Was Joseph Smith a martyr?

[_stemelbow]

Was he?
Or was he killed by people who objected to having their wives and daughters seduced behind their back?

To answer that we'd have to have some idea of who was in the mob...

Oh brother (imagine one of those rolling their eyes guys right here).

[_jon]

Was he?
Or was he killed by people who objected to having their wives and daughters seduced behind their back?

To answer that we'd have to have some idea of who was in the mob...

Oh brother (imagine one of those rolling their eyes guys right here).

Okay, CFR the reasons why he was killed.
Clue: Your testimony is not sufficient for CFR.

[_stemelbow]

Okay, CFR the reasons why he was killed.
Clue: Your testimony is not sufficient for CFR.

Well, let's consider for a sec...who is truly considered a martyr and could such questions be asked of such a person? you know were the people who actually did the killing really those who opposed the person? Did they really kill him/her because they disagreed with his/her beleifs or because they were afraid he/she was going to do something they disagreed with? What's the difference?

man, what's the point of trying to complicate it? Do you really think attempting to murky the waters as to what is a martyr is a reasonable thing to discuss?

He was obviously killed because people disagreed with what he was doing, what he was about. It seems you disagree and wish for me to go dig up some journal entries of the particular people who shot guns at him. That's missing the boat, if you ask me.

[_jon]

Okay, CFR the reasons why he was killed.
Clue: Your testimony is not sufficient for CFR.

Well, let's consider for a sec...who is truly considered a martyr and could such questions be asked of such a person? you know were the people who actually did the killing really those who opposed the person? Did they really kill him/her because they disagreed with his/her beleifs or because they were afraid he/she was going to do something they disagreed with? What's the difference?

man, what's the point of trying to complicate it? Do you really think attempting to murky the waters as to what is a martyr is a reasonable thing to discuss?

He was obviously killed because people disagreed with what he was doing, what he was about. It seems you disagree and wish for me to go dig up some journal entries of the particular people who shot guns at him. That's missing the boat, if you ask me.

It seems we agree on that, but that doesn't make him a martyr.
People didn't agree with what Hitler was doing, was he a martyr?

[Guest]

Will you kindly explain exactly what is, in your view 'silly' about what I said in this part of my post? Do you think I am factually wrong is saying that on the whole Roman Catholics do not generally accord the title 'martyr' to those who use lethal force against those who seek to kill them, whereas militant Islamists do?

Its a silly justification if you ask me. I don't' see how whether he used a gun or not has anything to do wtih whether he was killed by those opposed to him.

With that said, who cares? If people want to construct all sorts of ways to suggest that he can't be a martyr, then go ahead. Its a word. The point still remains--he was killed by those opposed to him. You can say it simply by calling him a martyr or you can write out 8 words in place of the term martyr. Either way...

I can't make any sense of stemelbow's post, except on the assumption that he thinks there is some kind of absolute meaning of the word we are discussing, according to which:

"Martyr" = "Someone who is killed by his opponents".

That would let in a lot of people with whom stemelbow would be quite uncomfortable, don't you think?

He seems to pay no attention at all to my careful attempts to point out that Joseph Smith might (matters of faith apart) be called a 'martyr' in the sense that some religious groups use it, but not by others. That implies, of course, that there could also be an LDS sense of the word, which would doubtless be applied to him, and perhaps to others such as those killed at Haun's Mill, who probably also defended themselves by force. It is then quite legitimate to point out the differences between the LDS sense of the word, and the Roman Catholic sense, and to consider the possible reasons behind those differences.

But if stemelbow's post just means 'martyr is only a word' and anyone can use it without bothering about what content it might convey, why then, Joseph Smith was a hamburger. And stemelbow is a tapir.

[_Hades]

Or was he killed by people who objected to having their wives and daughters seduced behind their back?

To answer that we'd have to have some idea of who was in the mob...

I think we need to include the reason for the killing. One man's martyrdom is another man's vigilante justice.

[_stemelbow]

I can't make any sense of stemelbow's post, except on the assumption that he thinks there is some kind of absolute meaning of the word we are discussing, according to which:

"Martyr" = "Someone who is killed by his opponents".

That would let in a lot of people with whom stemelbow would be quite uncomfortable, don't you think?

Sorry, I wasn't being exhaustive in my description above. I didn't mean to confuse.

He seems to pay no attention at all to my careful attempts to point out that Joseph Smith might (matters of faith apart) be called a 'martyr' in the sense that some religious groups use it, but not by others.

Oh brother. I paid plenty of attention to it. I simply don't see the point of arguing that Joseph Smith was not a martyr. Does it really matter to me? Nah. I'm glad that you can recognize the some poeple use words differently than others.

That implies, of course, that there could also be an LDS sense of the word, which would doubtless be applied to him, and perhaps to others such as those killed at Haun's Mill, who probably also defended themselves by force. It is then quite legitimate to point out the differences between the LDS sense of the word, and the Roman Catholic sense, and to consider the possible reasons behind those differences.

I don't think its illegitimate, if that's what you are assuming. I just think its silly to think Joseph Smith is not a martyr. It has nothing to do with the differences people may apply to the word. If martyr is applied as the OP suggests then I don't' see anyway to avoid that Joseph Smith was a martyr.

But if stemelbow's post just means 'martyr is only a word' and anyone can use it without bothering about what content it might convey, why then, Joseph Smith was a hamburger. And stemelbow is a tapir.

Oh you're silly, chap. by the way, who are you talking to?

[_Jaybear]

[quote="stemelbow"]I don't think its illegitimate, if that's what you are assuming. I just think its silly to think Joseph Smith is not a martyr. It has nothing to do with the differences people may apply to the word. If martyr is applied as the OP suggests then I don't' see anyway to avoid that Joseph Smith was a martyr.
[quote]

I don't think he is a martyr, but I prefer the traditional definition, as one who would face death rather than renounce his faith.

Smith, having denied that he polygamist, was not in much of a position to renounce polygamy. Those who claim he death sealed his testimony, seem to forget that his public testimony was designed to mislead the public.

by the way, I don't say this believing that martrys are special people. The 911 bombers have a good claim to be considered martrys.

[_Buffalo]

I don't find the martyr question very interesting. It's completely subjective. Extremist Muslims view the 9/11 hijackers as martyrs. Obviously not everyone feels that way, but it's totally subjective.

[_stemelbow]

I don't think he is a martyr, but I prefer the traditional definition, as one who would face death rather than renounce his faith.

So you think if Joseph Smith claimed, say May 31st 1844, that he was not really a prophet and suggested all his followers go and follow traditional Christianity, repenting of their devotion to him, that he would have been killed by these killers anyway? I think its quite apparent Joseph Smith had a feeling he was going to be killed at some point by those who disagreed with his beliefs, don't you? I think if he would have preferred to live he would have denied his beliefs, right? I mean your traditional definition only strengthens the case, it seems to me.

Smith, having denied that he polygamist, was not in much of a position to renounce polygamy. Those who claim he death sealed his testimony, seem to forget that his public testimony was designed to mislead the public.

It seems he truly believed he was going to be killed for his beliefs. I'm not sure polygamy alone was the cause of persecuations against him--as it was we know of recorded events of persecution before any of his dealings with polygamy.

by the way, I don't say this believing that martrys are special people. The 911 bombers have a good claim to be considered martrys.

I think its fair to acknowledge that not all claimed martyrs are good people.