Joseph Smith Was Not A Martyr

[LittleNipper]

1 Corinthians 7:1 "Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry"

1 Corinthians 7:8-9 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. 8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I


So we have gone from many wives, to one wife, to no wife....

What this has to do with Martyrdom I have no idea:run:

A man who would have more than one woman on his back is either a fool or a martyr. Only GOD knows which is which.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What did JESUS say concerning divorce as to why GOD allowed it? Perhaps GOD allows man his folly to teach him humility.

That's hilarious. Not only do you argue that God tells humanity what to do and what not to do, you simultaneously argue that he didn't do this to teach us a lesson.

You do realize the conflict here, right?

A man who would have more than one woman on his back is either a fool or a martyr. Only GOD knows which is which.

A man who would "have" any women on his back is doing it wrong. Even one.

Edit: or maybe he's just more flexible than I am.

 

[tumbleweed41]

This is what I typically get when a mormon I post with runs out of answers or just cannot refute what is said.

ljam, you are a Baptist, what does your church have to say about martyrs?
Do you accept the Catholic definition of martyrs?
St. Cyprian lays down clearly the general principle that "he cannot be a martyr who is not in the (Catholic) Church; he cannot attain unto the kingdom who forsakes that which shall reign there."
Do all martyrs have to belong to the Catholic Church, as defined in the 2nd Century?
Have there been no Protestant martyrs? Was Jordan Tertian, a Baptist burned alive for his beliefs, not a martyr?
If so, then it is not in line with the original definition of a martyr.

The point being, it is the religion or denomination itself that defines who are martyrs for their faith. Not Websters or other dictionary definitions.
As a Baptist, you are not expected to accept Smith as a martyr, nor is it up to you to define what a Mormon martyr should be. No more than the Catholic church should define what a Protestant martyr should be.

 

[LittleNipper]

That's hilarious. Not only do you argue that God tells humanity what to do and what not to do, you simultaneously argue that he didn't do this to teach us a lesson.

You do realize the conflict here, right?

A man who would "have" any women on his back is doing it wrong. Even one.

Edit: or maybe he's just more flexible than I am.

Humility isn't a lesson?

 

[LittleNipper]

ljam, you are a Baptist, what does your church have to say about martyrs?
Do you accept the Catholic definition of martyrs?
St. Cyprian lays down clearly the general principle that "he cannot be a martyr who is not in the (Catholic) Church; he cannot attain unto the kingdom who forsakes that which shall reign there."
Do all martyrs have to belong to the Catholic Church, as defined in the 2nd Century?
Have there been no Protestant martyrs? Was Jordan Tertian, a Baptist burned alive for his beliefs, not a martyr?
If so, then it is not in line with the original definition of a martyr.

The point being, it is the religion or denomination itself that defines who are martyrs for their faith. Not Websters or other dictionary definitions.
As a Baptist, you are not expected to accept Smith as a martyr, nor is it up to you to define what a Mormon martyr should be. No more than the Catholic church should define what a Protestant martyr should be.

Most of the martyrs were "Catholics" who defended the public knowledge of the Bible indifference to what the church they had attended dictated. Foxe's Book of Martyrs is one eye opener.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Most of the martyrs were "Catholics" who defended the public knowledge of the Bible indifference to what the church they had attended dictated. Foxe's Book of Martyrs is one eye opener.

So are you agreeing then that only Catholics can be martyrs, as the Catholic church states?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Humility isn't a lesson?

You're arguing that God both did and didn't do the same thing.

 

[LittleNipper]

You're arguing that God both did and didn't do the same thing.

I saying that GOD allowed men to marry multiple wives, just as GOD allowed men to divorce...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I saying that GOD allowed men to marry multiple wives, just as GOD allowed men to divorce...

... while at the same time arguing that God established right and wrong for humanity by telling us through the Bible what were and were not allowed to do.

Basically, if our morality comes from the Bible, i.e. from God's instruction, then there's nothing wrong with doing what God allows.

It seems to me that you're trying to reconcile the clear allowance of divorce in the OT with the clear condemnation of it in the NT as if they're part of the same morality and theology, but when you do that, you contradict other principles that you've stated are true.

You said that we get our morality from the Bible. Well, prior to Jesus, the Bible said that having multiple wives was just fine. If, as you claim, God did this as some sort of trick to let us learn on our own, then this implies that we weren't getting our morality from the Bible.

Now do you see the conflict?

 

[LittleNipper]

So are you agreeing then that only Catholics can be martyrs, as the Catholic church states?

NO! The Roman Catholics were calling those that disagreed with the "church" heretics. Which meant excommunication (in their eyes). Which meant those they tortured were no longer even considered "Christians," let alone Catholic. Why do you seem to twist everything I say. I feel that I'm rather blunt.

 

[LittleNipper]

... while at the same time arguing that God established right and wrong for humanity by telling us through the Bible what were and were not allowed to do.

Basically, if our morality comes from the Bible, i.e. from God's instruction, then there's nothing wrong with doing what God allows.

It seems to me that you're trying to reconcile the clear allowance of divorce in the OT with the clear condemnation of it in the NT as if they're part of the same morality and theology, but when you do that, you contradict other principles that you've stated are true.

You said that we get our morality from the Bible. Well, prior to Jesus, the Bible said that having multiple wives was just fine. If, as you claim, God did this as some sort of trick to let us learn on our own, then this implies that we weren't getting our morality from the Bible.

Now do you see the conflict?

GOD sent up moral laws annd ritual laws. Those are enough to prove that everyone is unable to be perfect, and that everyone needs CHRIST.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

GOD sent up moral laws annd ritual laws.

Apparently including, for a time, the moral law that polygamy was good. Later this was changed.

Previously, you claimed that we get our morals from the Bible. If this is true, then even though polygamy is now deemed to be bad, it was once good.

However, if what you're now saying is correct and that polygamy was always bad and God granted humanity permission to engage in the practice to "teach us humility", then when people were "taught humility" by the experience, then they derived their moral judgement on something other than the Bible. They would've had to, since the Bible (or, at the time, the Tanakh) said that polygamy was acceptable.

Basically, if your first claim is true, then this implies that your second claim is wrong. If your second claim is true, then this implies your first claim was wrong.

They can't both be true at the same time.

OTOH, if they're both false, then there's no conflict at all.

Edit - here's the issue in a nutshell: back before the New Testament, when all everyone had was the Old Testament/Tanakh, was polygamy good or bad? It can't be both, and either answer implies that one of your claims is wrong.

 

[LittleNipper]

Apparently including, for a time, the moral law that polygamy was good. Later this was changed.

Previously, you claimed that we get our morals from the Bible. If this is true, then even though polygamy is now deemed to be bad, it was once good.

However, if what you're now saying is correct and that polygamy was always bad and God granted humanity permission to engage in the practice to "teach us humility", then when people were "taught humility" by the experience, then they derived their moral judgement on something other than the Bible. They would've had to, since the Bible (or, at the time, the Tanakh) said that polygamy was acceptable.

Basically, if your first claim is true, then this implies that your second claim is wrong. If your second claim is true, then this implies your first claim was wrong.

They can't both be true at the same time.

OTOH, if they're both false, then there's no conflict at all.

Edit - here's the issue in a nutshell: back before the New Testament, when all everyone had was the Old Testament/Tanakh, was polygamy good or bad? It can't be both, and either answer implies that one of your claims is wrong.

Is there a case in the Bible where a polygamist was happy in his marriages, or was there trouble?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Is there a case in the Bible where a polygamist was happy in his marriages, or was there trouble?

Off the top of my head, I think there's cases of both (as well as cases of men having trouble in non-polygamous marriages), but what does that have to do with anything? Was polygamy moral or not?

 

[Humanistheart]

Is there a case in the Bible where a polygamist was happy in his marriages, or was there trouble?

So if one is happy in polygamy it's moral? Does that apply to monogamy as well? If your not enjoying it it's immoral?

 

[ljam49]

Sola'lor:

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

I never said that, or implied it.

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

That is part of the problem. I never started this op with the intention of letting the dictionary be the ruling factor for what a martyr is but what history shows and that being backed up biblically with what God says about it. The Bible states don't trade evil for evil. If you want, you can let the dictionary be your authority, I choose the Bible myself.

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

Where is it a double standard? I used the Bible to show that Joseph traded evil for evil. There is nothing showing I disobeyed the Bible, but there is showing Joseph did.

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, it does not surprise me that you are using a dictionary to go around the authority if the Bible.

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

That's pure dribble. That has been refuted by the fact that no where in the definition does it state that a martyr MAY trade evil for evil.

Are you claiming that you are not also subject to what the Bible says?

That is pure untruth. This has nothing to do with me and there is not one thing in all of my posts that have anything to do with me claiming that I am not subject to what the Bible says. A pure fabrication.

 

[ljam49]

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.

I guess since you want to make claim that I am using the turn the other cheek card you have to play the persecution card? That is a whole new battle right their that the mormons would lose in a heartbeat. The history of Christians is a deep account in persecution.

I do agree that mormons were unduly persecuted, but that is not the subject of this op. As far as the scriptural basis to defend yourself and your family, that's off subject and not proven by you.

I began this thread and have posted several times, that the way Joseph went as a martyr does not match those accounts in history of early Christians. They did not go down fighting, but willingly gave their lives thanking God for letting them be martyrs. I have already posted that this can be verified through Foxes Book of The Martyr's as one example.

 

[Humanistheart]

mar·tyr (märt′ər)
noun


1a. any of those persons who choose to suffer or die rather than give up their faith or principles 1b. any person tortured or killed because of his or her beliefs
martyr - Definition of martyr at YourDictionary.com

Nothing about "resistance" in those definitions. I think 1b is particularly appropriate, don't you?

This may have already been covered, I haven't really been following the thread, but are you sure that applies to smith? He wasn't in jail for his religious beliefs, and was he killed for them? Not that I know of.

 

[Katzpur]

Not looking for a fight, but an answer. Joseph Smith is heralded as being a martyr, but a martyr is one who suffers or dies for their beliefs without fighting against those coming against them. Joseph Smith took a pistol and fought back. How does this classify him as a martyr?

Where did you get your definition?

Joseph Smith was supposed to be in protective custody. Two hundred of his enemies, people who hated him for no other reason than that they didn't like his religious beliefs, stormed the room where he was being held and killed his brother as he watched. Yes, he fired back, although it is not known whether his bullets actually killed anyone, as he just shot blindly into the stairwell as the men whose intent was to murder him advanced.

 

[Katzpur]

Guess it depends upon how badly one is wanting to be offended ...

I do not find the OP confrontational, but I can guarantee that a few certain LDS most definitely will.

I see it as confrontational because it assumed an opposing point of view than is accepted by the religion being discussed. I don't think it was asked in a hostile manner, but it certainly had the potential to turn nasty.