Was J Smith martyred, murdered or removed from his place?

[_Madison54]

There is no requirement of not fighting back for martyrdom.
Joseph Smith was a martyr because he was killed for his religious teachings.

I doubt others cared that much about what Joseph taught. But his actions were another matter. He certainly would not have been killed if it was just simply about what he was teaching. So no, he was not martyred. But he was murdered.

It gets really old hearing how the poor saints were persecuted and driven from place to place because of their religious "beliefs". When you dig deeper and see what was truly going on and the actions they were taking (in Missouri, etc.), it's clear why they were not welcome after a while.

[_JLHPROF]

I doubt others cared that much about what Joseph taught. But his actions were another matter. He certainly would not have been killed if it was just simply about what he was teaching.

Joseph lived what he taught. They were one and the same.
Polygamy, theocracy and the political kingdom of God, consecration/united order, Zionism, etc.

All teachings in Missouri and Nauvoo Mormonism that contributed to a ticked off non-member populace. Anyone killed for following those teachings is a martyr to those beliefs.

[_Madison54]

Joseph lived what he taught. They were one and the same.

He could have taught and lived plural marriage without going after other men's wives and young daughters. Those are the actions that truly got him in trouble (among other things). I imagine most wouldn't have cared if he'd just been marrying other consenting adult females (who weren't already married to other men).

All teachings in Missouri and Nauvoo Mormonism that contributed to a ticked off non-member populace.

I wonder why they were so "ticked off"? Did the teachings include looting and burning businesses and homes?

Quote the teaching that instructed the members to do this:

On October 18, these Mormons began to act as vigilantes and marched under arms in three groups to the Missourian settlements of Gallatin, Millport and Grindstone Fork. The Missourians and their families, outnumbered by the Mormons, made their way to neighboring counties.

Having taken control of the Missourian settlements, the Mormons plundered the property and burned the stores and houses. The county seat, Gallatin, is reported to have been "completely gutted" – only one shoe store remained unscathed.
Millport, Grindstone Fork and the smaller Missourian settlement of Splawn's Ridge were also plundered and had some houses burned.

During the days that followed, Latter Day Saint vigilantes under the direction and encouragement of Lyman Wight drove Missourians who lived in outlying farms from their homes, which were similarly plundered and burned. According to one witness, "We could stand in our door and see houses burning every night for over two weeks... the Mormons completely gutted Davies County. There was scarcely a Missourian's home left standing in the county. Nearly every one was burned."

What teaching included doing this? Do you really have to wonder why the people in Missouri wanted them to leave?

[_JLHPROF]

I imagine most wouldn't have cared if he'd just been marrying other consenting adult females (who weren't already married to other men).

In 19th Century America? I think that alone would have gotten him drawn and quartered.

[_Lemmie]

I imagine most wouldn't have cared if he'd just been marrying other consenting adult females (who weren't already married to other men).

In 19th Century America? I think that alone would have gotten him drawn and quartered.

That's some deflection, but it bypasses Madison54's point:

I wonder why they were so "ticked off"? Did the teachings include looting and burning businesses and homes?

Quote the teaching that instructed the members to do this:

On October 18, these Mormons began to act as vigilantes and marched under arms in three groups to the Missourian settlements of Gallatin, Millport and Grindstone Fork. The Missourians and their families, outnumbered by the Mormons, made their way to neighboring counties.

Having taken control of the Missourian settlements, the Mormons plundered the property and burned the stores and houses. The county seat, Gallatin, is reported to have been "completely gutted" – only one shoe store remained unscathed.
Millport, Grindstone Fork and the smaller Missourian settlement of Splawn's Ridge were also plundered and had some houses burned.

During the days that followed, Latter Day Saint vigilantes under the direction and encouragement of Lyman Wight drove Missourians who lived in outlying farms from their homes, which were similarly plundered and burned. According to one witness, "We could stand in our door and see houses burning every night for over two weeks... the Mormons completely gutted Davies County. There was scarcely a Missourian's home left standing in the county. Nearly every one was burned."

What teaching included doing this? Do you really have to wonder why the people in Missouri wanted them to leave?

[_Madison54]

I imagine most wouldn't have cared if he'd just been marrying other consenting adult females (who weren't already married to other men).

In 19th Century America? I think that alone would have gotten him drawn and quartered.

I doubt that. What got him in trouble was secretly marrying other men's wives and marrying young daughters.

Maybe ask PPP what got him killed? Did anyone try to kill him before he married another man's wife?

[_Chap]

I am not asking about dictionary definitions, but whether there is an example of any other Christian church declaring somebody to be a martyr who tries to avoid death by using a lethal weapon against his or her assailants, with the clear intention of killing or wounding them.

Can you do that?

No and I see no reason to.

The reason would be to show that Mormons are not totally alone in defining as a martyr a man who did the best he could to kill his enemies before they could kill him.

For comparison, look at the explanation of the criteria for martyrdom given in 2006, in an Apostolic Letter of Benedict XVI:

These words clearly set out the requirement that the person freely accepts their death in an act of love; this clearly excludes coming off on the losing side in a gunfight.

Why on earth would I care how Pope Benedict defined a martyr?

Because to the complete absence of gun-toting gun-shooting martyrs in the rest of Christendom is now added the clear testimony of the largest organised church in the world that it explicitly demands the willing and voluntary submission to death on the part of those it recognises as martyrs.

There is no requirement in martyrdom that precludes an attempt at self defense.

An attempt at self-defence that includes using a lethal weapon on others? In Mormonism, maybe not.

But in all other Christian churches, whether they have an explicit definition of martyrdom or not, you will find that all the recognised martyrs made no attempt to harm those who killed them. You will not succeed in finding a counter-example, I think.

Mormonism is, once more, out there on its own. Why pretend otherwise?

[_Analytics]

Joseph lived what he taught. They were one and the same. Polygamy, theocracy and the political kingdom of God, consecration/united order, Zionism, etc....

...not to mention attempted murder, destruction of the press, armed insurrection, and treason.

If you make a list of what he did that got him into trouble, the church no longer teaches or practices any of it.

Joseph Smith had no problem telling his people that Hyrum had a revelation that everybody should vote for Joseph Hoge. Compare that to what church spokesman Eric Hawkins said a couple of days ago in response to Trump's executive order on religious liberty:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been and remains committed to political neutrality. Today’s executive order will not affect that longstanding policy.

Uh, it hasn't always been so committed. God used to reveal to the prophet for whom the Saints should vote.

[_Analytics]

I doubt that. What got him in trouble was secretly marrying other men's wives and marrying young daughters.

Such behavior certainly disillusioned some of his followers. Rumors of polygamy were going around, Joseph Smith and the Church vigorously denied them, and the general population wasn't sure what to think. What got him into serious trouble in Nauvoo with the mob that killed him was his politics--not his spiritual winery.

[_grindael]

Joseph was killed for the doctrines he preached, (and for those he preached privately as well). That is the very textbook definition of martyred.

This has been rehashed over and over again and those like JLH who are apologists for Joseph Smith always claim he was martyred. And Joseph was not simply killed "for the doctrines he preached". There was a whole underpinning of political shenanigans going on at the time that fed the beast. Joseph was killed because of his political influence. The main person who stirred up the opposition to Joseph (Sharp) was little concerned with Joseph's religious doctrines, except to use them to show that he was a hypocrite. All of those that Mormons later claimed were involved in the murder for religious reasons were not.

Why was Joseph even IN Carthage? Because of the Nauvoo Charter and Joseph's dictatorial powers in Nauvoo and his misuse of habeas corpus. Walmart. Law and others saw how Joseph exploited his power as Mayor in the case of the Expositor to give himself a pass on the charges. Therefore, they went to Carthage. Others KNEW that he would be vulnerable there and took advantage of it, like Thomas Sharp, who goaded the militia into killing Smith.

One week after noting that the Nauvoo charter had been granted, Sharp reported on the Prophet Joseph Smith’s call for new converts and other Church members to gather to Nauvoo. Later, such calls would provoke outrage and fear from Sharp because the growing political and economic power of the Mormons threatened to overwhelm the old citizens of Hancock County. ... Along with the crystallization of Sharp’s fears about the political power of the growing number of Mormons in Hancock County, the Mormons kept stirring up the issue by attacking Sharp through their newspaper, the Times and Seasons.

This article is very informative on why Sharp turned against Smith and what his main objections to Smith were. It was in no way religious persecution that drove Sharp, it was Smith's power and influence in using his role as a "holy" "prophet" to dictate the political affairs in the State of Illinois. Of course Sharp used what Bennett and others revealed as a cudgel against Smith. https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/073-16-23.pdf

This was Ohio and Missouri all over again. Sharp, like those in Missouri and Ohio was mainly concerned with the influence of Mormons on their societies and that the Mormons were dictating the terms and laws of the land. Smith attacking Militia, Smith starting illegal banks, etc. etc. did nothing to help himself. The Mormons have made this all about "religion". It was not. It never was.