[Solon]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

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.

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.