Joseph Smith...martyr Or Not?

[Scott Lloyd]

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? 

I agree with almost all of this.

 

The only part that precludes me from giving you a rep point for it is where you say, "It is not for us to declare who is or who is not a martyr."

 

We do that very thing with regard to Joseph Smith whenever we sing "Praise to his memory, he died as a martyr."

 

That Joseph was suffered martyrdom is the conventional and orthodox view in the Church. And it's not likely to change anytime soon, if ever.

 

Edited to add:

 

What the heck, I'll give you the rep point anyway.

Edited February 14, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Thinking]

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

 

"Wisdom is justified of her children."

 

You underlined willingly, which was absent from Wikipedia's definition.

 

The simple fact is Joseph Smith was murdered. It was wrong and if the LDS Church calls him a martyr, that's fine. However, being a martyr does not automatically justify the cause for which he was martyred. I understand why some people object to that label because of the events leading up to his death. I also don't have a problem with the pistol. If I knew a mob wanted to kill me and I had an opportunity to defend myself with a weapon, I would.

[Storm Rider]

I agree with almost all of this.

 

The only part that precludes me from giving you a rep point for it is where you say, "It is not for us to declare who is or who is not a martyr."

 

We do that very thing with regard to Joseph Smith whenever we sing "Praise to his memory, he died as a martyr."

 

That Joseph was suffered martyrdom is the conventional and orthodox view in the Church. And it's not likely to change anytime soon, if ever.

 

Edited to add:

 

What the heck, I'll give you the rep point anyway.

 

The context I was thinking when I wrote that was that we don't judge the martyrs for other groups; we are more than capable of identifying those who died for our beliefs.  I believe it is the height of arrorgance to attempt to review, qualify, and argue the merits of the Catholic martyrs when I am not Catholic. I think it is just as wrong for others to judge our proclamation that Joseph died a martyr. 

 

Having said this I want to compliment Nobis; I appreciate his thoughts and his comments. I also believe that he took this same position when he said we have our own martyrs. He may qaulify what is a martyr in his tradition and we can discuss differences, but at the end of the day we all we can say is that there are differences.

 

Resistence to death remains an odd qualifier because there are so many different degrees of resistence, but those are just my opinions. 

[mormonnewb]

As I see it, the real issue isn't with JS' use of a weapon but rather with what I think is the essential qualification of a martyr: a person who willingly suffers death rather than renounce his or her religion (my emphasis).  As someone pointed out, many of the early Christian martyrs probably tried to fight off the lions when thrown in their dens.  That does not detract from their moral excellence.  The true act of Christian martyrdom seems to be in that moment when the person refuses to renounce their belief in Christ, even upon the threat of punishment or death.

 

Under that criteria, the real question is whether JS chose to put himself into harm's way rather than to renounce the truth of the restored gospel.  As some have pointed out, JS did willingly submit himself to the authorities but that, in and of itself, isn't enough to qualify him as a martyr.  After all, Bernie Madoff willingly showed up to his sentencing.  The real question is whether JS was ever given the opportunity to renounce Mormonism in exchange for leniency and turned the offer down.  I'm not sure that there is any evidence that such an offer was made (and rejected) during his stay at the Carthage jail.

 

That being said, there is a strong argument that JS had implicitly turned down offers of leniency by continuing to build the Church despite continued threats and acts of violence by the early enemies of the Church.  This is the way in which many of us see MLK as a martyr for civil rights.  MLK was not faced with the choice of renouncing civil rights or having his life spared by his assassin on that balcony in Memphis.  However, he had spent the previous 12 years being faced with that choice everyday under constant threats and bombings of his home and he made his choice -- that he would rather die than renounce his belief in equality for all.

 

It seems to me that JS qualifies in a similar manner.  He seems to have been willing to face whatever harm might befall him rather than to relinquish his calling to build Zion.  If that is not according to Hoyle martyrdom, it certainly seems to be martyrISH.

[Abulafia]

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

 

Valentinus, I'm not quite sure why you wrote this.  I'll explain what I meant, though I thought it was quite obvious.  ??  

I take Bart Ehrman's position on 'early christianities'.  I do that because for me there is plenty of evidence that orthodoxy was fought for.  

Not only that, but there were many different versions of christianity depending on where you lived, who taught you, and how you were connected to others.

Hope that explains my position.

[Abulafia]

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.

Isn't this exactly what Peter did on Jesus' arrest (so we are told)?  Yet Jesus told Peter to put away his sword.  I'm not saying that Joseph needed to imitate Jesus or even the stories of Jesus.  But the fact, justified or not, that he fought with a gun, muddies the waters somewhat in terms of comparisons with the Christian narrative of martyrdom in the earliest texts.  

[3DOP]

 

Valentinus, I'm not quite sure why you wrote this.  I'll explain what I meant, though I thought it was quite obvious.  ??  

I take Bart Ehrman's position on 'early christianities'.  I do that because for me there is plenty of evidence that orthodoxy was fought for.  

Not only that, but there were many different versions of christianity depending on where you lived, who taught you, and how you were connected to others.

Hope that explains my position.

 

When Miserere Nobis said that he was talking about the Catholic martyrs, there was no more slight intended toward the Gnostic martyrs that you might prefer, than of Joseph Smith. No one is saying that there were not many slain who were claimed as martyrs by groups that did not recognize the apostolic bishops. But what came to be called the Catholic Church, headed by the bishop of Rome, left it to those groups to venerate their own. Martyrs who recognized the apostolic succession of the bishops are those venerated as martyrs by Catholics. The best known of them were bishops themselves. Bishops Polycarp of Smyrna, Ignatius of Antioch, and most Roman bishops until the Council of Nicea suffered martyrdom. Irenaeus of Lyons is thought by later scholars not to have so suffered, but he succeeded a martyr, Bishop Pothinus of Lyons. The Catholic Martyrology, understandably I think, only keeps records of souls who died in communion with a Catholic bishop, and it was of them that I am sure Miserere Nobis was speaking. 

 

Happy Feast Day of St Valentine, originally venerated as a Roman priest and martyr, now mostly forgotten. 

Edited February 14, 2014 by 3DOP

[Kenngo1969]

Deleted.

Edited February 14, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[sheilauk]

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.

 

People are not technically innocent.  They ARE innocent until proven guilty.  There were those who alleged Joseph was guilty which led to his arrest but he hadn't even been tried and so he was innocent when he was murdered.  Killing someone before they are convicted is called a lynch mob.

 

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.

 

What laws had he broken?  Where is his list of criminal convictions?  Allegations are easy to make.  Being "ticked off" doesn't cause people to murder someone.

 

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. 

 

At least we agree here.

 

My responses in blue - I don't know how to break the quote down.

[sheilauk]

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.

 

 

Isn't this exactly what Peter did on Jesus' arrest (so we are told)?  Yet Jesus told Peter to put away his sword.  I'm not saying that Joseph needed to imitate Jesus or even the stories of Jesus.  But the fact, justified or not, that he fought with a gun, muddies the waters somewhat in terms of comparisons with the Christian narrative of martyrdom in the earliest texts.  

 

Except, of course, Christ did not need protecting nor did he want to stop the arrest.  He knew the time had come to end His mission on earth.  Christ was also capable of protecting and/or healing everyone without the need for weapons, if necessary. 

 

I agree that Joseph would be unlikely to be accepted as a martyr in some Faith traditions.  Which does not mean he isn't a martyr.

[Damien the Leper]

Valentinus, I'm not quite sure why you wrote this.  I'll explain what I meant, though I thought it was quite obvious.  ??  I take Bart Ehrman's position on 'early christianities'.  I do that because for me there is plenty of evidence that orthodoxy was fought for.  Not only that, but there were many different versions of christianity depending on where you lived, who taught you, and how you were connected to others.Hope that explains my position.

If by early Christianities you mean the Docetists, adoptionists, patripassians, Marcionites, etc then I get what you're saying. However, none of these groups held with the earliest apostolic tradition. In order for the Gospel to be carried on the other groups had to be addressed for their heretical teachings.

[Abulafia]

Valentinus, both you and 3DOP appear to be misreading me.  So I guess I am not making myself clear enough.  

It isn't a matter (with regard to 3DOP's point) of dividing up the early martyrs into Gnostics or Catholics, that is a very simplistic way of looking at the evidence, and the early communities were far more diverse than that.

What you are suggesting is that there 'was' an earliest apostolic tradition'.  There wasn't in my opinion.  It was diverse right from the beginning, probably even before Jesus' crucifixion (if the account of Apollos is anything to go by).  What I am referring to is the followers of the Baptist, of Jesus, all mixed up with different versions of Judaism as they were influenced by Babylonian Jews, the Greeks, and by varying schools of thought (such as those of the Pharisees, Therapeutae, and the Essenes in particular).  

Edited February 14, 2014 by Abulafia

[Abulafia]

I think that Judaism also has examples of martyrdom as passive resistance.  (although, agreed there were plenty of groups that actively resisted foreign rule in the pre and post christian period).   The story of Isaac is about sacrifice but also about the willingness to lay down ones life perhaps for a 'greater cause'.  Did Isaac fight against his father?   Perhaps, the other stories of martyrdom within Judaism, such as those conducted by the 'Brigands' (according to Josephus) in Galilee indicates that there were those who would rather take their life than participate in the Herodian Regime, even where Herod himself offers the hand of friendship.

Akiba is martyred, so we are told.
 

In the Talmudic tale (Berakhot 61b) Rabbi Akiba, as he was being tortured to death for teaching the Torah, declared: 'All my life I said: when will I have the opportunity of suffering martyrdom and now that it has come should I not rejoice?'

 

From:  http://mobile.myjewishlearning.com/life/Life_Events/Death_and_Mourning/About_Death_and_Mourning/Attitudes/Martyrdom.shtml


 

[Damien the Leper]

Valentinus, both you and 3DOP appear to be misreading me.  So I guess I am not making myself clear enough.  

It isn't a matter (with regard to 3DOP's point) of dividing up the early martyrs into Gnostics or Catholics, that is a very simplistic way of looking at the evidence, and the early communities were far more diverse than that.

What you are suggesting is that there 'was' an earliest apostolic tradition'.  There wasn't in my opinion.  It was diverse right from the beginning, probably even before Jesus' crucifixion (if the account of Apollos is anything to go by).  What I am referring to is the followers of the Baptist, of Jesus, all mixed up with different versions of Judaism as they were influenced by Babylonian Jews, the Greeks, and by varying schools of thought (such as those of the Pharisees, Therapeutae, and the Essenes in particular).  

 

If you are suggesting that Matthew, Jesus and Paul (for examples) represented different ideologies of the faith then that is partially correct. Bart Ehrman often exaggerates his argument where this is concerned. He's a great textual critic but his historiography and historical interpretation are lacking.

Edited February 14, 2014 by Valentinus

[Abulafia]

I was also thinking of Peter, James (the brother of Jesus), Paul and Apollos.   Those differences are attested within the texts themselves.

[Damien the Leper]

I was also thinking of Peter, James (the brother of Jesus), Paul and Apollos.   Those differences are attested within the texts themselves.

 

Agreed. However, there is still a maintained message that remains consistent. Peter and James emphasised a more Jewish-Christian perspective whereas Paul claimed Jesus + Some of the Law - Circumcision.

[Scott Lloyd]

Isn't this exactly what Peter did on Jesus' arrest (so we are told)?  Yet Jesus told Peter to put away his sword.  I'm not saying that Joseph needed to imitate Jesus or even the stories of Jesus.  But the fact, justified or not, that he fought with a gun, muddies the waters somewhat in terms of comparisons with the Christian narrative of martyrdom in the earliest texts.  

When the circumstances and events surrounding the murders of Joseph and Hyrum are taken into account, the waters are quite clear -- just as Dr. Peterson pointed out.

 

Your comparison does not apply, because Peter is not the one who who was martyred. Joseph resisted the mob only in the moment when it was necessary to save his surviving companions in the room with him. When it was only his own life in the balance, he accepted death.

 

To reiterate, when he leapt from the window he was jumping directly into the jaws of death. And when he returned to Nauvoo and embarked for Carthage to surrender to authorities, he knew with a prophet's premonition he would not be returning.

[Scott Lloyd]

My responses in blue - I don't know how to break the quote down.

Sheila, I'm not sure my way is the best way, but here's how I break down the quotes:

 

After I click on the "Quote" button to respond to a post, the other person's entire post is formatted as a quote.

 

I put my cursor on the end of the portion I want to respond to and then highlight and cut the entire rest of the post.

 

After I have written a few words or lines of response, I then paste in the rest of the post I am responding to. I highlight the portion I want to respond to next and then I go to the control bar above the post I am making and click on the little icon that looks like a dialogue balloon you would see in comic strips. That puts the portion I have highlighted into quote format.

 

I write some more response and then repeat the above steps until I have finished responding to all of the post that I desire to, and then I click on "Post."

 

I hope I've been clear with this and that it helps.

Edited February 14, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[sheilauk]

Thank you Scott!

[Calm]

Except, of course, Christ did not need protecting nor did he want to stop the arrest. He knew the time had come to end His mission on earth. Christ was also capable of protecting and/or healing everyone without the need for weapons, if necessary.

I agree that Joseph would be unlikely to be accepted as a martyr in some Faith traditions. Which does not mean he isn't a martyr.

It would be interesting to know what Jesus would have done if it was the soldiers who attacked his friends.

Why was Peter carrying a sword in the first place? Why hadn't Jesus told him to leave it before going out if he didn't want him to use it?

Could it not be because the sight of the sword would discourage the soldiers from roughing up, even harming those who were with him? Surely he knew Peter's action ahead of time and could have discouraged it. Perhaps it was solely to demonstrate his power to resist in contrast to his willingness to submitt, but perhaps it was also for the purpose of protecting his friends after he was taken into custody and would no longer be there to protect them in the soldiers' view.

As to Joseph's actions, his firing into the hallway blindly in conjunction with Richards' (I believe) attempting to beat back the arms of the mob as they tried to force their way into the room seems to me an effort to secure the room to protect those within it, not to harm though of course it would be the fear of harm ans possibly actual harm that would have accomplished that. And when it was obvious that wasn't going to work he went willingly to the window to surrender so that there would no longer be a purpose for the mob to force their way in.

His final act was one of surrender. Perhaps for some there needs to be greater distance between resistance and surrender, but it seems to me there isn't much difference save time in the various acts of surrendering when there is no hope of successful resistance left.

Edited February 14, 2014 by calmoriah

[Okrahomer]

I think that Judaism also has examples of martyrdom as passive resistance.  (although, agreed there were plenty of groups that actively resisted foreign rule in the pre and post christian period).   The story of Isaac is about sacrifice but also about the willingness to lay down ones life perhaps for a 'greater cause'.  Did Isaac fight against his father?   Perhaps, the other stories of martyrdom within Judaism, such as those conducted by the 'Brigands' (according to Josephus) in Galilee indicates that there were those who would rather take their life than participate in the Herodian Regime, even where Herod himself offers the hand of friendship.

 

That you are desirous to minimize the far more numerous examples of active resistance among Jewish martyrs is understandable. But in doing so, you relegate their motives to nothing more than pure politics. How one can disregard the fact that a desire to live their religion was their ultimate motivation is beyond my comprehension. Your sentiment is as regrettable as it is inaccurate.

[Abulafia]

Agreed. However, there is still a maintained message that remains consistent. Peter and James emphasised a more Jewish-Christian perspective whereas Paul claimed Jesus + Some of the Law - Circumcision.

Not sure it was even as easy as that.  Depends what you mean by 'message'.  I'd argue that James and Peter (and Paul) all remained Jews...ie at that early point in history, there wasn't a separate 'Christian' movement outside of Judaism.  But I guess that is a subject for another thread.

[Abulafia]

That you are desirous to minimize the far more numerous examples of active resistance among Jewish martyrs is understandable. But in doing so, you relegate their motives to nothing more than pure politics. How one can disregard the fact that a desire to live their religion was their ultimate motivation is beyond my comprehension. Your sentiment is as regrettable as it is inaccurate.

I don't see how anything I wrote would lead you to that conclusion.  I absolutely agree that there was active resistance against Greek and Roman Rule.  Absolutely.

What is remarkable about the way that the Gospel authors chose to portray Jesus, is that they don't portray him as a violent aggressor against Roman Rule.  It may be that historically he was, and that could be indicated by the presence of Peter's sword in the Garden of Gethsemane.   Peter having a sword, in Jerusalem no less, would have been regarded as treason I believe.  It was an illegal act.   If the account has a basis in history, then perhaps it is indicative of Jesus protecting Peter from arrest.   Or maybe it is indicative that Jesus was a liberal Jew who chose a variety of people from a variety of backgrounds because they were receptive to his message.   If the traditions are correct, then Peter, for all his bellowing, huffing, and indecisiveness does accept martyrdom himself.  We don't hear of Peter being violent after Jesus' death.  

Just some thoughts. 

 

[Okrahomer]

I don't see how anything I wrote would lead you to that conclusion.  I absolutely agree that there was active resistance against Greek and Roman Rule.  Absolutely.

What is remarkable about the way that the Gospel authors chose to portray Jesus, is that they don't portray him as a violent aggressor against Roman Rule.  It may be that historically he was, and that could be indicated by the presence of Peter's sword in the Garden of Gethsemane.   Peter having a sword, in Jerusalem no less, would have been regarded as treason I believe.  It was an illegal act.   If the account has a basis in history, then perhaps it is indicative of Jesus protecting Peter from arrest.   Or maybe it is indicative that Jesus was a liberal Jew who chose a variety of people from a variety of backgrounds because they were receptive to his message.   If the traditions are correct, then Peter, for all his bellowing, huffing, and indecisiveness does accept martyrdom himself.  We don't hear of Peter being violent after Jesus' death.  

Just some thoughts. 

 

 

Perhaps I read too much into it.  I apologize if I did.  I was referring specifically to this comment:

 

 

agreed there were plenty of groups that actively resisted foreign rule in the pre and post christian period

 

If you are referring to the Maccabees, the Crusade/Inquisition-era Jews, or even to those who rose up in Jewish ghettos in Nazi-era Europe:  I think it is innacurate (and disrepectful) to limit their motivations to "resisting foreign rule."

Edited February 14, 2014 by Okrahomer

[Abulafia]

Perhaps I read too much into it.  I apologize if I did.  I was referring specifically to this comment:

 

 

If you are referring to the Maccabees, the Crusade/Inquisition-era Jews, or even to those who rose up in Jewish ghettos in Nazi-era Europe:  I think it is innacurate (and disrepectful) to limit their motivations to "resisting foreign rule."

Yeah, you definitely read too much into it.   I was limiting my comments to Christian Origins.