Joseph Smith Was Not A Martyr

[zomg]

FAIR is mormon site that cannot give an objective and non-biased position.

Of course. How silly of me.

Heard this before. With mormonism the excuse of whether the writings are authorative give a wild card that is played over and over.

I wasn't denying McConkie's authority. I was telling you his position in the Church.

What was stated as Josephs feelings came directly off of what you said. Do you remember that you stated this:

I know what I said. I was just giving you a possible scenario. For all we know he could have been thinking - "I'm really hungry right now."

No, not really. His actions prove to me that he was not a martyr.

I'm well aware of that. Doesn't matter to me. My beliefs aren't based on the martyrdom of Joseph Smith.

 

[no-body]

No, not really. His actions prove to me that he was not a martyr.

Be serious, you've already made up your mind about Mormonism and Joseph Smith, probably long before you knew anything about it. I find the topic interesting but I doubt you started this thread in the spirit of religious tolerance and information.

Personally I read about Smith and I don't get what Mormons see in him but that's not my place to judge. Maybe if Jesus was alive only a century ago and we had extensive information on his personal life we'd think he wasn't on the level either.

 

[Watchmen]

How about this:

Joseph Smith was not a martyr according to ljam's definition (which no one else seems to have embraced).

Joseph Smith was a martyr according to the standard definition given in the dictionary.

Thus, to answer ljam's question in the OP (why do LDS consider Joseph Smith a matyr?) is because he was one according to the common definition of the word.

 

[Watchmen]

FAIR is mormon site that cannot give an objective and non-biased position.

Fair is biased...you are biased. About the only non-biased thing I've seen here is the definition I posted from yourdictionary.com.

 

[Humanistheart]

Personally I read about Smith and I don't get what Mormons see in him but that's not my place to judge. Maybe if Jesus was alive only a century ago and we had extensive information on his personal life we'd think he wasn't on the level either.

As education rises more and more people feel that way about jesus too. Not surprising then as a christian nation the usa's education system is allowed to be so inadequate compared to european and other countries.

 

[ljam49]

As education rises more and more people feel that way about jesus too. Not surprising then as a christian nation the usa's education system is allowed to be so inadequate compared to european and other countries.

Education has nothing to do with people gravitating toward immoral behavior more than being drawn to the moral standard set by God in the Bible, with exception of those that are Godless and influence others to believe as they do.

 

[Father Heathen]

Education has nothing to do with people gravitating toward immoral behavior more than being drawn to the moral standard set by God in the Bible, with exception of those that are Godless and influence others to believe as they do.

Actually, yes, education does allow people to realize and acknowledge that biblical literalism is wholly unsubstantiated by either logic or evidence and thus an untenable stance. It's rather foolish to use an ancient tome that was authored by primitive savages, which instructs fathers on how to sell their own daughters into sexual slavery, how to beat their slaves and how to stone their own children to death as a moral compass. Moral standards based on reason and compassion are vastly superior.

 

[ljam49]

Actually, yes, education does allow people to realize and acknowledge that biblical literalism is wholly unsubstantiated by either logic or evidence and thus an untenable stance. It's rather foolish to use an ancient tome that was authored by primitive savages, which instructs fathers on how to sell their own daughters into sexual slavery, how to beat their slaves and how to stone their own children to death as a moral compass. Moral standards based on reason and compassion are vastly superior.

True and education also allows people to learn more about the foolishness of those that disregard a God and twist and pervert ancient writings into something it was not to be. That same educating also leads further to the realization from those who think logically that creation takes a creator and that its illogical to think otherwise.

Never met anyone that taught or practiced the act of selling their daughter and of course I know the same for slaves.

As far as children are concerned, never met anyone that has taught or practiced stoning their children. But considering the lack of moral life practiced in front of the present youth by their parents, some means of punishment is needed. Kids killing kids, promiscuous teenagers with bulging pregnacy rates, rank disrespect for adults etc.......

 

[Father Heathen]

True and education also allows people to learn more about the foolishness of those that disregard a God and twist and pervert ancient writings into something it was not to be.

The bible says what it says. Perhaps you should bother to actually read what you're trying to promote. Believers in the bible tend to pick and choose only what is convenient from it and disregard the rest while they assume that the biblical god would abide their hypocrisy.

That same educating also leads further to the realization from those who think logically that creation takes a creator and that its illogical to think otherwise.

The bible doesn't have a monopoly on the concept of god. In fact the bible is merely ancient savages using god as a sock puppet, attributing their own emotions and ego to "him", and has absolutely nothing to do with any real god, if such a thing even exists.

Never met anyone that taught or practiced the act of selling their daughter and of course I know the same for slaves. As far as children are concerned, never met anyone that has taught or practiced stoning their children.

So you admit that it's best to disregard the bible, given that it instructs us to do these horrible things?

But considering the lack of moral life practiced in front of the present youth by their parents, some means of punishment is needed. Kids killing kids, promiscuous teenagers with bulging pregnacy rates, rank disrespect for adults etc.......

Some magic book isn't a prerequisite for being responsible and understanding cause and effect. Logic is.

 

[ljam49]

Father Heathen:

The bible says what it says. Perhaps you should bother to actually read what you're trying to promote. Believers in the bible tend to pick and choose only what is convenient from it and disregard the rest while they assume that the biblical god would abide their hypocrisy.

I know what the Bible says. Problem with those that don't believe, they are the ones that pick up the Bible like you and find little tidbits they think is great thread material, and jump on it as if they have found the lepricaun at the end of the rainbow. From your post its easy to see that you are biblically illiterate. Here's some learning for you. We are the NT church and are not instructed to follow the law of the OT. This will help you not look so illiterate in the future.

The bible doesn't have a monopoly on god. In fact the bible is merely ancient savages using the concept of god as a sock puppet and has absolutely nothing to do with any real god, if such a thing even exists.

Your opinion of who has a monopoly on God is useless dribble considering you don't believe in one. The rest I just dismiss. Its more useless opinions. Here is a good clue for future posts. Your opinion holds no kind of truth. Its just that, an opinion.

So you admit it's best to disregard the bible, given that it instructs us to do these horrible things?

I admit nothing. In your foolishness you do not understand the difference between things learned about God and things that are practiced by Gods commands.

Some magic book isn't a prerequisite for being responsible and understanding cause and effect.

If you got a magic book, you might ought to use it since you have nothing else. I am always amazed by atheist. They never stop and think that our society is governed by morals that are outlined in the Bible. You know, don't murder, don't steal, don't lie, don't cheat. Amazing. Same morals that have been passed down for last 5-6,000 years. Problem is you have no way of proving that they did not originate from the Bible. Good part for me is I don't have to worry about proving if they did or not either.

 

[Sola'lor]

Found this on Dictionary.com as the definition for martyr.

1.a person who willingly suffers death rather than renounce his or her religion.
2.a person who is put to death or endures great suffering on behalf of any belief, principle, or cause: a martyr to the cause of social justice.
3.a person who undergoes severe or constant suffering: a martyr to severe headaches.
4.a person who seeks sympathy or attention by feigning or exaggerating pain, deprivation, etc.

I don't see anything about not defending one's self or taking agressive action.

It seems to me that Joseph Smith would be considered a martyr by the first two definitions. The third one possibly but the fourth I can't think on any instances. But even if he just fit one of the four he would still be a martyr by the acceptable uses of the term.

 

[ljam49]

Found this on Dictionary.com as the definition for martyr.

1.a person who willingly suffers death rather than renounce his or her religion.
2.a person who is put to death or endures great suffering on behalf of any belief, principle, or cause: a martyr to the cause of social justice.
3.a person who undergoes severe or constant suffering: a martyr to severe headaches.
4.a person who seeks sympathy or attention by feigning or exaggerating pain, deprivation, etc.

I don't see anything about not defending one's self or taking agressive action.

It seems to me that Joseph Smith would be considered a martyr by the first two definitions. The third one possibly but the fourth I can't think on any instances. But even if he just fit one of the four he would still be a martyr by the acceptable uses of the term.

I don't see anything about one taking defensive or agressive action either.

No matter. What do you do with the scripture:

Matthew 5:39 "But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.

Luke 6:29 Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either.

Just these two scriptures say that if someone evil attacks you, you don't slap back.
God does not tell us anywhere in His Word that we are to counter evil with evil, but just the opposite. Unless you can prove otherwise from the NT.

 

[Sola'lor]

I don't see anything about one taking defensive or agressive action either.

No matter. What do you do with the scripture:

Matthew 5:39 "But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.

Luke 6:29 Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either.

Just these two scriptures say that if someone evil attacks you, you don't slap back.
God does not tell us anywhere in His Word that we are to counter evil with evil, but just the opposite. Unless you can prove otherwise from the NT.

John 8:7
7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

Should you really be the one to claim if another man is following Christ's example or not?

Nobody I've ever met is a perfect Christian especially myself. Joseph Smith was not a perfect Christian. He was just a man like the rest of us, doing the best he could. Sometimes he succeeded other times he failed. There has only been one person on the earth that was perfect and that was Jesus Christ. Everybody else, including prophets, are imperfect. Moses, Jonah, come to mind. Even Peter one of Christ's closest apostles denied him.

Rev 21:8(emphasis added)
8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Should we condemn Peter because of His lies when he denied Christ?

When can you say that you've obeyed Christ's teachings 100%?

Matthew 7:5
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Perhaps you should work on bettering yourself as a Christian than casting stones at someone else.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am always amazed by atheist. They never stop and think that our society is governed by morals that are outlined in the Bible. You know, don't murder, don't steal, don't lie, don't cheat. Amazing. Same morals that have been passed down for last 5-6,000 years.

Basic moral principles, much more than that. However, I wouldn't say it's the "same morals" that have been passed down all this time. Even in the Christian tradition, what we consider moral has changed remarkably over time. Take slavery: just a few hundred years ago, slavery was widespread and accepted if not actually praised by mainstream Christianity. In a few cases, we actually had Christian churches owning slaves themselves. Today, every Christian church I know of declares slavery to be inherently immoral.

However, getting back to something you touched on before in the Bible, moral precepts like the idea that killing and stealing are bad are passed down through the Old Testament, which you just finished claiming doesn't apply to Christians. Seems you kinda kicked the stool out from under the foundation of your moral code, doesn't it?

Problem is you have no way of proving that they did not originate from the Bible. Good part for me is I don't have to worry about proving if they did or not either.

The Bible also says that the sun rises in the East and sets in the West, but somehow, I think I'd have been able to figure that out without the Bible telling me.

It really sounds like you're deliberately leaving the door open to the idea that you wouldn't know right from wrong if the Bible hadn't told you what right and wrong is.

However, let's just assume for a moment that the Bible is correct. If people get moral precepts like "murder is bad" from the Bible, then why would God have expected Cain not to commit murder and why would he have punished him when he did? In the Bible chronology, this happened before God gave any edict to humanity telling the people not to kill.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't see anything about one taking defensive or agressive action either.

No matter. What do you do with the scripture:

Matthew 5:39 "But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.

Luke 6:29 Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either.

Just these two scriptures say that if someone evil attacks you, you don't slap back.
God does not tell us anywhere in His Word that we are to counter evil with evil, but just the opposite. Unless you can prove otherwise from the NT.

You're a pacifist, then?

Not that there's anything necessarily wrong with this. There are a few Christian denominations that practice pacifism as a matter of faith. However, they're very much in the minority.

And I've never heard of a Baptist being a pacifist on religious grounds myself. I suppose it's always possible, but you'd be the first one I'd ever encountered.

 

[Father Heathen]

I know what the Bible says. Problem with those that don't believe, they are the ones that pick up the Bible like you and find little tidbits they think is great thread material, and jump on it as if they have found the lepricaun at the end of the rainbow. From your post its easy to see that you are biblically illiterate. Here's some learning for you. We are the NT church and are not instructed to follow the law of the OT. This will help you not look so illiterate in the future.

When your god, as you imagine and perceive him, did his little flip from OT to NT it didn't wash his hands of the cruelty and injustice. Regardless, the bible is a horrible example to use as a modern day moral compass.

Your opinion of who has a monopoly on God is useless dribble considering you don't believe in one. The rest I just dismiss. Its more useless opinions. Here is a good clue for future posts. Your opinion holds no kind of truth. Its just that, an opinion.

The point is that there are countless religions who believe in a god or gods, but don't believe in the validity or authenticity of your bible, and thus doubting your little book doesn't necessarily mean doubting the existence god, and that is a truth.

I admit nothing. In your foolishness you do not understand the difference between things learned about God and things that are practiced by Gods commands.

You mean the words that mortal men placed in god's mouth. It really doesn't take much to differentiate from human folly and divinity.

If you got a magic book, you might ought to use it since you have nothing else. I am always amazed by atheist. They never stop and think that our society is governed by morals that are outlined in the Bible. You know, don't murder, don't steal, don't lie, don't cheat. Amazing. Same morals that have been passed down for last 5-6,000 years. Problem is you have no way of proving that they did not originate from the Bible. Good part for me is I don't have to worry about proving if they did or not either.

You honestly think forbidding murder and theft was a revolutionary idea original and exclusive to the bible? They're obvious and common sense social rules that didn't require any divine revelation. They existed well before the torah was even authored and have been practiced by civilizations with no familiarity with the abrahamic faiths. And why is it that there are secular societies with lower crime rates, higher standards of living and higher levels of education than ours?

 

[ljam49]

John 8:7
7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

Should you really be the one to claim if another man is following Christ's example or not?

Nobody I've ever met is a perfect Christian especially myself. Joseph Smith was not a perfect Christian. He was just a man like the rest of us, doing the best he could. Sometimes he succeeded other times he failed. There has only been one person on the earth that was perfect and that was Jesus Christ. Everybody else, including prophets, are imperfect. Moses, Jonah, come to mind. Even Peter one of Christ's closest apostles denied him.

Rev 21:8(emphasis added)
8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Should we condemn Peter because of His lies when he denied Christ?

When can you say that you've obeyed Christ's teachings 100%?

Matthew 7:5
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Perhaps you should work on bettering yourself as a Christian than casting stones at someone else.

This is what I typically get when a mormon I post with runs out of answers or just cannot refute what is said. You want to go back to the point of the Bible teaching that we are not to trade evil for evil and that scripture was posted to prove that, instead of now trying to attack me. The excuse that Joseph was just a man and tried to do his best does not cut it when you have argued so strongly that he was a martyr when in fact he went down trading evil for evil. Exactly what the Bible tells us not to do.

Even though you would like to change tactics now and turn this around on me, it just don't fly. This is a post about whether or not Joseph Smith was a true martyr. If you still want to try and argue that point, I am here for that. Otherwise the attack the poster tactic is just useless.

 

[Sola'lor]

This is what I typically get when a mormon I post with runs out of answers or just cannot refute what is said. You want to go back to the point of the Bible teaching that we are not to trade evil for evil and that scripture was posted to prove that, instead of now trying to attack me.

So after two whole posts you know me inside and out now.

The excuse that Joseph was just a man and tried to do his best does not cut it when you have argued so strongly that he was a martyr when in fact he went down trading evil for evil.

There is nothing in the definition of martyr that says anything about trading evil for evil.

Exactly what the Bible tells us not to do.

So its a double standard then. You can disobey Christ's council in the Bible but Joseph Smith can't.

You started this thread by claiming that Joseph Smith is not really a martyr because he "had a gun in the Carthage Jail as it all started and unloaded 6 shots out of his gun, of which 2-3 people were hit by his shots."

And you believed that this did not make him a martyr because:
"A martyr is one that willingly and without any resistance gives their lives for what they believe in."

That was your premise. I refuted it by posting that ACTUAL definition of a martyr and by that definition he was a martyr. Now because I sccessfully refuted your arguement you change you tactics by claiming that he could be a martyr because he: "trading evil for evil."

Again your claim is refuted because no where in the definition of martyr does it say that one may not "trade evil for evil."

Even though you would like to change tactics now and turn this around on me, it just don't fly. This is a post about whether or not Joseph Smith was a true martyr. If you still want to try and argue that point, I am here for that. Otherwise the attack the poster tactic is just useless.

Attacking the poster tactic? You are the one who opened up the Bible. Are you claiming that you are not also subject to what the Bible says?

 

[silvermoon383]

You really want to play the "turn the other cheek" card? By the time Joseph was martyred he and the saints had been run out of 4 states, arrested on dozens of false charges, been raped, murdered, shot at, had a state government declare war on them, mobbed, and suffered just about every abuse under the sun. In the years following the Martyrdom the Saints would be run out of the United States itself, have the US government send the Army after them, and have the government actively attempt to destroy the Church.

Last time I checked, humans only have 2 cheeks. We will, and did run out. Not to mention that there is a scriptual and moral basis to defend yourself and your family.

 

[LittleNipper]

Again, God condemned none of them for their multiple wives. Are you better than God?

(BTW, you brought the issue of multiple wives into the thread...)

What did JESUS say concerning divorce as to why GOD allowed it? Perhaps GOD allows man his folly to teach him humility. Well, it seems to me the main reason Joseph was jailed in the first place.