Was Joseph Smith a Martyr?
 

I think the answer to this is "yes," but it isn't simple.

"Martus" literally means "witness," and is used several times in the NT in this context.

During the persecutions of Christians that revved up during Nero's reign, and that continued on and off until Constantine put an official end to them in 313, "martyr" gained some nuance, and was not used with perfect consistency:

Rev. 6:9 has it's author declaring" I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slaughtered for the word of God and for the testimony [martyrian] they had given."

Eusebius tells us that the grandsons of Jude who escaped death under the order of Domitian were regarded as martyrs, but that they themselves refused the designation. It is Eusebius who differentiates "confessors" from "martyrs" and uses the famous phrase that martyrs are those who "sealed their testimony by their departure."

Cyprian applied the term "martyr" to some church leaders who had been imprisoned and put to hard labor. Likewise, Gregory of Nazianzus referred to Basil as a martyr for all the trials he endured. But by the 4th century "martyr" was generally reserved for those who had actually been killed for their faith, and "killed" seems to have been interpreted as a distinct, and fairly immediate act, as opposed to, for example, slowly being "killed" by hard labor.

Gregory also taught that death for one's faith should not be sought, but that only a coward would deny Christ to avoid death.

I don't know where the "martyrs can't fight back" notion comes from, but I don't buy into it (if someone can produce strong evidence on this point, I'll reconsider my position). It's true that JS Jr. fought back with the six-gun (even though this isn't mentioned in the Carthage tour or in the recent film). But I think his actions are not altogether different from a Christian trying to fight the lions in the Colliseum. Those folks didn't have to jump into the lions' mouths to be martyrs. Even if you accept the notion that Joseph wanted to get out of there alive (as I do, considering the gun shots, the leap to the window, and the masonic distress call), he had to know that his death was a distinct possibility when he went to Carthage, and certainly knew it was extremely likely when the Grey's boots were tramping up the stairs.

An argument can be made that JS Jr. wasn't killed for his testimony of Christ, but instead for his blending of religious, political, and military activities, and particularly for destroying the Expositor. It can also be argued that JS Jr. had not been arrested for being Mormon, or for testifying of Christ, and that no one involved with his Carthage incarceration was demanding he deny his faith, or suggesting that he would be released or live if he did so.

My response to this is that the reasons for his incarceration were not the reasons he was killed. Joseph's political and military power certainly fueled the anger, but he was killed in hopes that Mormonism itself would be dealt a fatal blow. In that sense he was killed to end the religion he had cultivated, although his beliefs in Jesus may not have been very consequential for the Carthage Greys. They wanted him dead because he lead the Mormons, not because Mormons were (or were not?) a Christian sect. Therefore, I am asserting that martyrdom is not exclusively a Christian act, and that people like the Jews who resisted Antiochus in 1 and 2 Macabees and like Husayn bin Ali (no doubt you are familiar with him, mindfulcoug), can be considered martyrs, and so whether or not Mormons are Christians, is at least for me, inconsequential to JS Jr. being a martyr. Anyone is, of course, welcome to challenge this assertion.

I do have a problem with some aspects of the martyrdom, though. I don't buy the "He went like a lamb to the slaugher" bit. Oh, he had an idea that he was likely in for his own slaughter, but he didn't go like a lamb. Like Peter slicing the guard's ear with a sword, JS Jr. had some fight in him. I'm not questioning the historicity of the famous statement, but I am suggesting his subsequent actions were inconsistent with that notion.

I also dispute the idea that he was "innocent." When Mormons push this sort of thing they sound like they're trying to make Joseph into a Savior. He wasn't innocent. He made any number of mistakes and bad decisions, and certainly his destruction of the Expositor can be legitimately criticized.

He was innocent of any charge that would warrant being murdered.

I agree, but the famous quote has lead people to other interpretations:

“I am going like a lamb to the slaughter; But I am calm as a summer’s morning; I have a conscience void of offense towards God, and towards all men. I shall die innocent, and it shall yet be said of me—he was murdered in cold blood.” (B. H. Roberts, A Comprehensive History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 6 vols. [Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1930], 2: 248 - 249.)

as far as the lamb analogy goes, 2/3 ain't bad.

innocent
helpless

but didn't go willingly

I think it's important to consider the current atmosphere and level of tolerance towards Mormonism as compared with the level of intolerance at the time of Joseph Smiths' martyrdom ... How many Christians in this country are willing to accept mine or your testimony of Christ as valid, and that of a true disciple of Christ? Are evangelicals not on the offensive with Mitt Romney for even suggesting his faith in Christ is in any way Christian? Pat Robertson, today, endorsed Rudy Guliani for president.

We all like to think there has been progress made in regards to tolerance … but is it increased tolerance or is it merely increased indifference? He died because of his testimony of Christ and NOT despite it.

I'm not following you, tb. Can you elaborate a little?

I understand and appreciate the argument(s). What was at the root of his political and military activities if it was not a testimony of Christ? What lies at the heart of the intolerance and hate towards him, and all Mormons?

I have been fascinated as I have read the campaign travails of Mitt Romney and can't help but wonder aloud; "What has changed since the murder of JS at Carthage?" Are average Americans more tolerant of Mormonism, faith and culture; or, is the average American more indifferent of Mormonism faith and culture?

Much of what I read leads me to believe that 'nothing' has changed, or rather the average American is more indifferent and no more tolerant and accepting. Evangelicals cling to their notion and definitions of Christianity. Mormonism is an affront to those notions and definitions.

Joseph Smith was murdered because he testified of Christ with language and actions inconsistent with the accepted norm. His political and community actions allowed for secondary justification for his elimination.

Mitt Romney has no chance to be elected president, not because he is a poor politician, a flip flopper etc. but principally because he is a Mormon!

Of course I am not counting Romney out. And more importantly I am not equating his actions in any way with those of Joseph Smith, whom I consider a martyred prophet.

This is like the question of whether the civil war was caused primarily by the slave question.

Two points regarding the lamb to the slaughter:

1. He was on the other side of the Mississippi river, about to escape entirely. He came back to Nauvoo willingly, apparently aware that it would seal his fate.
2. John Taylor and Willard Richards were also in the room. He may not have been fighting only for himself.

It is very similar to the question of causation and the Civil War.

Suppose, hypothetically, that Warren Jeffs -- another fringe, religious zealot and self-proclaimed prophet, who became a fugitive and was ultimately incarcerated -- was killed in his jail cell tomorrow. By the definitions I'm hearing, it seems he would be no less a martyr than Joseph Smith.

The LDS in Illinois were no fringe group, but the largest or second largest city and starting to create significant political momentum. So your analogy fails.

Jeffs is a person without political power or ability. The same cannot be said of JS.

Do you mean in the sense that one has to surmise Joseph's motives, the mob's motives, and so on to establish the cause of his death?

That's certainly not all there is to the question, and the value of the question is not, I think, in finding some definitive answer. For me, the value is in discovering what other questions are evoked, and in seeing how Joseph's actions do or do not fit historical criteria for martyrdom, and what Mormon's often avow about his death.

Eusebius certainly didn't just throw up his hands and go, "There's no way to know their motivations or to know what caused their deaths, so the whole notion of martrydom is useless."

That's a cop out.

I have a hard time disagreeing with you. Of course we don't need to hypothesize, why not consider the question of whether David Koresh is a Martyr?

AS AA points out, I always thoguht this refernce was to the fact that he went to Carthage willingly, believing there he would be slaughtered. It does not mean at the point when the unjust murder was about to take place he lay quietly, but that before that time, and with it in his mind, perhaps in prophetic vision, he capitualted and willingly returned to Carthage. There was, I beleive, some in Nauvoo who were even willing to raise arms to protect him, and he could have escaped to at least postpone his incarceration, but instead he chose to submit. A lamb is led easily to the slaughter, but may kick a few times when the knife begins to cut.

He chose to submit to arrest, yes, but you know very well that you could drive a truck through the "perhaps in prophetic vision" bit.

And in what sense did he have lamb like innocence? Certainly not in the charges of destroying the press. As Indy and I agreed, he was innocent of anything that would justify his murder. But I won't assert that he was innocent in the same way Jesus was innocent, which is what Mormons sometimes seem to be implying (and you certainly may not be trying to imply this).

I don't want to see him as completely innocent. I honestly do not understand the angst many suffer in regards to Joseph Smith and his life. He was a man like you and I … We are all good and wise, and foolish and carnal.

If there is no hope that a man like Joseph Smith could act as a prophet and accomplish great things, then what hope is there for you and I to serve faithfully in church callings and accomplish great things in our families and amongst a community of Saints?

I am certain he is a prophet. I am certain he was martyred because of his testimony.

That's why I wrote perhaps. It is sort of my fancy about it, not anything that I know or would assert fully.

I was actually arguing for a much more limited meaning to the phrase "like a lamb to the slaughter." He had apparnetly destroyed the press. He was not innocent in the way Jesus was, and it was (going back to your orignial quesiton) a martyrdom, not an atonement. I htink the "lamb to a slaughter" phrase may only really describe his demeanor upon his deciison to mount up and ride to Carthage, as opposed to the greater signifiacnce sometimes ascribed to it.

He's a martyr to the people that believed in him. That's my point. It's impossible to say conclusively whether someone was a martyr, because the label is all tied up into how esteemed the person was. Lots of people in the world think suicide bombers are martyrs.

I, too, find solace in Joseph's shortcomings. As to why he was martyred, I have trouble picturing the mob going, "You know what, that guy believes in Jesus so let's kill him!" They weren't out to murder everyone who believed in Jesus. But that WAS the case for Christians under Nero, Domitian, and so on.

Isn't it at least as plausible that they thought, "Let's kill the guy who started Mormonism so we can put an end to the whole thing?" Isn't it plausible that they killed him because of sectarian beliefs? There could be an important distinction in that as regarding the notion of martyr. Of course, a faithful Mormon will see much that is Mormonism as a result of Joseph's belief in Jesus, but it does not necessarily follow that that's why Joseph was killed, even if it contributed to his resolve to submit to arrest.

We are in total agreement on this.

You mention many lucid and pertinent points.

According to Frend, in ancient Christianity although some early believers were stubbornly zealous (contumacia is how Pliny describes them in Letter X .96.3), one of the primary driving forces of martyrdom was to imitate the actions of the "faithful and true witness [martyr]" (Rev. 3.14), i.e. Jesus (1984, pg. 149). His passion and death were the templates which martyrs sought to follow. Thus, they (the stouthearted at least) welcomed a chance to meekly suffer injustice as Christ had. This is where the notion of "martyrs can't fight back" springs from - since Christ did not resist or defend himself, but answered questions in a straightforward way. This is how Polycarp is portrayed in the martyrology that tells his story - as an imitation of Christ.

Whether of not Joseph Smith was "innocent" is similar to asking whether or not Jesus or the early Christian martyrs were "innocent" - at least if innocence is a requirement for martyr status. Jesus' example aside, early Christians were clearly often guilty of breaking laws enacted to force Christians to sacrifice to pagan gods (e.g. the Scillitan Martyrs).

The question of whether a person who defies an unjust law can be considered innocent is for the philosophers; it's at least as old as Sophocles' Antigone.

Regarding the grandsons of Jude who refused to be called "martyrs," preferring instead "confessors," as found in Eusebius HE 5.2.3, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.x.iii.html I take it to mean they didn't consider themselves worthy to be identified with Jesus (the true martyr), perhaps because they had survived.

Thanks, Solon. What you've written is helping me put some pieces together (not the least of which is why a learned Catholic friend of mine has a kind of "reverence" for Polycarp that I couldn't quite put my finger on).

I can see a mob saying; "he says he blieves in Jesus; he says Jesus visited him in a vision --that's blaspheme-- he must be killed!" In fact I'm certain there were more than one or two people that were heard making such or similar statements.

I really think it was that simple for many in the mob ... just as it will be that easy for many to say; "I'm not voting for a Mormon!"

Your comparison between Joseph Smith Jr. being killed by a mob and Mitt Romney not getting votes for being a Mormon strikes me as nutty.

I don't buy it either.

These were my two thoughts as well. He initially thought he might escape, but eventually he came to peace with his fate and did go willingly. I think he knew he would die if he turned back and he did it.

It is nutty. However, I believe the initial intent of this thread was to point out the complexity of the question of whether Joseph Smith was a martyr. My intent is to embrace the notion that it is not a complex question … and to highlight the irrationality that accompanies the all too prevalent attitudes of many evangelical Americans towards Mormons.

If we can agree that there may be many people who will not vote for Romney simply because he is Mormon, then we can come to an agreement that many in the mob participated in the murder simply because Jospeh Smith was a Mormon.

This is in part a question of motivation. Honestly, the probing in this thread gives the average person far too much intellectual credit. They were a mob! A mob does not think, a mob acts … that’s what makes a mob so dangerous!

I've heard but I've got nothing to back it up that the prophet was killed by Masons who were upset with Joseph using part of their ceremony for the temple and for marrying one of their wives. If true it makes his death look a little less stoic but really doesn't change anything else.