sock puppet wrote:I don't get it. "Martyr" is a word, a label. Why is it so important to Mormons to try to hoist Joseph Smith to the level of Joan of Arc?
Whether or not a 'martyr', Joseph Smith did what he did (historical facts) and did not do what he did not (again, historical facts). So why is it so important to you that he be labeled a 'martyr', particularly when the historical facts are extremely thin for making such a claim?
The members of this forum veer off topic very quickly. I am not a "defender;" I merely point out that religions worldwide have a history of martyrdom. The crucifixion of Jesus preceded the martyrdom of Stephen, the martyrdom of Paul, Peter, the Christians of Rome and so on. From a historical standpoint, it sort of verifies the religion if a founder or prominent person within gets murdered. Joseph Smith wasn't prophesying so much as anticipating the end of what he had started. Might as well use the event to further the cause.
simone wrote: "In 1838, Joseph and Hyrum were sentenced to death."
So, what happened? They were released after the appeal or pending appeal? The did obey the law and use the legal system to gain their freedom, didn't they?
"This is how INGORNAT these fools are!" - darricktevenson
Bow your head and mutter, what in hell am I doing here?
infaymos wrote: "Peterson is the defacto king ping of the Mormon Apologetic world."
From a historical standpoint, it sort of verifies the religion if a founder or prominent person within gets murdered.... Might as well use the event to further the cause.
Which is exactly why killing him was such a serious mistake.
Huckelberry said: I see the order and harmony to be the very image of God which smiles upon us each morning as we awake.