawing the attention of the mob away from the room -- preserved the lives of John Taylor and Willard Richards. Joseph was a hero as well as a martyr.

Edited February 14, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't think your definition differs in essence from mine.

 

"Wisdom is justified of her children."

His definition did not include an element about "willingly" accepting death. Which is questionable in any event.

[Storm Rider]

Definitions seem to be a malleable thing; some seek for one definition that meets their needs and others seek for others. It is similar to the word Christian; a word that many refuse to apply to the LDS people. To achieve this narrow definition they add a requirement that a Christian must also believe in the Trinity, a 4th century accepted teaching.  This tends to ignore all those Christians before this period that did not believe in the Trinity or teach it.  

 

A marty is one that dies for his faith.  At what point does passivity play a role?  Does it end with Joseph saying I go as a lamb to the slaughter?  Does it end if he fought back to protect others?  How about the process of the killing?  Is there a difference when one martry is taken, tied to a stake in front of on-lookers and then burned versus the one who is charged by hundreds screaming like banshees and shooting at a very small group?  

 

There is a difference when an individual lays down his life and when an individual lays down the lives of those around him.  Inidivuals will often accept to individually die whereas they will fight to protect others. 

 

What was in Joseph mind at the end?  Who knows his last thoughts and motivations?  Surely none of us or even those that were standing by him. Was he a martyr?  I like to think that he was, but I will allow God to judge whether Joseph can wear that particular crown.  It is not for us to declare who is or who is not a martyr.  I respect those that the Catholic Church chooses to name martyr or any other organization.  I question why others are compelled to argue about another chruch's choice of martyr?  Should we argue that only a true martyr would walk into the flames rather than be tied to a stake?  A true martyr would necessarily take the sword and cut off his own head or stab his ownself through the heart!  It is undeniable that resistence is a quantifiable effort; surely a true martyr would never be tied, never need to be held or restrained, but must run to his/her death.  This logic quickly turns into insanity and silliness.  Why the argument?