Simon,
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.
Before it was even published or known, Joseph Smith was immediately hated and attacked. When it was published and known, and the church established (in a primitive form), there was more violence and hate.
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.
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.
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. Mormons usually ran into trouble not so much for their beliefs but for their tendency to gather in one place and take over the neighborhood. 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.
There are many reasons for persecution. 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.
So now we have violence and anti-Mormon propaganda floating around. We have early "apologists" like you mentioned: the Pratt bros. And look at the title of the works you cite:
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.
In the spirit of apologetics, this is a reply to criticism. That's what apologetics is. No criticism = no apologetics. There is no simpler truth than that.
Then why can’t you see that the writings you call criticism are really apologetics too? No Mormon apostasy/restoration/one true church/false creeds rhetoric = no Christian apologetics
You can choose to look at it that way, I suppose, but that view is wrong. Were it not for early attacks (both physical and written/verbal) against Joseph Smith and the Church, there would be no apologetic works. This is not the chicken or the egg -- it is plain as day who set the wheels in motion for this back-and-forth: the anti-Mormons and their hate.
Simon, this is just wishful thinking. 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.
Agenda is a word with paranoid connotations. I would say it has a point of view about Mormon scripture that might be termed liberal, or historical critical. You are probably not aware of it having not read the book, but a few of the contributors are believing Mormons.
We aren't a physical threat. We don't publish anti-other religious materials. We do, however, have the full truth -- and therein lies the perceived threat.
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.
Well, there was a perceived threat with Mormons in Missouri in the 1830s. The Book of Mormon predicted the establishment of a New Jerusalem government, of believing Gentiles joining with the Indians, and wiping non-believers off the face of the earth. Can’t you see how these early fanatical Mormons scared people to death?
Mormonism by its very nature is anti-everyone else. Preaching the gospel to Presbyterians is anti-Presbyterian.
I am not comparing my faith to the Jews.
Religions try to convert, its what they do. So what? If traditional Christians don't want to listen to the message they don't have to. That isn't an attack.
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?
And I am fine with critics doing theirs. I believe in the free market of ideas. It is just hypocritically wrong to be a critic, then whine and cry about the behavior of apologetics (which has been Scratch's MO this whole time).
I think Scratch is trying to document misbehavior and underhanded tactics. That’s not all he does, though. He keeps character profiles. As far as I know, he doesn’t make things up.
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. Consider this: if traditional Christian sects were all of one mind and one belief, there would be only one sect. All sects try to convert other sects to their particular sect, or at least each sect believes their's is the correct sect, else why would there be hundreds of different sects?
What could be more human? All Joseph Smith did was add one (actually many) more to the mix. As a non-believer, I just stand back and scratch my head.
