My Work Here is Done

[_Chap]

Half a minute.

Didn't Belmont give us an in real life identity for himself some months ago? I seem to remember that he maintained stoutly that it really was an in real life identity (yes, that is a bit pleonastic), even though Dr. Scratch expressed skepticism when it seemed that this identity had left no discernible traces in cyberspace.

Presumably I must have missed the post where he told us that all that was a typo, or social engineering, or something?

[_Dan Vogel]

Simon,

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.

This is a peculiar line of argument, Simon. You seem to think the First Vision is the only anti-Christian statement in Mormonism. From day one Mormon missionaries were preaching the only true church of God on earth and that all other churches were apostate. The Book of Mormon is anti-sectarian and anti-Catholic, at least that’s how non-Mormons and early Mormons read it.

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 apologetics

You seem to be under the impression that anti-Mormons attacked Mormons without cause. In Missouri the Mormons were perceived both as a menace and a danger. The fight wasn’t so much about religion as it was about the Mormon hoard taking over and pushing the existing inhabitants out. Violence was a necessity given the tenacity with which the Mormons clung to their sacred land of Zion. Mormons believed God had given them the land, and the Gentiles weren’t about to let go of their land and investments. Imagine a fanatical sect with militant leanings moving into your city by the hundreds. The Missourians tried to handle it peacefully, but the Mormons wouldn’t leave, although they had been given a whole county. Of course, Mormon Zionism was uncompromising and needed some encouragement.

The gathering of people for a religious purpose, I believe, is a protected right.

Regardless, when this freedom is pushed to the limits, right or wrong, there is going to be a reaction, especially in 19th century America. Your predecessors said to the people in Jackson County: “We are taking this entire area over. God has given this land to us, so you might as well sell it and leave.” With Mormons moving in by the hundreds, Mormons would soon control government and the economy. Like it or not, early Mormons were a menace to society. Not so much now.

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.

He is a quote from the Missourian’s Manifesto:

They declare openly that their God hath given them this county of land, and that sooner or later they must and will have the possession of our lands for an inheritance, and in fine they have conducted themselves on many other occasions in such a manner, that we believe it a duty we owe ourselves to our wives and children, to the cause of public morals, to remove them from among us, as we are not prepared to give up our pleasant places, and goodly possessions to them, or to receive into the bosom of our families, as fit companions for our wives and daughters the degraded and corrupted free negroes and mulattoes [mulattos], that are now invited to settle among us.

Under such a state of things, even our beautiful county would cease to be a desirable residence, and our situation intolerable! We, therefore agree, that after timely warning, and receiving an adequate compensation for what little property they cannot take with them, they refuse to leave us in peace, as they found us, we agree to use such means as may be sufficient to remove them, and to that end we each pledge to each other our bodily powers, our lives, fortunes, and sacred honors. (E&MS, Dec. 1833; DHC 1:376)

Hauns Mill and the real persecution didn’t start until 1838, after the Mormons had formed their own army and attacked the state militia and other Missourians. In 1833, they were just driven from their homes north to Clay County.

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.

No, it doesn’t. But it explains the Missourians actions, whereas your theory makes their behavior mysterious and incomprehensible. There is more to the story than Mormons being persecuted for simply practicing their religion.

Please see above. Had the wheels not been set in motion, none of this would have needed to happen.

Yes, see above. The wheels were set in motion by Mormon apostasy/restoration rhetoric and their Zionism, which made Mormonism more than a religion but also a political movement with revolutionary threats. The Missourians had every right to be concerned.

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.

The same can be said about the Mormons. Mormonism exists to tear down all other churches and build up their restoration.

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.

Just like you, they feel a duty to save others from the Mormon heresy.

Yes, but I cannot see how that justifies slaughter -- but maybe that's just me.

Where’s the slaughter, Simon? Besides Hauns Mill, to what are you referring? With Mormons armed by the hundreds and attacking settlements and the state militia, Missourians were justifiable concerned. Some hysteria occurred on both sides, which is almost expected in such situations.

But every religion is anti-every-other-religion by that logic.

Christians might contend about various doctrines and practices, but not in the same way that Mormons do—which their apostasy/restoration rhetoric and claim to unique authority and revelation. It’s this that unites them against Mormonism.

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.

If Mormonism teaches false doctrine, they believe it’s their duty to resist it. And when they do, they are not persecuting you.

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.

It’s an example of the contempt that Hamblin has for those who oppose his religion, or have a different view of history than he does. I don’t mind honest apologetics. It has a place. I benefit from criticism, but the ad hominal attacks and politicizing of scholarship I reject.

[_Blixa]

Hi Simon!

If it is true that

as you've probably noticed, I am severely winding down my participation here

then may I suggest you use the time to read some books on the Missouri period in Mormon history? There's quite a bit to cover (enough that it was a major part of my summer reading). It's a pretty dense history considering how little time it spans, but I'm convinced it's essential for any one who want to understand not just pre-Utah Mormon history, but maybe even later Mormon history as well.

I think once you've done some actual reading of the history (there are important works written by Mormons, ex-Mormons and non Mormons) you'll understand that a statement like this:

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.

is a grotesquely inadequate description of the situation in Missouri. It is not just a statement made from sheer ignorance, but one which disrespects the integrity and suffering of all of those involved: Mormons and Missourians alike. In fact, I find it the kind of statement that disrespects history and humanity both: merely an overtly propagandistic effort to score some cheap point against an "enemy."

Mormonism deserves better, Simon.

[_Doctor Scratch]

is a grotesquely inadequate description of the situation in Missouri. It is not just a statement made from sheer ignorance, but one which disrespects the integrity and suffering of all of those involved: Mormons and Missourians alike. In fact, I find it the kind of statement that disrespects history and humanity both: merely an overtly propagandistic effort to score some cheap point against an "enemy."

Mormonism deserves better, Simon.

That pretty much sums it up, and it's exactly why I took issue with Simon's appearance on this thread. We can go at this in the simplest, dumbest, and pettiest way, by asking this question re: "who started it?" and even then Simon's argument comes up short. But really, as your post implies, it's a stupid question to begin with. I don't know of any serious historian--believing or unbelieving; academically trained or autodidact--would would make the kinds of arguments that Simon and stemelbow have been making on this thread.

[_Simon Belmont]

I'll give you another chance to have a civil discussion. Let me know if you don't want this type of discussion, and I will leave.

We can go at this in the simplest, dumbest, and pettiest way, by asking this question re: "who started it?"

Oh contraire: I think the simplest way is the best way to go about this. This way doesn't get muddied up without the complexities that naturally arise with any 6 year crusade. Humor me, at least, not as an apologist (because I am not at that level), but as a TBM.

The main issue, for me, is your (now retired) crusade against LDS apologetics. This is how it looks from my side:

In your view, it seems, critics have a carte blanche to do anything they wish, and to act in any way they wish towards Mormonism, while LDS cannot defend themselves without ridicule from you. I don't believe I've ever seen you comment on the poor behavior of some critics. So basically, you ridicule the LDS church, and you ridicule those who defend it -- so what can LDS do that won't be ridiculed?

So the problem I see, is that if you don't ridicule critics the same way you ridicule apologists then there is something hypocritical going on here, in my opinion. By asking "who started it" I was attempting to get to the root of your issues with apologetics.

[_Doctor Scratch]

As I said, Cassius Mascot F: you have no interest in actually discussing the issues. This was for you, from the outset, a revenge mission.

But as to your question: I don't ridicule the Church, generally speaking. Go ahead and read over my threads and posts. You won't find very many instances of me actually attacking rank-and-file LDS, their faith, or things of that nature. My concentration has been on the Mopologists.

You don't have to "get at the root" of the issue re: my take on apologetics. I've explained it before, more than once. You can disregard what I said, but the fact remains: I already explained it. The historical origins of the Church have nothing to do with it. The origins of the Church--at least as explained by you--have virtually nothing to do with apologetics, for that matter.

[_Droopy]

But as to your question: I don't ridicule the Church, generally speaking. Go ahead and read over my threads and posts. You won't find very many instances of me actually attacking rank-and-file LDS, their faith, or things of that nature. My concentration has been on the Mopologists.

I'm not at all sure if Scratch really expects anyone to believe this.

I'm really not sure at all what to make of it, except that it quite closely parallels Graham's consistent protestations that he's really just a warm little teddy bear set upon be mean, hostile, nasty, belligerent mopologists.

Poor little anti-Mormons and apostates. So set upon and misunderstood.

[_Simon Belmont]

I have extended the olive branch more than once. You are simply not interested in civil discussion or answering my honest questions.

Are you familiar with Reinhold Niebuhr? He is credited with saying:

Forgiveness is the final form of love.

I forgive you.

Goodbye.

[_Darth J]

But as to your question: I don't ridicule the Church, generally speaking. Go ahead and read over my threads and posts. You won't find very many instances of me actually attacking rank-and-file LDS, their faith, or things of that nature. My concentration has been on the Mopologists.

I'm not at all sure if Scratch really expects anyone to believe this.

I'm really not sure at all what to make of it, except that it quite closely parallels Graham's consistent protestations that he's really just a warm little teddy bear set upon be mean, hostile, nasty, belligerent mopologists.

Poor little anti-Mormons and apostates. So set upon and misunderstood.

Droopy, I think your assertion would be even more impressive were you to point out some of your favorite threads and/or posts where Doctor Scratch has ridiculed the LDS Church specifically, rather than just a certain segment of its apologists.

Why don't you go ahead and do that for everyone?

[Guest]

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.

Legitmate christians have been killing each other for centuries before the restoration. If I were god, I would have been pissed off at catholicism and protestantism too. In the name of god, both faiths began to enslave the world through colonialism when they weren't killing each other during the european religious wars. The time was right for a restoration, if one looks at christian history.