My Work Here is Done

[_sock puppet]

Simon, the canonized version of the First Vision is not the first statement made by Joseph Smith and/or early Mormons that their church was the restored, true church of Jesus Christ and all others were false.
.

Christian churches were not exactly living peacefully side by side before the advent of Mormonism. The religious wars which engulfed europe is a tribute to blood and gore based on religious difference, hatred and doctrine. The protestants were not exactly ready to have a young upstart among them claiming a restoration and they acted accordingly. Before Joseph Smith, they were not that friendly to catholics either. Anticatholicism was alive and well in protestant america.

The uniqueness of Joseph Smith was the idea of having a restoration and forming a new church around that idea. Now if he were a fraud, the restoration was a mistake. He would have been more successful starting another protestant sect.

But if he were not a fraud, a restoration would make sense since the christian churches were in disarray when it came to putting the words of Christ into practice. Much blood and revenge and disagreement among the various sects.

He was a fraud. The 'restoration' was a ruse. It's that simple.

[_why me]

He was a fraud. The 'restoration' was a ruse. It's that simple.

And that is your opinion. However, the protestants would have found anything new difficult to swallow, especially a restoration. We need to remember that protestants have been fighting among themselves and many feld europe for religious freedom. Not to mention the conflict between catholics and protestants.

What happened to the Mormons was basically simple: intolerance by rival groups.

[_Simon Belmont]

Oh...? I didn't think that was in real life. Simon has said repeatedly that this was just some name I "randomly" found on the Internet. Is that not the case? I call him this as a sort of sporting nickname. Am I really not allowed to do that? If that's his in real life name, then I'll either refrain from calling him that, or I'll serve my week's worth of time on the "banned" list. But I don't think my posts should be edited merely on the basis of some unfounded "suspicion" that the man himself has pooh-poohed away. Know what I mean?

Why don't we defer to Simon himself? If it's just some "random" thing, like he's repeatedly said, then I think it should be allowed to stand. Does that seem fair?

Posting what you think is someone's in real life identity is also against the rules, since the Mods don't have my in real life identity either. But pardon me, I have not been on MDB since last night. I don't know what name was deleted, but I think it is safe to assume its the most current name you randomly found on the Internet and attributed to me. If it makes you happy to think that is my identity, then go right ahead. It's not, and neither is Greg whatever, David Ka---whatever, or any of the other random people you've found. But I suppose that doesn't really matter to you. Once again, you've shown that you are not capable of having a conversation without getting nasty.

I guess that shows the strength of my argument.

[_Christian Avenger]

Simon, the canonized version of the First Vision is not the first statement made by Joseph Smith and/or early Mormons that their church was the restored, true church of Jesus Christ and all others were false.
.

Christian churches were not exactly living peacefully side by side before the advent of Mormonism. The religious wars which engulfed europe is a tribute to blood and gore based on religious difference, hatred and doctrine. The protestants were not exactly ready to have a young upstart among them claiming a restoration and they acted accordingly. Before Joseph Smith, they were not that friendly to catholics either. Anticatholicism was alive and well in protestant america.

The uniqueness of Joseph Smith was the idea of having a restoration and forming a new church around that idea. Now if he were a fraud, the restoration was a mistake. He would have been more successful starting another protestant sect.

But if he were not a fraud, a restoration would make sense since the christian churches were in disarray when it came to putting the words of Christ into practice. Much blood and revenge and disagreement among the various sects.

Legitimate Christians were not ready to have an occult glass-looker take his black magic and pagan ideas and tell the world that his cult was a "restoration" of Christ's church. Joe Smith would have been more successful starting another Protestant sect only if he were a real Christian, which he was not. Christians argued with each other over points of doctrine taken from the Bible. That does not apply to Mormons. Christians took issue with Mormons over the fact that Mormon occult beliefs and teachings about a false god are not based on the Bible, even though Mormons taught they were. Christians were only defending themselves from the assault against the Good News of Jesus Christ that Smith's polytheistic cult advocated. What does it matter who started it? When you go to a doctor to have a cancerous tumor removed, do you want your doctor to have a lengthy discussion about "who started it," or do you want the tumor removed? It is the same with Mormons.

[_Christian Avenger]

What happened to the Mormons was basically simple: intolerance by rival groups.

What happened to the Mormons was the judgment of God upon a false prophet and his disciples.

[_sock puppet]

He was a fraud. The 'restoration' was a ruse. It's that simple.

And that is your opinion. However, the protestants would have found anything new difficult to swallow, especially a restoration. We need to remember that protestants have been fighting among themselves and many feld europe for religious freedom. Not to mention the conflict between catholics and protestants.

What happened to the Mormons was basically simple: intolerance by rival groups.

Organized religion is a root cause of intolerance and strife between factions--regardless of what stripes those organized religions have.

[_sock puppet]

Oh...? I didn't think that was in real life. Simon has said repeatedly that this was just some name I "randomly" found on the Internet. Is that not the case? I call him this as a sort of sporting nickname. Am I really not allowed to do that? If that's his in real life name, then I'll either refrain from calling him that, or I'll serve my week's worth of time on the "banned" list. But I don't think my posts should be edited merely on the basis of some unfounded "suspicion" that the man himself has pooh-poohed away. Know what I mean?

Why don't we defer to Simon himself? If it's just some "random" thing, like he's repeatedly said, then I think it should be allowed to stand. Does that seem fair?

Posting what you think is someone's in real life identity is also against the rules, since the Mods don't have my in real life identity either. But pardon me, I have not been on MDB since last night. I don't know what name was deleted, but I think it is safe to assume its the most current name you randomly found on the Internet and attributed to me. If it makes you happy to think that is my identity, then go right ahead. It's not, and neither is Greg whatever, David Ka---whatever, or any of the other random people you've found. But I suppose that doesn't really matter to you. Once again, you've shown that you are not capable of having a conversation without getting nasty.

I guess that shows the strength of my argument.

So you are giving Dr Scratch permission to refer to you by whatever name he may think you go by in real life?

[_Simon Belmont]

So you are giving Dr Scratch permission to refer to you by whatever name he may think you go by in real life?

I don't think it's right to post anyone's real name anywhere on the Internet without that person's consent. Over the months, Scratch has made many random (though, he might have some weird method) guesses. The problem is, the names he posts are (usually, I think) real people who have nothing to do with MD. I am not concerned with anyone on this board, but there are some really crazy, sick people out there that could find these names and do real life harm.

So in that respect, no, I do not give permission to guess my in real life identity and post it on the board. I do give permission, as I said, for Scratch to think whatever he wants to think (I obviously don't have the stewardship to deny permission of thought.)

I wish Scratch could discuss the issues without getting nasty and making veiled threats, but I suppose when one's argument is as weak as the one against the church and against apologetics, that might be one's only recourse. It doesn't matter though, because as you've probably noticed, I am severely winding down my participation here. I just wanted to post in this thread because of it's absurd OP.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Oh, no need to worry, Simon! I don't think that you're actually AF, which is just a fun nickname--the name of our Ultimate Frisbee team mascot here at Cassius, in fact. And since you've clarified now that this isn't you, it's really no big deal.

Now, back to your stunning argument about how attacks on the Church predate the First Vision.

[_sock puppet]

So you are giving Dr Scratch permission to refer to you by whatever name he may think you go by in real life?

I don't think it's right to post anyone's real name anywhere on the Internet without that person's consent. Over the months, Scratch has made many random (though, he might have some weird method) guesses. The problem is, the names he posts are (usually, I think) real people who have nothing to do with MD. I am not concerned with anyone on this board, but there are some really crazy, sick people out there that could find these names and do real life harm.

So in that respect, no, I do not give permission to guess my in real life identity and post it on the board.

Thanks for clarifying that. It was a bit vague, and it's always good to get matters cleared up before someone might act on a misunderstanding.