Posted on 03/01/2010 5:56:02 PM PST by greyfoxx39
Christian martyrs (and if you read Foxe’s Book of the Martyrs you see it clearly) don’t defend themselves.
AND THAT IS THE STANDARD ????
Thank you.
“This is a book that will never die-one of the great English classics. Interesting as fiction, because it is written with both passion and tenderness, it tells the dramatic story of some of the most thrilling periods in Christian history.
Reprinted here in its most complete form, it brings to life the days when “a noble army, men and boys, the matron and the maid,” “climbed the steep ascent of heaven, ‘mid peril, toil, and pain.”
“After the Bible itself, no book so profoundly influenced early Protestant sentiment as the Book of Martyrs. Even in our time it is still a living force. It is more than a record of persecution. It is an arsenal of controversy, a storehouse of romance, as well as a source of edification.”
James Miller Dodds, English Prose. “
Because if you talk about someone openly, she has an interest in speaking for herself. Gossip belongs in Freepmail not on open threads.
You forgot to cite your source. Since you have shown yourself to be in no way an academic, I choose a book to your obvious reading level.
The stories in Foxe are popular vitae (that is “lives” for you in Rio Linda) but show a consistent pattern.
Point is, there are NO cases, either in popular or academic sources of a Martyr defending himself.
Go back and re-read the Book of Acts.
And you didn’t cite your source again. That is plagiarism.
This is my favorite.
Hyrum L. Andrus and Helen Mae Andrus, They Knew the Prophet (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1974), 183.
Hyrum and Helen Andrus describe Joseph’s willingness and those who pleaded with him to not surrender:
As Joseph contemplated the scene, he could picture in his mind the militia overrunning Nauvoo and committing the same autracites as were acted upon the Saints in Missouri. Thus on Monday the 24th of June, Joseph expressed his resolution as “hundreds gathered before the Mansion House early in the morning. In their midst, with head erect, towering above the rest, the Prophet stood gazing alternately on the devoted city and its much loved citizens. He listened to the entreaties of the throng not to give himself up or he would be murdered. A few brave-hearted men proposed to escort him to the West. Others, up north would have him go, while a fearless tar (sailor) proffered him a safe passage on a steamboat to whither he would go. A smile of approbation lit up the Seer’s countenance. His lovely boys, hanging on to his skirts, urged on the suite and cried, “Father, O Father don’t go to Carthage. They will kill you.” Not least impressive were the pleadings of his mother: “My son, my son, can you leave me without promising to return? Some forty times before have I seen you from me dragged, but never before without saying you would return; what say you now, my son?” He stood erect, like a beacon among roaring breakers, his gigantic mind grasping still higher. The fire flashed in his eye. With hand uplifted on high, he spoke, “My friends, nay, dearer still, my brethren, I love you. I love the city of Nauvoo too well to save my life at your expense. If I go not to them, they will come and act out the horrid Missouri scenes in Nauvoo. I may prevent it. I fear not death. My work is well nigh done. Keep the faith and I will die for Nauvoo.”151
That makes sense.Is it ok to reply to another freeper who is in the thread, about whatever the banned poster has said in the thread?
Keep it in Freepmail.
That directly contradicts other accounts and I suspect was told after the fact to give credence to the martyrdom claim.
OKEY DOKEY...
Some accounts were closer in time and written by a survivor. That is one of the ones that mentions 2 people dying, iirc.
http://utlm.org/newsletters/no106.htm#Death
Best to research. The easy research is clear. When one believes in supporting books outside of the Bible such as any trip Joe Smith ripped-off or anything called the "watchtower" (LOL)........then the squirrely times begin. Basic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerald_and_Sandra_Tanner#Legal_challenges
Lawrence Foster, a non-Mormon historian who has researched and written about the church, has stated that until the Tanners “are prepared to abide by accepted standards of scholarly behavior and common courtesy, they can expect little sympathy from serious historians”. He has also accused them of assuming “a holier-than-thou stance, refusing to be fair in applying the same debate standard of absolute rectitude which they demand of Mormonism to their own actions, writings, and beliefs. ... The Tanners seem to be playing a skilful shell game in which the premises for judgment are conveniently shifted so that the conclusion is always the same—negative.”[5]
Despite these criticisms, Foster also says that some of the Tanners’ “research and analysis ... would do credit to any professional historian”[6] and credits them for being “more than simply gadflies; in curious and often indirect ways, their work has also been a factor helping to stimulate serious Mormon historical writing.”
***It is a major point of departure.***
One of many.
But on the other hand, I also dislike Mormon history that systematically censors out anything “positive.” Mormon history is filled with wonderful people who have performed authentically Christlike actions. There are many stories of heroism and sacrifice. While some church leaders have been authoritarian and controlling, others have been warm and inclusive. Anyone who continually hammers on only the negative is guilty of censorship and coverup, just as is the person who censors out the negative. Both write unrealistic and unbelievable history. Furthermore, the person who includes only the negative can be guilty of sensationalism and the low moral atmosphere of yellow journalism. I sympathize with the Tanners in wanting to redress an oversimplified “positive” history, but their oversimplified “negative” history is just as bad.
http://www.lds-mormon.com/compton.shtml
If the Tanners had been committed to providing a balanced perspective in discussing Mormon polygamy, they might have emphasized that polygamy was an accepted part of the culture of the Old Testament, practiced by a great prophet such as Abraham, so is not inherently evil. It is very understandable that a restorationist religion such as Mormonism would feel that it was necessary to “restore” it. Personally, I think that many elements of the Old Testament were not eternal, but related to the Semitic culture of the day, and that polygamy was a very patriarchal custom that does not fit with our present culture, in which women are seen as equal human beings. But if you had the restorationist idea that everything in the Bible needed to be restored (as many Protestants in early America and Protestant Europe did), practicing polygamy is very understandable, and given that limited perspective, even courageous. In addition, the Tanners may have known that other Protestant groups (such as the early Anabaptists) believed in polygamy and practiced it, and that Luther sanctioned polygamy - — but they did not mention this. A book that gives some of this background is John Cairncross, After Polygamy Was Made a Sin (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1974) (cited in my book on p. 640), especially pp. 36, 49. Luther and polygamy is a fascinating, complicated story that also includes disparities between public pronouncement and private practice, just as we find throughout the history of Mormon polygamy.
You have said that and I disagree. Prove it.
And, yes, I can give a lecture on distance, memory recall and validity of accounts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.