And would you claim that the jews in the warsaw ghetto fighting the germans not to be martyrs of their faith. Or the jews at Masada defending themselves against the romans, not to be martyrs of their faith?
What does this have to do with what I posted? I explained a higher standard of martyr, one that turns the other cheek, loves thine enemies, accepts the cross and suffering with peace and even joy, and witnesses all these and love for God through peace. This bears much greater witness. For who sees any witness, anything unusual whatsoever in someone who (understandably) tries desperately any way they can to avoid death, or even moreso who fights to the bitter end?
I don’t think that we could judge a martyr only through catholic eyes. The catholics have their tradition and other faiths have their own tradition. And we must remember St. John of the Cross and his imprisonment by his own friars. He escaped but if he didn’t escape and was killed, would he be a martyr? And what if he were killed trying to escape, would he then be a martyr?
I merely explained why the Catholic perspective is as it is. We have much greater witness of martyrdom in our Church, and so we naturally view most admirable martyrdom from that perspective. Joseph Smith does not provide you such an admirable example. He shows you not the example of the Lord’s “Lamb to the slaughter,” but of an average man’s “fight like a cornered rat.” Do you believe Jesus would have sought to maim or kill in defense of Himself, knowing His fate? Then isn’t His greatest example the one that is most admirable to follow?
And if not this standard, then what standard would you use? Call a martyr anyone who is maybe a soldier fighting in defense of his faith? You usually criticize Crusaders for doing that; and no, Catholics do not typically consider them “martyrs.” What about the Islamic definition of a martyr, who fights offensively for his faith?
Joseph Smith saw his brother shot by a black painted faced mob as they stormed into the prison and that mob painted with black faces wanted to kill JS. What should he have done? Have outstretched arms pointed to heaven as the mob killed him?
The most admirable thing, following the example of our Lord? That would be to go open-handed and peacefully to his death with a prayer for his murderers and those he leaves behind on his lips.
Dianaiad:
Actually, that ‘witness to his devotion to God,’ in terms of martyrdom, was taken care of when he choose to go to Carthage knowing that he wasn’t coming home alive. If he chose to resist the manner of his death at the end, it does not negate the fact that he could absolutely have avoided it, and chose not to.
Even if he did surely know, this was a choice belied by attempts to have Masons save him or to fight back. He could have gone fugitive earlier, had he wanted to avoid his death, but apparently his resolve slackened (as the Mason example showed). If you justify the Mason plea, then by the same reasoning you would justify fleeing earlier.
He could have fought those coming to arrest him, had he wanted to resist, but apparently his resolve slackened (as his fighting back later showed). If you justify fighting back later, then by the same reasoning you would justify fighting back earlier.
This is why it seems to me that either Joseph suspected but did not really believe he was going to his death (I think he was quite given to exaggeration), or that he lost resolve/courage/faith in those final hours. The fact that his later actions were not in line with his earlier presents a lack of consistency that your claim of his earlier choice to go to Carthage can’t overcome.
The early Christian martyrs were not all as joyfully accepting as you seem to think they were, y’know. While they did not do the one thing that could have avoided their deaths (that is, to change their beliefs or behave in a diferent manner so as to change the minds of their murderers) that doesn’t mean that when families were put in the arena with the lions, that they didn’t try to protect each other, or that they started carving themselves up to make it easier for the lions to chew them. The act of martyrdom lies in the fact that they willingly chose their fate, and that they were killed for their beliefs, not that they made it easy for their murderers to accomplish the deed.
I stated that it is a rare gift, and manner of martyrdom varies. I note that the various examples given of other martyrs providing some sort of resistance don’t seem to include those martyrs using lethal force with the intent to kill their attackers.
Diana, who, quite frankly, wishes that Joseph Smith had been better armed.
You think his witness would be greater had he killed more of his attackers?
why me:
And you were right both Hyrum and Joseph were martyrs because they were killed for their beliefs. And yet, throughout the early history of the lds church, martyrs were made when many early lds were killed by mobs. But for the so called catholic ‘christians’ on the mormon threads such shedding of innocent blood was okay and such people who were killed for their faith, were not martyrs by catholic definition.
It takes more than being killed for your beliefs to be a martyr. You have to stand up for them openly and there does have to be some measure of acceptance/nonviolence. Otherwise Muslim jihadists are true martyrs when they are killed.
And what Catholic has said that “such shedding of innocent blood was okay?” I hear claims from you guys all the time that are just phantoms of your own imagination, part of a victim mentality, like the earlier one where someone said that living a moral lifestyle was under attack by Catholics.
