My Work Here is Done

[_Dan Vogel]

If Mormons really want to practice their religion in peace, they need to discontinue their aggressive, culturally hostile missionary program.

Most christian churches have missionary programs. And you know that even if the LDS church stopped its missionary program, critics like yourself would not leave the LDS church alone. It is not in the LDS critics dna.

I'm not justifying the behavior of most christian churches, although they aren't in the business of claiming to be the only true church and trying to convert other christians. I'm not bothering the church. I'm bothering its apologists. I'm defending an interpretation of history, the subject of which just happens to be about Mormon origins. And I don't care about the LDS missionary program. Simon mindlessly asserted that Mormons only want to be left alone and worship in peace, so I explained the problem and suggested how it might be solved.

[_Darth J]

2. Can you provide a list of how many people have been killed---ever---because of "anti-Mormon" publications? (Hint: Joseph and Hyrum Smith were not killed because of what the Nauvoo Expositor said. They were killed because they unlawfully destroyed a printing press, an act that had previously caused violence in Illinois and had nothing to do with Mormons.)

3. Despite your hysteria and Joseph Smith's spin (which Dan Vogel previously alluded to), early Mormons were persecuted because of social and political reasons and Joseph Smith's spectacular failures as a leader, not because of their religious beliefs.

What previous violence in Illinois was that? ETA: OH, I misread. But what WAS that extra violence after the press was destroyed?

I never said anything about "extra" violence.

Not religious but social? No spin there DJ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Here is the exact quote from the June 11, 1844 Warsaw Signal calling for violence against Joseph Smith:

War and extermination is inevitable! Citizens ARISE, ONE and ALL!!!—Can you stand by, and suffer such INFERNAL DEVILS! To ROB men of their property and RIGHTS, without avenging them. We have no time for comment, every man will make his own. LET IT BE MADE WITH POWDER AND BALL!!!

It was not because of Mormon religious beliefs. It was not even because of the substance of what was said in the Nauvoo Expositor. It was because Joseph Smith "robbed men of their property rights" by unlawfully destroying the Expositor press.

If you want to find me an editorial from the Warsaw Signal calling for Joseph Smith's death because he believed in the Book of Mormon or said he saw God or whatever other religious reason, be my guest.

I admit Joseph Smith failed to produce Zion, but what spectacular failures as a leader are YOU talking about?

You are seriously tempting me to think you own the mantle of Sandra Tanner, DJ, with such prejudice.

Let's see......where shall we begin?

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:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=20252&start=42

[_Dan Vogel]

Simon,

The Latter-day Saints have never attacked anyone's beliefs. There are fundamental differences in the doctrines, but if there were not we would all be of one religion. You could say, and I am assuming you're referring to this, that the First Vision account attacks Christianity. Even if we grant that (which I do not, but will for the sake of this discussion). Does that one statement justify 180+ years of violence, tarring and featherings, extermination orders, massacres, assassinations, bigotry, and hatred?

You can’t look at 180 years of history through the lens of a few years in Missouri. Should non-Mormons view Mormons through the lens of Mountain Meadows or the Battle of Crooked River?

And it’s not just the First Vision declaration. Early Mormon pamphleteering by the Pratts, Taylor, and others is filled with attacks on other Christians. But the First Vision shows the central stance of Mormonism against the rest of the Christian world.

Show me where any member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints published anything remotely similar to the following:
• One Nation Under Gods: A History of the [Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian] Church.
• Under the [pastor, preacher, minister, priest] in [state]; the national menace of a political priestcraft.
• The God Makers.
• The Maze of [Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian]ism .
• Reasoning from the Scriptures With the [Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian]s.
• [Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian]ism Unmasked: Confronting the Contradictions Between [Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian] Beliefs and True Christianity.
• [Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian]ism : Shadow or Reality?
• The Word of God: Essays on [Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian] Scripture.

It’s all in how you look at it, Simon. Each of these publications (except the last) is not an attack on Mormonism, but a defense against Mormonism’s attack on them. The last is a scholarly examination of Mormon scripture and doesn’t belong with the others. Do you really expect these Christians to passively allow Mormons to attack them? Are you saying Parley P. Pratt should not have written the following?

Pratt, Parley Parker. Plain facts, showing the falsehood and folly of the Rev. C. S. Bush, (a church minister of the parish of Peover) being a reply to his tract against the Latter-day Saints (1851)

And this,

Taylor, John. Truth defended and Methodism weighed in the balance and found wanting: being a reply to the third address of the Rev. Robert Heys, Wesleyan minister to the Wesleyan Methodist societies in Douglas and its vicinity. And also an exposure of the principles of Methodism (1840)

Adams, George J. A few plain facts, shewing the folly, wickedness, and imposition of the Rev. Timothy R. Matthews; also, a short sketch of the rise, faith, and doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. By George J. Adams, minister of the gospel, Bedford, England. . . . (1841)

It absolutely is. If we were not such a threat, we'd just be ignored.

Try not being a threat. You are proving my point.

What antagonistic nature? You mean being constantly driven out, killed, tortured, hated, and protested against for 180+ years?

No, I mean by aggressively trying to convert other Christians to your sect and claiming exclusive authority and being the only true church. Your description of persecution is highly exaggerated. Compared to the Jews, you have little to complain about.

No, Dan. This is flatly wrong. If we "needed" hatred, we would have stayed in Missouri and not attempted to isolate ourselves in the west.

What I meant was that Mormonism claims to be a restoration and everyone else false. That forces others to fight back or be taken over. You need to see your part in the dynamic.

Critical thought is one thing. There is a free market of ideas, and there should be. I am fine with respectful criticism and discussion. I am not fine when people here complain that LDS apologists are taking some small cues from the behavior which anti-Mormons wrote the book on. As if people can criticize the church, but we are not able to correct or respond to those criticisms.

And I’m fine with apologists doing their thing. I think it can get excessive on both sides.

That is your opinion as a disaffected member. It is wrong. The perceived problems, when properly examined, are not problems in the large scheme of the work of God. Apologetics is a response to critics and anti-Mormons. It always has been.

Plausibility arguments are not intended to convince non-believers as much as to keep members in. I can quote one leading apologist saying so if you like.

Almost every religion has a missionary program, Dan.

Missionaries don't force anyone to do anything. They just share their message to those who want to hear it. If you don't, then don't invite them in. It's as simple as that. We have a right to practice our religion in peace, and to share it with those who want to share it.

My description fits Christian missionaries as well. It’s not so much the missionary program but the message that’s getting you some unwanted attention. As a young missionary, I had no idea how reciting the First Vision might sound to non-Mormons. I could only see my good intentions.

[_Simon Belmont]

You can’t look at 180 years of history through the lens of a few years in Missouri. Should non-Mormons view Mormons through the lens of Mountain Meadows or the Battle of Crooked River?

And it’s not just the First Vision declaration. Early Mormon pamphleteering by the Pratts, Taylor, and others is filled with attacks on other Christians. But the First Vision shows the central stance of Mormonism against the rest of the Christian world.

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

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.

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:

Pratt, Parley Parker. Plain facts, showing the falsehood and folly of the Rev. C. S. Bush, being a reply to his tract against the Latter-day Saints (1851)

Taylor, John. Truth defended and Methodism weighed in the balance and found wanting: being a reply to the third address of the Rev. Robert Heys, Wesleyan minister to the Wesleyan Methodist societies in Douglas and its vicinity. And also an exposure of the principles of Methodism (1840)

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.

It’s all in how you look at it, Simon. Each of these publications (except the last) is not an attack on Mormonism, but a defense against Mormonism’s attack on them.

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.

The last is a scholarly examination of Mormon scripture and doesn’t belong with the others.

It definitely has an agenda.
http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... um=1&id=74

Try not being a threat. You are proving my point.

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.

No, I mean by aggressively trying to convert other Christians to your sect and claiming exclusive authority and being the only true church. Your description of persecution is highly exaggerated. Compared to the Jews, you have little to complain about.

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.

And I’m fine with apologists doing their thing. I think it can get excessive on both sides.

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).

My description fits Christian missionaries as well. It’s not so much the missionary program but the message that’s getting you some unwanted attention. As a young missionary, I had no idea how reciting the First Vision might sound to non-Mormons. I could only see my good intentions.

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?

[_sock puppet]

Simon,

I am very interested then as to what you attribute as the reasons for those early anti-Mormons inflicting that persecution and violence?

What provoked them? Did JSJr and Co. do nothing to provoke them?

[_Simon Belmont]

Simon,

I am very interested then as to what you attribute as the reasons for those early anti-Mormons inflicting that persecution and violence?

What provoked them? Did JSJr and Co. do nothing to provoke them?

I am not saying that Mormons, early or otherwise, are completely faultless. I am just saying they didn't "start it."

I mean, sure, saying someone's religion is wrong is enough to anger some folks. That's understandable. The ensuing 180 years of hate is overboard.

[_Doctor Scratch]

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.

[_Nightlion]

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.

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.

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?

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.

[_stemelbow]

You said: “To spin this as some uniquely Mormon thing is just weird.”

I said: “I'm merely holding up a mirror for Simon. I'm not making any universal claims.”

This means in plain speak that I said nothing about the persecution complex being unique to Mormons. Get it?

Hey if you singled out the one comment of mine as that which replied to that would probably make more sense. But as it is, you did make some universal claims as opposed to your claim that you didn't many any universal claims. In plain speak, you definitely weren't very clear. But that's inconsequential. More consequential in my mind are your claims. It'd be nice if you had something more than your biased opinion to substantiate them. Ah well...not going to happen I'm sure.

[_jon]

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?