Dan Vogel wrote:Of course, I know the First Vision wasn’t published until 1842 and that the Missouri persecutions occurred in 1833 and thereafter. I was using it for your claims of being currently persecuted by Christian apologists.
Okay, so you know that there was violence against Mormons well before any statement emerged that could be considered anti-traditional-Christian. I think this is more than enough evidence for Scratch and Darth J. about which group set these wheels in motion. There can be no doubt that it was the critics and anti-Mormons who began the hate.
I’m not justifying the persecution Joseph Smith encountered; I just want to explore the dynamic from both sides. It wasn’t always Mormons minding their own business and out of the blue they get mobbed for no good reason.
I understand that. I have said before, and still maintain that we were/are not completely innocent. Mormons have done their fair share of violence, too, in retaliation. My position is that, had there been no early persecution/violence against Mormons, there would have been no need for Mormons to retaliate. Critics and anti-Mormons set the wheels in motion for a 180+ year back-and-forth. Frankly, it's
their fault, and the anti-Apologists here have no right to criticise LDS apologetics without realizing that
their predecessors caused apologeticsMormons usually ran into trouble not so much for their beliefs but for their tendency to gather in one place and take over the neighborhood.
The gathering of people for a religious purpose, I believe, is a protected right.
People who see their hard work and their children’s inheritances go down the drain tend to respond by harassing Mormons in the hope that they would leave. In Missouri, Mormons cited the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith’s revelations that the land of Zion was given to them and the Gentiles should leave. This was cited by the so-called mob as a reason they were demanding the Mormons leave.
I can't imagine that some guy claiming that his group of people will one day own the neighborhood would bother the Missourians so much that they would slaughter innocent people. I can't fathom how that could be justified.
Another was that some people are just intolerant of anything different. Not only Mormons, but Quakers, Catholics, Jews, etc. were persecuted in early 19th century America. So, nothing special about being persecuted.
Being intolerant of someone different than you also does not justify violence. It's not "special" to be persecuted, it's wrong on the part of the persecutors.
We have violence now? This is a general condition of being Mormon? We also have Mormon propaganda. The Pratts were defending Mormonism against Christians who were defending themselves against a new upstart sect. It was Mormonism that attacked first with their apostasy/restoration rhetoric. And how did nineteenth -century Mormons defend themselves? By calling their critics liars, fools, wicked, evil, hypocritical.
Please see above. Had the wheels not been set in motion, none of this would have needed to happen.
The Christian world is just supposed to let Mormons convert their members without any resistance? You might think you are just reacting to attack, but the fact that you don’t see your part in it is a problem. This is how you view of the past is so distorted.
The Christian world should worry about building up
their own doctrines, their own truthfulness so that other religions don't "convert their members." It is cowardly to tear down someone else's belief system because you believe that system will take away your congregation. People have the power to decide for themselves, and they are responsible for their own choices.
So, let’s see if I’ve got this right, you believe that in some mysterious fashion the world knows Mormons have the “full truth” and instead of joining them they fight them. That’s an interesting theory, Simon.
Like you said, other churches might feel threatened about Mormons "taking their members." Well, if they worry about building up their own spirituality within their congregations, perhaps they wouldn't have to worry about it. It isn't Christian to tear down someone else to make yourself look better.
Can’t you see how these early fanatical Mormons scared people to death?
Yes, but I cannot see how that justifies slaughter -- but maybe that's just me.
Mormonism by its very nature is anti-everyone else.
But every religion is anti-every-other-religion by that logic.
So, why can’t Christians try to convert you without you crying persecution? You try to convert them, but you don’t hear them saying you are trying to persecute them. Don’t you see a inconsistency here?
They can certainly share their message, as long as their message doesn't try to tear down someone else's faith. To their credit, most Christian congregations that I've visited thought well of the Mormons.
Let me remind you of one notable example of misbehavior on the part of Bill Hamblin and his acrostic “BUTTHEAD IS METCALFE” or something like that in his review of New Approaches to the Book of Mormon.
Please. Does that hidden message really matter? Why does everyone complain about it so much? It isn't like anyone tarred and feathered Brent. It isn't like anyone assassinated Brent at Carthage. It isn't like anyone put out an extermination order against Brent.
Had there never been critics, there would have never been FARMS/MI, and Dr. Hamblin would be doing something else right now.
