Joseph Smith Was Not A Martyr

[LittleNipper]

What has this to do with the OP?
A prophet for a religion is defined by that religion.
A martyr for a religion is defined by that religion.
Religions define their own terms.
Catholics originally defined what a martyr was, and no one but a Catholic qualifies.
Protestants disagree with the Catholic restriction.
Mormons define Smith as a martyr, and I doubt if a Protestant, Catholic, or FSM counterargument will dissuade them.
No more than a Catholic could dissuade a Protestant from their point of view on martyrs.

A martyr is one who dies for his/her faith and not for his /her misdeeds.

 

[tumbleweed41]

A martyr is one who dies for his/her faith and not for his /her misdeeds.

A martyr for a religion is defined by that religion.
Religions define their own terms.

 

[Humanistheart]

What has this to do with the OP?
A prophet for a religion is defined by that religion.
A martyr for a religion is defined by that religion.
Religions define their own terms.
Catholics originally defined what a martyr was, and no one but a Catholic qualifies.
Protestants disagree with the Catholic restriction.
Mormons define Smith as a martyr, and I doubt if a Protestant, Catholic, or FSM counterargument will dissuade them.
No more than a Catholic could dissuade a Protestant from their point of view on martyrs.

So you're saying there is no empiracle definition of the word? No one but the religious may use to term martyr.

 

[Vasilisa Jade]

{{poof}}:ninja:

Get out now while you still can Tumbleweed... lest you be sucked into the vortex of insanity...

:ninja:*throws ninja smoke bomb and dives out of sight*

 

[McBell]

So you're saying there is no empiracle definition of the word? No one but the religious may use to term martyr.

um...
when did he say that?

 

[tumbleweed41]

So you're saying there is no empiracle definition of the word? No one but the religious may use to term martyr.

um...
when did he say that?

I am saying that the definition for a Catholic martyr is different from a Protestant martyr is different from an Islamic martyr is different from Websters.

So to argue that Smith does not fit Websters definition is foolish.
He fits the Mormon definition, he is their martyr.

Personally, I don't like the guy. But that is irrelevant to the discussion.

If I go to jail tomorrow for participating in a peace demonstration, and am killed in jail for accidentally taking the wrong bunk. There are those who may see me as a martyr for the cause. They may hold up signs with my face. Legislation may be passed due to my being held up as a martyr.
It would be those who sought to use my death to further their cause that would define me as a martyr, not Websters.
Would it really matter if i did not die willingly?

 

[gnomon]

Hasn't anyone figured this out yet?

I can't sleep at night.

 

[Smoke]

A martyr is one who dies for his/her faith and not for his /her misdeeds.

Sometimes the two are intertwined. Here's an account of an Orthodox martyr:

St Emilianos of Bulgaria

Commemorated July 18
​

The Holy Martyr Emilianos suffered for Christ during the reign of the emperor Julian the Apostate (361-363 AD). Julian wanted to restore in the Roman Empire the cult of the pagan gods, and he circulated an edict throughout all the regions, according to which all Christians would be subject to death.

The city of Dorostolum, situated on the banks of the River Dunaj (Danube), where St. Emilianos lived, was governed by an official named Capitolinus. The imperial edict was read in the city square. The people of Dorostolum said that there were no Christians in the city.

St. Emilianos was a slave of the local city-head, and he was secretly a Christian. Emboldened by the harsh edict, St Emilianos snuck into the pagan temple, he destroyed statues of the idols with a hammer, he overturned the altars and the candle-stands, and then emerged without notice. But soon the pagans discovered, that the pagan-temple was in ruins. An angry crowd began to beat up a certain Christian, who by chance happened by. St. Emilianos then shouted out loudly, that they should not lay hold of that innocent man, and then he said that he himself had wrecked the pagan-temple.

They seized him and led him for judgement to Capitolinus. By order of the official, St. Emilianos was for a long time beaten mercilessly, and then he was condemned to burning. Thrown into a bon-fire, he did not perish, but rather the flames burnt many of the pagans standing about. When the bon-fire had gone out, St. Emilian lay down upon the dying embers and with a prayer gave up his spirit to the Lord. At Constantinople afterwards there was built a church in honour of the holy Martyr Emilianos, where they transferred his relics.
​

Dismissal Hymn (Fourth Tone)

Your Martyr, O Lord, in his courageous contest for You received the prize of the crowns of incorruption and life from You, our immortal God. For since he possessed Your strength, he cast down the tyrants and wholly destroyed the demons' powerless presumption. O Christ God, by his prayers, save our souls, since You are merciful.

Kontakion (Third Tone)

O divine Emilianos, since zeal for God burned within you, you was not afraid of fire, your fellow creature, and servant; fearlessly and of your own will, you went forward and was not consumed therein by the flames' hot fury, as a sacrifice to Christ God, O glorious martyr; pray that we all may be saved.
​

 

[Witch of Hope]

Outside in Berlin it is cold (-14°C), and instead of lying in the bed in this time (it is 23:12 o'clock/or 11:12 p.m.), I sit before my PC, and think about the Mormons and the American Civil War. And about the supposed prophecy of Joseph Smith. Suddenly I remembered something what I had read in a publication once:

​

UPDATE, August 21, 2005: Since initially posting this article, many concerns have been raised, and some have been swayed by an article written by John Tvedtnes of FAIR, who claims this as an accurate prophecy.​

Tvedtnes states that this prophecy was fulfilled by the American Civil War. However, while he tries to acknowledge some important historical facts, he fails. Let’s look at the facts. On July 14, 1832 (more than five months before the date of Smith's prophecy), Congress passed a tariff act that South Carolina declared null and void. Because tensions were high, President​

Andrew Jackson put the U.S. army on alert and the United States expected war in 1832! The LDS Evening and Morning Star and many other U.S. newspapers reported that information before Smith's prophecy! So anyone who might have read Joseph Smith's prophecy at that time would not have been enthralled by a prediction of war beginning in South Carolina --​

everyone was expecting that. However, things calmed down. Perhaps that's why, even though D. & C. 87 is dated December 25, 1832, it did not appear in the 1833 Book of Commandments or in any edition of the D. & C. or other LDS scripture until after the Civil War began! It was printed in the 1851 Pearl of Great Price in England and in The Seer by Orson Pratt in 1854, but neither of those were considered then as scripture. And in the 1850's, the rumors of war between the North and South were already starting, so that was probably why Pratt published it then. The point is, the prediction of war beginning in South Carolina was something anyone would have made in 1832. Reviving this in the 1850’s was reactionary to renewed rumors of civil war. At the time it was given, most people would have read it and said, “Well, duh!”​

Addressing verses 2 and 3, it says, "And the time will come that war will bepoured out upon all nations, beginning at this place. For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend​

themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations." Now, the south DID call upon Great Britain for help, but Great Britain did not get involved, nor did they call upon other nations to defend themselves. If one reads this with intellectual honesty as opposed to blind faith, it’s easy to see that Joseph Smith establishes the South Carolina rebellion as the causalfactor in war being poured out upon all nations. This simply did nothappen, and given the wording of the prophecy, it can in no way be construed as something that can still come to pass. This prophecy doesn't say, "and someday down the road, war will be poured out on all nations for reasons other than the South Carolina rebellion," but that's the way Mr. Tvedtnes wants you to interpret it. World War I did not start​

because of the South Carolina rebellion, and its roots did not begin there. Any effort to link the South Carolina rebellion or the American Civil War with any war that has happened since is simply illogical. D&C 87 was not a divine insight. Rather, it was a false prophecy.​

Source: Joseph Smith's War Prophecy, Emphases of me)


​

For me this is more than clearly! Or to use a German saying: "It is as clear as dumpling broth". Also here is proved that of this was a wrong prophecy. Smith only this processed what was in rumors at that time in the circulation.​

Generally it seems to me to be a problem with Mormons that they spend rumors as facts. Two examples from my personal experience should make this clear.​

The first experience was about in 1977 in Cologne where a homosexual man attempt his suicide with success. Only a few, also I, knew the truth (at that time I was a secretary in my ward). Nevertheless, one said, and it was accepted as truthit willingly that he would have died because of an accident.​

The second experience happened in Lübeck. A woman was excommunicated which had done nothing else, than to help her) addicted neighbor, also a Mormon, to spend the night, and sometimes in his room if he had hard times. In my ward she was the shameless sinner who had sex with this man. The bishop knew the truth, and also I as her home teacher, but he said nothing. When I wanted to say something, it was threatened me by the bishop to lose my duty as a teacher in the Elders quorum group if I said a little bit. I was quiet because I was then religious and was silly enough not to see what really was happen.​

 

[Watchmen]

So you're saying there is no empiracle definition of the word? No one but the religious may use to term martyr.

I posted the nearest thing to an empiracle definition at the beginning of this thread and the haters chose to ignore it and continue their nonsense.

 

[McBell]

Outside in Berlin it is cold (-14°C), and instead of lying in the bed in this time (it is 23:12 o'clock/or 11:12 p.m.), I sit before my PC, and think about the Mormons and the American Civil War. And about the supposed prophecy of Joseph Smith. Suddenly I remembered something what I had read in a publication once:

​

UPDATE, August 21, 2005: Since initially posting this article, many concerns have been raised, and some have been swayed by an article written by John Tvedtnes of FAIR, who claims this as an accurate prophecy.​

Tvedtnes states that this prophecy was fulfilled by the American Civil War. However, while he tries to acknowledge some important historical facts, he fails. Let’s look at the facts. On July 14, 1832 (more than five months before the date of Smith's prophecy), Congress passed a tariff act that South Carolina declared null and void. Because tensions were high, President​

Andrew Jackson put the U.S. army on alert and the United States expected war in 1832! The LDS Evening and Morning Star and many other U.S. newspapers reported that information before Smith's prophecy! So anyone who might have read Joseph Smith's prophecy at that time would not have been enthralled by a prediction of war beginning in South Carolina --​

everyone was expecting that. However, things calmed down. Perhaps that's why, even though D. & C. 87 is dated December 25, 1832, it did not appear in the 1833 Book of Commandments or in any edition of the D. & C. or other LDS scripture until after the Civil War began! It was printed in the 1851 Pearl of Great Price in England and in The Seer by Orson Pratt in 1854, but neither of those were considered then as scripture. And in the 1850's, the rumors of war between the North and South were already starting, so that was probably why Pratt published it then. The point is, the prediction of war beginning in South Carolina was something anyone would have made in 1832. Reviving this in the 1850’s was reactionary to renewed rumors of civil war. At the time it was given, most people would have read it and said, “Well, duh!”​

Addressing verses 2 and 3, it says, "And the time will come that war will bepoured out upon all nations, beginning at this place. For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend​

themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations." Now, the south DID call upon Great Britain for help, but Great Britain did not get involved, nor did they call upon other nations to defend themselves. If one reads this with intellectual honesty as opposed to blind faith, it’s easy to see that Joseph Smith establishes the South Carolina rebellion as the causalfactor in war being poured out upon all nations. This simply did nothappen, and given the wording of the prophecy, it can in no way be construed as something that can still come to pass. This prophecy doesn't say, "and someday down the road, war will be poured out on all nations for reasons other than the South Carolina rebellion," but that's the way Mr. Tvedtnes wants you to interpret it. World War I did not start​

because of the South Carolina rebellion, and its roots did not begin there. Any effort to link the South Carolina rebellion or the American Civil War with any war that has happened since is simply illogical. D&C 87 was not a divine insight. Rather, it was a false prophecy.​

Source: Joseph Smith's War Prophecy, Emphases of me)


​

For me this is more than clearly! Or to use a German saying: "It is as clear as dumpling broth". Also here is proved that of this was a wrong prophecy. Smith only this processed what was in rumors at that time in the circulation.​

Generally it seems to me to be a problem with Mormons that they spend rumors as facts. Two examples from my personal experience should make this clear.​

The first experience was about in 1977 in Cologne where a homosexual man attempt his suicide with success. Only a few, also I, knew the truth (at that time I was a secretary in my ward). Nevertheless, one said, and it was accepted as truthit willingly that he would have died because of an accident.​

The second experience happened in Lübeck. A woman was excommunicated which had done nothing else, than to help her) addicted neighbor, also a Mormon, to spend the night, and sometimes in his room if he had hard times. In my ward she was the shameless sinner who had sex with this man. The bishop knew the truth, and also I as her home teacher, but he said nothing. When I wanted to say something, it was threatened me by the bishop to lose my duty as a teacher in the Elders quorum group if I said a little bit. I was quiet because I was then religious and was silly enough not to see what really was happen.​

so basically what you are gong to do is completely ignore the list fulfilled prophecies in order to harp over ones that failed and talk about irrelevant personal experiences?
You do know this age old tactic is not only dishonest, but also known as "counting the hits and ignoring the misses"?

Do you honestly think that by ignoring the ones that were fulfilled they will somehow disappear?


Your dishonesty is most revealing.

 

[McBell]

Generally it seems to me to be a problem with Mormons that they spend rumors as facts.​

​

Why is it fine for you to do just that, but it is just oh so terrible for a Mormon to do so?

Can we say hypocrite?

 

[Witch of Hope]

@ Mestemia,

Before I express myself on a subject, I have read in addition only different sources, and have checked this on their credibility. In my former profession it was mentioned "sight" and "weight of importance". An army officer who investigated, e.g., the Massker of Mountain Meadow is more plausible than somebody who denied the massacre (the participation of the Mormons) and later was proofed as a liar (I think of Brigham Young). A diary entry of a TBM is more plausible, than an official church statement. Since in the official church statement, e.g., with the Mormons, was often changed a little bit. I don't ignore sources, but value them only differently than you. This is maybe due to the fact that it was formerly my job to do such a thing.
Nevertheless, fact is that NO ONLY ONE OF THE KNOWN PROPHECIES OF JOSEPH SMITH had proved to be true. Whether it was about the civil war, or about the Rocky Mountains. Whether it was about the Kirtland Bank, or around the second arrival of Christ (which he should experience as a man at the age of 85 years) everywhere he erred, or it turned out that there was no revelation (as in case of the Rocky Mountain Prophecy). Not very honestly from the "true church" of Christ, or?
By the way, I don't measure with two scales, because for me is valid only one graduation: What is a proofable fact!
I have a personal question to you: Are you or was a prior Mormon? I ask, because you argue like a Mormon.

 

[blaze armstrong]

LDS demonstrates how to start a new religion. We witnesses to how the world's most cherished beliefs actually became a religion. By the way, just because a belief is cherished does not make it true.

 

[LittleNipper]

Originally Posted by tumbleweed41
A martyr for a religion is defined by that religion.
Religions define their own terms.

And you likely wish to determine marriage in the very same way....

 

[LittleNipper]

I am saying that the definition for a Catholic martyr is different from a Protestant martyr is different from an Islamic martyr is different from Websters.

So to argue that Smith does not fit Websters definition is foolish.
He fits the Mormon definition, he is their martyr.

Personally, I don't like the guy. But that is irrelevant to the discussion.

If I go to jail tomorrow for participating in a peace demonstration, and am killed in jail for accidentally taking the wrong bunk. There are those who may see me as a martyr for the cause. They may hold up signs with my face. Legislation may be passed due to my being held up as a martyr.
It would be those who sought to use my death to further their cause that would define me as a martyr, not Websters.
Would it really matter if i did not die willingly?

The determination of who is a martyr maybe influenced by the particular religion; however, the definition of martyr remains consistant.

 

[tumbleweed41]

The determination of who is a martyr maybe influenced by the particular religion; however, the definition of martyr remains consistant.

Exactly.
So while you are stuck on Websters, the world, and its various religions, moves on.....

 

[tumbleweed41]

Originally Posted by tumbleweed41
A martyr for a religion is defined by that religion.
Religions define their own terms.

And you likely wish to determine marriage in the very same way....

Irrelevant and obvious strawman.

 

[McBell]

@ Mestemia,

Before I express myself on a subject, I have read in addition only different sources, and have checked this on their credibility. In my former profession it was mentioned "sight" and "weight of importance". An army officer who investigated, e.g., the Massker of Mountain Meadow is more plausible than somebody who denied the massacre (the participation of the Mormons) and later was proofed as a liar (I think of Brigham Young). A diary entry of a TBM is more plausible, than an official church statement. Since in the official church statement, e.g., with the Mormons, was often changed a little bit. I don't ignore sources, but value them only differently than you. This is maybe due to the fact that it was formerly my job to do such a thing.
Nevertheless, fact is that NO ONLY ONE OF THE KNOWN PROPHECIES OF JOSEPH SMITH had proved to be true. Whether it was about the civil war, or about the Rocky Mountains. Whether it was about the Kirtland Bank, or around the second arrival of Christ (which he should experience as a man at the age of 85 years) everywhere he erred, or it turned out that there was no revelation (as in case of the Rocky Mountain Prophecy). Not very honestly from the "true church" of Christ, or?
By the way, I don't measure with two scales, because for me is valid only one graduation: What is a proofable fact!
I have a personal question to you: Are you or was a prior Mormon? I ask, because you argue like a Mormon.

so basically what you are going to do is completely ignore the list fulfilled prophecies in order to harp over ones that failed and talk about irrelevant personal experiences?
You do know this age old tactic is not only dishonest, but also known as "counting the hits and ignoring the misses"?

Do you honestly think that by ignoring the ones that were fulfilled they will somehow disappear?

Your dishonesty is most revealing.

Merely repeating the same thing over and over does in no way make your mantra true.


And no.
I am not a Mormon.
I have never been a Mormon.
And I, in fact, have problems with Mormon beliefs.

 

[Witch of Hope]

A prophet for a religion is defined by that religion.
A martyr for a religion is defined by that religion.
Religions define their own terms.

For which is to the hell an encyclopedia there, or a dictionary if everybody makes his own definition? Concepts have generally valid meanings. The color RED describes something else, than the color BLUE. Nobody would come on the stupid idea, and would say that the red table was blue in reality. And also the concept Martyr is understood in a certain direction.