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.