My Work Here is Done

[_stemelbow]

Simon:

What is the exact date of the first "anti-Mormon" criticism of the Church? I assume that it predates the events described in the First Vision, yes? Given that the First Vision can be read as an attack on other belief systems, you would need to find an instance of "anti-Mormonism" that predates it in order to establish your claim that "they started it." I hope you can come up with a date. If not, your entire House of Cards argument is going to collapse.

I don't know if "anti-Mormon" ought to be limited to criticism at all. Indeed, criticism in and of itself probably can't reasonably be considered "anti-Mormon". What can be considered anti-Mormon is attempts to beat, harrass, condemn or kill Joseph Smith. Those certainly pre-date the first recording of his first vision, no?

Come to think of it, this sounds all very silly. Why do non-LDS, in this whole affair, suggest LDS started it by referring to the account in the first vision? That's just silly.

[_jon]

Simon:

What is the exact date of the first "anti-Mormon" criticism of the Church? I assume that it predates the events described in the First Vision, yes? Given that the First Vision can be read as an attack on other belief systems, you would need to find an instance of "anti-Mormonism" that predates it in order to establish your claim that "they started it." I hope you can come up with a date. If not, your entire House of Cards argument is going to collapse.

I don't know if "anti-Mormon" ought to be limited to criticism at all. Indeed, criticism in and of itself probably can't reasonably be considered "anti-Mormon". What can be considered anti-Mormon is attempts to beat, harrass, condemn or kill Joseph Smith. Those certainly pre-date the first recording of his first vision, no?

Hmmm...Stem, the first dated recording of Joseph Smith First Vision is 1832.
Are you saying he was beaten and harassed etc prior to this?

[_Doctor Scratch]

Dear Doctor,

Something popped out from my memory this morning.

If I recall correctly there was a post a short while ago (I think from you) that indicated that a certain Apostle of the Church was on the war path with regards to Mormon Apologetic antics and activities.

Within a relatively short time frame the species of online Mopologists has dwindled to 'endangered' levels where we may need to consider setting up specific nature reserves to try and protect them from compete extinction.

Is my memory playing tricks on me and are all the recent departures (beneficial to the board, certainly) purely coincidental of a certain GA's chagrin?

You're right, Jon. I was told by an "informant" claiming to have insider knowledge that Elder Dallin H. Oaks was "enraged" over the antics of certain apologists, and that he had vowed to "chop some heads." Now, I don't know whether the "exodus" of key Mopologetic elements has anything do do with this or not, but you're quite right to point out the obvious coincidence.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I don't know if "anti-Mormon" ought to be limited to criticism at all. Indeed, criticism in and of itself probably can't reasonably be considered "anti-Mormon". What can be considered anti-Mormon is attempts to beat, harrass, condemn or kill Joseph Smith. Those certainly pre-date the first recording of his first vision, no?

You're shifting the goal posts somewhat. The entire discussion here revolves around Simon's repeated assertion that critics "started it." Well, Mormonism itself can be said to have "begun" with the First Vision, and the First Vision story clearly contains elements that are disparaging towards other belief systems. Now you've come along to insist that the beginnings of Mormonism actually need to be dated to the first recording of the First Vision account, even though this is clearly problematic from a historical point of view. If Simon and others are genuinely interested in crafting a "who started it" argument, then we need to definitively date which came first: the First Vision, or criticism of the Church. Whether or not the First Vision story was "recorded" is therefore the wrong thing to locate; instead, we'd need to find the moment when the FV account first went out into the discourse community. So, if Simon can present evidence of criticism that predates this, then he has a case. If not, then he's wrong, and he ought to admit it.

Come to think of it, this sounds all very silly. Why do non-LDS, in this whole affair, suggest LDS started it by referring to the account in the first vision? That's just silly.

If it's "silly" then just drop it.

[_Darth J]

Let's look at this from the beginning, and get a clear picture of it (and set aside Darth J's hyperbole):

There is no hyperbole. Every branch of Mormonism---Strangite, RLDS/Community of Christ, Temple Lot, etc.---believes that Joseph Smith saw and talked to God, and that the Book of Mormon is a scripture. And each of them claims to be the rightful successor to the church that Joseph Smith started.

Simon, will you tell me a bed time story tonight, though? Will you tell me about my supposed use of hyperbole in stating objective facts (that all sects of Mormonism have common roots and beliefs about Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon), while at the same time you are insinuating that modern "anti-Mormon" tracts are calling for modern Mormons to be tarred and feathered?

The First Vision account makes a statement that traditional Christian creeds are not pleasing to the Lord.

Okay. I realize that. It's a given.

Well, one version of the First Vision account says that.

Before it was even published or known, Joseph Smith was immediately hated and attacked.

I bet you have a lot of evidence to corroborate Joseph Smith's self-serving statement in this regard. I can't wait to see it!

When it was published and known, and the church established (in a primitive form), there was more violence and hate.

There were also a lot more things going on between Mormons and their neighbors during the time period you are talking about. And internally, there was a dispute in the church about authority, which remarkably coincides with Joseph Smith suddenly deciding to tell people increasingly elaborate versions of the First Vision.

So tell me, if someone were to say "I've received a revelation that your religion is wrong, and I am going to practice my own instead," would you attack them? Would you attempt to kill that person multiple times? I'm sorry, Dan, but that statement does not incite the magnitude of violence that Smith and company had to endure -- at least, not to the rational person.

I wonder why other religions that sprang up during the Second Great Awakening didn't have the kind of violence involving them that Mormons did. I don't suppose you would have an explanation, based on verifiable facts?

You don't happen to know if Mary Baker Eddy ever appointed herself as the highest ranking military officer in the United States, would you? Or if the Seventh-day Adventists ever went on a military expedition or had their own militia?

And not everybody has historically persecuted Mormons, by the way. For example, the Nazis killed Jehovah's Witnesses because of their religious beliefs. But the LDS Church actively courted the approval of the Third Reich, and the Nazis welcomed the Latter-day Saints with open arms. http://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/024-20-29.pdf

[_Darth J]

How about Zion's Camp? Is that an acceptable spectacular failure to start with?

P.S. Nightlion, because you are not a believing member of the LDS Church, you are a non-Mormon in a full and unambiguous sense. Just ask Droopy:

I agree about the failure concerning Zion. The camp made it very obvious that the saints lacked the power of Zion.

You cannot make the case that the entire early history of persecution against the Church and against Joseph Smith was social separate from any of their beliefs. Their social unity was because of their beliefs. Their affinity to follow a prophet and be a singular political block was religious.

Nightlion, the problem in discussing this with you is that you really are a Mormon, rather than a modern Latter-day Saint regurgitating the Correlation Committee faith-promoting narrative that early Mormons were persecuted specifically because of religious doctrine.

I read somewhere and some time ago about Joseph and Hyrum commiserating about the how loathe they were to take up polygamy. And Joseph envied the dead in this regard. And He did say to the Relief Society that ACCORDING to his prayers he had been appointed elsewhere. I take that to mean he was given leave to die. No man took Christ's life from him, he laid it down. Joseph and Hyrum, I am beginning to think, laid down their lives rather than live plural marriage for real. The depression began a year before when the KINDERHOOK plate imposition proved to Joseph that he was being betrayed. Zion was lost. The Gentiles had taken possession of the Church and were not going to get it right. Joseph was being forced to live in accommodation to what he knew was corrupt. The Expositor was an excuse to inflame the conflagration that would consume them both. They could have taken off for the Rocky Mountains. Joseph did not want to continue.

So you think it was kind of suicide by mob? That's a lot more interesting and refreshing an idea than apologist and/or Correlation Committee spin, I have to say.

Historians and critics both fail to half comprehend the spiritual dimension. They miss more than half the man Joseph Smith was. How could they possible know?

How could anyone know?

As far as what Droopy probably never said about me because it is always his plan to pretend I do not exist; Holding true and faithful to the REAL Mormonism as I have done for over forty years against all odds among the LDS makes them apostate and me the Only Mormon. I repudiate their abominations and decry their extreme apostasy and mock them in their pride of hypocrisy. You cannot separate me from my Mormonism. I have given more to it than any man save Joseph only. Okay, I am not LDS, but never a non-Mormon. The Restoration is my roots life and will be my blossom and bud.

You mean Droopy is full of crap? Say it isn't so!

[_stemelbow]

Hmmm...Stem, the first dated recording of Joseph Smith First Vision is 1832.
Are you saying he was beaten and harassed etc prior to this?

of course. Have you not gotten wind of say, the time he was dragged out in the cold of night and tarred in feathered when he was 24? Or say some of the times he was dragged into court over spurious things? Or the hefty run he managed in 1827 with the plates, wherein he was clubbed and returned home tattered?

So prior to 1827, do we have anything from Joseph Smith that can be considered being the agressor?

[_stemelbow]

You're shifting the goal posts somewhat. The entire discussion here revolves around Simon's repeated assertion that critics "started it."

The question of started what has yet to be addressed then? I mean you speak as though LDS were the initial agressors to "anti-Mormons". But you didn't define "anti-mormon" so I assumed you meant something other than the usual critic.

Well, Mormonism itself can be said to have "begun" with the First Vision, and the First Vision story clearly contains elements that are disparaging towards other belief systems. Now you've come along to insist that the beginnings of Mormonism actually need to be dated to the first recording of the First Vision account, even though this is clearly problematic from a historical point of view. If Simon and others are genuinely interested in crafting a "who started it" argument, then we need to definitively date which came first: the First Vision, or criticism of the Church. Whether or not the First Vision story was "recorded" is therefore the wrong thing to locate; instead, we'd need to find the moment when the FV account first went out into the discourse community. So, if Simon can present evidence of criticism that predates this, then he has a case. If not, then he's wrong, and he ought to admit it.

But as far as I'm aware the first vision account didn't get out into the discourse community until sometime after 1832. Therefore if there were "anti-Mormon" sentiment before 1832 your whole theory goes out the window. In this, I don't see how it can reasonably be said that Mormons started it at all.

If it's "silly" then just drop it.

By all means concede you were wrong and we can joyfully move forward discussing something else.

[_Some Schmo]

I love that mopologetics here have descended all the way to, "well they started it..."

I think I stopped using that defense prior to adolescence. Nothing like religion to stunt a person's growth. Good stuff.

[_stemelbow]

I love that mopologetics here have descended all the way to, "well they started it..."

I think I stopped using that defense prior to adolescence. Nothing like religion to stunt a person's growth. Good stuff.

uh...the "they started it" mantra normally comes from the critic's side as they whimper that Joseph Smith said God told him all the creeds were an abomination stuff. Whatever, but silly youdon't see that.