Thoughts on anti-Mormon lit etc. (reply to hippo)

[Anonymous]

I posted about this last year because people tend to define “anti-Mormon” differently: http://www.wheatandtares.org/6158/who-are-the-anti-mormons/

Also, an interesting aside, a woman in my ward shared a personal story on Sunday about how she was converted to the church because she had been reading anti-Mormon literature, and then read Fawn Brodie’s book, and about halfway through she just realized she believed the church was true.

[Anonymous]

shoshin wrote:

Speaking of anti-Mormons and Joseph Smith, I ran across this interesting article today talking about how most past books about Joseph Smith have been based on dubious original sources.

Quote:

Among the earliest descriptions of Joseph were those published by Abner Cole, over the name of Obadiah Dogberry, editor of the Palmyra, New York, Reflector. Using the E. B. Grandin press, the moonlighting Cole gained unauthorized access to the Book of Mormon manuscript in 1829 and actually published extracts from it in his newspaper until forced to desist by Joseph Smith.

Miffed at the discovery and forcible discontinuance of his secret enterprise, Cole sought to defame Joseph Smith and his work. He described the Prophet in degrading terms and explained the Book of Mormon as a deception growing out of the family’s use of “peep stones” to dig for hidden treasure guarded by evil spirits. He claimed that Joseph concocted the idea of finding a book from the suggestion of a vagabond conjurer named Walters who had participated with the Smiths in their digging ventures. 2

Cole laid the groundwork for the theme of deception, indolence, and irreligion that was to characterize descriptions of Joseph Smith in subsequent non-Mormon writings.

But while early newspapers labeled Joseph Smith as an unprincipled character, it was Eber D. Howe’s book, Mormonism Unvailed in 1834 that canonized that theme for future non-Mormon discussions.

Howe’s work was the culmination of efforts of a Kirtland, Ohio, anti-Mormon committee spearheaded by an embittered ex-Mormon, Philastus Hurlbut, cut off from the Church for immorality. Having been restrained by court injunction from committing personal violence upon Joseph Smith, Hurlbut undertook to vent his wrath by prospecting for information that would “divest Joseph Smith of all claims to the character of an honest man, and place him at an immeasurable distance from the high station which he pretends to occupy.” 3

The result consisted of affidavits signed by eighty-two New York and Pennsylvania residents who claimed personal knowledge derogatory to the Smith character. The affidavits portrayed Joseph Smith as “lazy, intemperate,” “entirely destitute of moral character and addicted to vicious habits,” including the deceptive practice of digging for hidden treasure. 4 The legal framework of the documents gave them a strong flavor of credibility in an age uncritical of its information.

[As of this 1979 article] With the exception of I. Woodbridge Riley’s work, The Founder of Mormonism: A Psychological Study of Joseph Smith, Jr., (1902) in which the author sought to examine Joseph Smith’s character from the standpoint of psychology, almost every significant non-Mormon study of Joseph Smith from 1834 to the present has used the Hurlbut framework.

Joseph Smith’s Reputation

By Dean Jessee

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/09/joseph-smiths-reputation?lang=eng

cwald wrote:

shoshin wrote:

cwald wrote:

Shoshin, that was a nice response, and I agree with much of it, but you never answered the question.

Using your example, do you consider Quinn’s book anti mormon or not. … yes or no?

I don’t think the conversation works until you define the term “anti mormon.”

I tried to explain my thoughts about a definition. Let me take another crack.

I think there are many types of books (or videos, etc) that could be called anti-Mormon. Here are some that come to mind.

1. Intentional attacks on Mormonism, with the aim to discredit the church or persuade people to disbelieve. The information may be correct or not, but in any case it is presented as part of building a “case” against the church.

2. Information about Mormonism that is not meant as an attack but is a sincere attempt to arrive at truth. It may uncover true information that casts an unfavorable light on Mormonism or shocks people. Even if 100% true it may not be wise for a Mormon to read it if their faith is not developed enough. Ideally, I would like to believe that all Mormons can and should seek all truth and read anything, including this type of book. However, even so, some things are more important to spend time on than others, from an “eternal worth” perspective.

OK, those are actually the only categories I can think of. Are there more I wonder?

So Quinn’s book is #2 assuming Quinn is sincere about merely seeking truth.

So Quinn’s book is NOT anti mormon?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

It’s okay. You don’t need to answer the question. I know how disconcerting some of these issues can be.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

For example, I wrote my Bachelor’s Thesis about Manifest Destiny as a religious concept NOT a racial concept, and I used the case of the 19th century LDS Church as the flagship example (since they were WASPs in every meaningful sense but excluded by Protestant America in its description of Manifest Destiny).

I’ve never been sure about this term “WASP” myself. I prefer the Aussie term “Anglo-Celtic”, since many so called WASPS are of Scottish, Irish and Welsh origin, and so not really “Anglo-Saxon”, but Celts. (There is a tiny bit of Scotland that was Anglo-Saxon, and tiny bits of Wales, but they’re minor. And as for Ireland, that was never ever Anglo-Saxon). And don’t mention the Cornish or Cumbrians, they’re not really Anglo-Saxon either.

So when is something “anti-Mormon”? I think when it is a deliberate and malicious attack on the church. Such stuff exists, particularly from certain other churches who don’t like Mormons. I’d differentiate this from stuff which is genuinely trying to investigate (and not necessarily all positive)

I would also agree with one of the statements above about historical sources. Bear in mind if me, you, and other people met Joseph Smith in his lifetime, we would come away with different impressions depending on our viewpoint, our motives, and even which mood we caught him in.

[Author]

Posts