Was Joseph Smith a martyr?

[_jon]

Here is a list of 'Common features of stereotypical martyrdoms'
1. A hero - A person of some renown who is devoted to a cause believed to be admirable.
2. Opposition - People who oppose that cause.
3. Foreseeable risk - The hero foresees action by opponents to harm him or her, because of his or her commitment to the cause.
4. Courage and Commitment - The hero continues, despite knowing the risk, out of commitment to the cause.
5. Death - The opponents kill the hero because of his or her commitment to the cause.
6. Audience response - The hero’s death is commemorated. People may label the hero explicitly as a martyr. Other people may in turn be inspired to pursue the same cause.

Does this list fit the death of Joseph Smith and the reasons for it?

[_zeezrom]

Put that way, yes.

[_Chap]

'Martyr' like all words in the English language, gets its meaning from the way people use it (I hope that is uncontroversial enough to be invulnerable to a 'CFR').

Different communities may use words in different ways, which implies that the same sounds in English may convey different meanings for different communities. In the case of words involving strong emotional or religious content, the differences may be great. Thus it is very clear that militant Islamists speaking in English use 'martyr' very differently from the way that Roman Catholics use the word in referring to the history of the early Christian church in times of persecution.

There is therefore not much point in arguing whether or not Joseph Smith really was or was not a 'martyr' in some absolute sense, any more than we can sensibly argue whether the Book of Mormon is a 'sacred text' in some absolute sense. All we can sensibly do is to ask whether he seems to have been a 'martyr' in the sense that a given faith community uses the term.

It is, however, quite legitimate to ask whether the use of the term 'martyr' for Joseph Smith in LDS usage is identical to that of (say) Roman Catholics referring to the history of the early Christian church in times of persecution. My feeling is that Joseph Smith's attempt to use lethal force to defend himself and his companions would rule him out for the term 'martyr' in the latter sense - though matters of faith apart he probably would qualify as a 'martyr' in the sense that militant Islamists speaking in English use the word.

[_Buffalo]

Just like "insider," the answer can be yes or no, depending on which meaning of the word you prefer.

[_stemelbow]

I think its silly that this is such an issue. Was he killed by those who opposed him? yes. People try Old Testament twist and turn in every direction in order to flee from the obvious sometimes.

With that said, it doesn't matter. Martyr is a term used often in relation to nobility. People don't like Joseph Smith so they won't let him be called a martyr. Just admit it, for crying aloud. The silly "he had a gun and used it" criticism is a deflection--it misses the point.

I type that out knowing full well people will dispute it just because they don't want to thik of Joseph Smith as a martyr. Oh such silliness we see each day, huh?

[_jon]

I think its silly that this is such an issue. Was he killed by those who opposed him? yes. People try Old Testament twist and turn in every direction in order to flee from the obvious sometimes.

With that said, it doesn't matter. Martyr is a term used often in relation to nobility. People don't like Joseph Smith so they won't let him be called a martyr. Just admit it, for crying aloud. The silly "he had a gun and used it" criticism is a deflection--it misses the point.

I type that out knowing full well people will dispute it just because they don't want to thik of Joseph Smith as a martyr. Oh such silliness we see each day, huh?

I have absolutely no doubt that were we in such a circumstance we would would have no hesitation in trying to defend ourselves. I think the bigger issue in terms of 'martyr or not martyr' is the appearance that he deliberately ditched aspects of his faith - did he drink and smoke in Carthage? Was he wearing his garments? Was he in there because of his religious faith or because he destroyed a press that was going to 'out' his secret polygamous practices?

I think it is sad that he was killed in such a way by a mob. I'm not sure he did anything that justified that treatment. But a martyr?

[_Chap]

The silly "he had a gun and used it" criticism is a deflection--it misses the point.

I type that out knowing full well people will dispute it just because they don't want to thik of Joseph Smith as a martyr. Oh such silliness we see each day, huh?

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?

It is, however, quite legitimate to ask whether the use of the term 'martyr' for Joseph Smith in LDS usage is identical to that of (say) Roman Catholics referring to the history of the early Christian church in times of persecution. My feeling is that Joseph Smith's attempt to use lethal force to defend himself and his companions would rule him out for the term 'martyr' in the latter sense - though matters of faith apart he probably would qualify as a 'martyr' in the sense that militant Islamists speaking in English use the word.

[_stemelbow]

I have absolutely no doubt that were we in such a circumstance we would would have no hesitation in trying to defend ourselves. I think the bigger issue in terms of 'martyr or not martyr' is the appearance that he deliberately ditched aspects of his faith - did he drink and smoke in Carthage? Was he wearing his garments? Was he in there because of his religious faith or because he destroyed a press that was going to 'out' his secret polygamous practices?

What? what does that have to do with being a martyr? He was killed by those opposed to him, his ideas, his teachings, his beliefs. Its a pretty simple question. But once you don't like the man it seems the question and answer become so complicated the meaning of the word seems to be ruined.

I think it is sad that he was killed in such a way by a mob. I'm not sure he did anything that justified that treatment. But a martyr?

'fraid so, at least how the word is defined. With that, who cares? How does this provide any sort of criticism for the belief?

[_stemelbow]

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...

[_jon]

He was killed by those opposed to him, his ideas, his teachings, his beliefs.

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...