Your home for discussing politics, the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, and the principles of liberty.
https://ldsfreedomforum.com/
I don't understand your point. You posted an image of a book about free speech. No one (least of all me) is saying Schroeder didn't have the right to write whatever he wanted about Mormonism. <shrug?>
I’m saying that we’re starting this thread out with a contrived persecution narrative designed to incline a reader toward believing that Schroeder - both a psychologist and a lawyer - had it in for the Mormons from the beginning.Rubicon wrote: ↑October 31st, 2023, 8:45 amI don't understand your point. You posted an image of a book about free speech. No one (least of all me) is saying Schroeder didn't have the right to write whatever he wanted about Mormonism. <shrug?>
My summary of Roberts on Schroeder's motives you quoted above. You posted an image of a book saying that Schroeder "became horrified at the persecution of the 'downtrodden Mormons,' which influenced his decision to start his law practice in Salt Lake City. Shortly after arriving in Utah, however, Schroeder became a crusader against Mormonism."
Could you maybe explain your thinking here? That sounds a lot like he had the "specific goal of taking down Mormonism."
The below paper mentions resources available to investigate Schroeder’s initial willingness to aid the Mormons. It also details some of his activities in Utah.Rubicon wrote: ↑October 31st, 2023, 10:33 am If Schroeder originally felt sorry for Mormons and came to Salt Lake to try to help them, I didn't know that. Given the aftermath and his manner, I tend to think that it's more he and his panegyrists painting his motives in the most positive light possible. Kind of like how anti-Mormon ministries have nothing but the greatest love for the Mormon people --- it is just that pure evil of Mormonism that makes them seem like they are attacking them.
Are you aware of any of Schroeder's writings from before he turned against the Mormons --- that demonstrate him starting out on the Mormons' side? If "shortly after arriving in Utah, however, Schroeder became a crusader against Mormonism," that sounds like revisionist history to me. I know you attribute this to him just wanting to "tear down the unhealthy belief and power structures of Utah Mormonism," but Schroeder sounds to me a lot like how Roberts described Alexander Campbell and others when dealing with Mormonism: "In discussing [it] he exhibits a vulgarity, a bitterness utterly unaccountable, and entirely unworthy of himself; and lastly and saddest of all, he descends to the low subterfuge of falsehood as in this."
If he just wanted to "tear down the unhealthy belief and power structures of Utah Mormonism," why attack the foundation of Mormonism (the divine origins of the Book of Mormon)? But, your source does say that Schroeder was "predisposed against religion . . . [and] a freethinker at an early age . . . [whose] intellectual hero [was Robert] Ingersoll (famous agnostic/atheist)," so I think he came to Utah already against Mormonism, and especially its truth claims.
I didn't pick up on that, but you're right --- his chosen pseudonym looks like trolling, doesn't it?AZRob wrote: ↑October 31st, 2023, 11:53 am Wait, wait... Pseudonym A. T. Heist? Like atheist? Like Rubicon, I too am skeptical seeing a carpetbagging atheist ride into town to "defend" the Mormons only to turn against them when the requisite waiting period is over. With truth being more complex than a snippet from a book, my best guess is that Schroeder found relatively unlawyered territory in Utah where his interests converged with about half of the territory and he made a name for himself. Then his cognitive dissonance finally got the better of him, realizing that it was hard to live a lie supporting a God-fearing people.
You have not provided any evidence to support your myriad of claims against Schroeder. But I think it’s fair to surmise you are prejudiced against atheists.AZRob wrote: ↑October 31st, 2023, 11:53 am Wait, wait... Pseudonym A. T. Heist? Like atheist? Like Rubicon, I too am skeptical seeing a carpetbagging atheist ride into town to "defend" the Mormons only to turn against them when the requisite waiting period is over. With truth being more complex than a snippet from a book, my best guess is that Schroeder found relatively unlawyered territory in Utah where his interests converged with about half of the territory and he made a name for himself. Then his cognitive dissonance finally got the better of him, realizing that it was hard to live a lie supporting a God-fearing people.
In the spirit of intellectual honesty, maybe post some statements by Spaulding indicating that he was “caustically anti-religion.”Rubicon wrote: ↑October 30th, 2023, 5:08 pm Spaulding's other writings include "The Frogs of Wyndham" and "infidel disquisitions" (Roberts's phrasing) [Rubicon: I remember transcribing a Spaulding "infidel disquisition" while waiting for my fourth child to be born. We were in for an induced labor, mom was sleeping peacefully, and I had some time. Long and short of it --- Spaulding, despite being a minister, was caustically anti-religion (mockingly atheistic/agnostic) in other papers found with "Manuscript Story." Evidence of Spaulding writing anything dealing with ancient Israelites in scriptural language *before* Hurlbut came to Conneaut looking for dirt on the Mormons would be invaluable for anti-Mormons, "but it does not exist." (Roberts)
I'll have to find what I had typed up. I think it's on a different computer. It was among the papers along with the paper outside of the Spaulding manuscript (like the page with "proved by Aron Wright" and the notes from Hurlbut). I had bought the Tanner's photocopy of "Manuscript Found" items long ago.
It wouldn't, in and of itself. Spaulding's "infidel disquisitions" aren't even a major part of Roberts's response. He simply mentioned that "The Frogs of Wyndham" and "infidel disquisitions" are more Spaulding's content and voice than pretended scripture.And if he were, perhaps, agnostic, how would that preclude his ability to write a historical novel off of which Sidney Rigdon could work with his particular religious writing style (as demonstrated in his personal history of writing pseudoscripture - examples of which have been posted on the forum previously)?
I'm impressed how you upgraded my guesses to evidentiary claims requiring concrete backing. I'm not writing a book. I think you're prejudiced against me.Pazooka wrote: ↑October 31st, 2023, 2:17 pmYou have not provided any evidence to support your myriad of claims against Schroeder. But I think it’s fair to surmise you are prejudiced against atheists.AZRob wrote: ↑October 31st, 2023, 11:53 am Wait, wait... Pseudonym A. T. Heist? Like atheist? Like Rubicon, I too am skeptical seeing a carpetbagging atheist ride into town to "defend" the Mormons only to turn against them when the requisite waiting period is over. With truth being more complex than a snippet from a book, my best guess is that Schroeder found relatively unlawyered territory in Utah where his interests converged with about half of the territory and he made a name for himself. Then his cognitive dissonance finally got the better of him, realizing that it was hard to live a lie supporting a God-fearing people.
I don’t know why you wouldn’t be able to trust an atheist with facts just as well as a God-fearer. They tend to be very rational and I can appreciate the value they place on proof.AZRob wrote: ↑October 31st, 2023, 4:57 pmI'm impressed how you upgraded my guesses to evidentiary claims requiring concrete backing. I'm not writing a book. I think you're prejudiced against me.Pazooka wrote: ↑October 31st, 2023, 2:17 pmYou have not provided any evidence to support your myriad of claims against Schroeder. But I think it’s fair to surmise you are prejudiced against atheists.AZRob wrote: ↑October 31st, 2023, 11:53 am Wait, wait... Pseudonym A. T. Heist? Like atheist? Like Rubicon, I too am skeptical seeing a carpetbagging atheist ride into town to "defend" the Mormons only to turn against them when the requisite waiting period is over. With truth being more complex than a snippet from a book, my best guess is that Schroeder found relatively unlawyered territory in Utah where his interests converged with about half of the territory and he made a name for himself. Then his cognitive dissonance finally got the better of him, realizing that it was hard to live a lie supporting a God-fearing people.
That said, due to an undeniable knowledge of God's goodness I'll admit a mild prejudice against atheists. You say that like it's a bad thing. Are you pro atheist, by chance?
I found it. Here is a transcript of pages that were found with "Manscript Story."
Thank you for posting that.Rubicon wrote: ↑November 2nd, 2023, 1:08 pmI found it. Here is a transcript of pages that were found with "Manscript Story."
The first one was written by Philastus Hurlbut, stating that Aaron Wright, Oliver Smith, and John Miller confirmed that the writing was Spaulding's. These were three of the witnesses Hurlbut had collected testimonies for for Howe's book.
The second one was written in Spaulding's handwriting (the same handwriting of "Manuscript Story"). He says that he is setting down "my sentiments of the christian Religion," "not tramelled with traditionary & vulgar prejudice" and "I do not believe certain facts & certain propositions to be true merely because that my ancestors believed them & because they are popular . . . In forming my creed I bring everything to the standard of reason --- This is an unerring guide in all matters of faith & practice. Having divested myself therefore of traditionary & vulgar prejudice & submitting to the guidance of reason it is impossible for me to have the same sentiments of the christian religion which its advocates consider as orthodoxy --- It is in my view a mass of contradictions & an heterrogeneous mixture of wisdom & folly --- nor can I find any clear & incontrovertable evidence of its being a revelation from an infinite benevolent & wise God . . . Whatever the clergy say to the contrary can have no effect in altering my sentiments . . . But notwithstanding I disavow any belief in the divinity of the Bible & consider it a mere human production designed to enrich & aggrandize its authors & to enable them to manage the multitude --- yet casting aside a considerable mass of rubbish & fanatical rant, I find that it contains a system of ethicks or morals which cannot be excelled on account of their tendency to ameliorate the condition of man & to promote individual social & public happiness & in various instances it represents the Almighty as possessing attributes worthy his transcendent character. Having a view therefore to those parts of the Bible which are truly good & excellent I sometimes speak of it in terms of high commendation --- & indeed I am inclined to believe that notwithstanding the mischiefs & miseries which have been produced by the bigoted zeal of fanaticks & interested priests yet that such evils are more than counterbalanced in a christian land, by the benefits which result to the great mass of the people by their believing that the bible is of divine origin & that it contains a revelation from God. --- Such being my view of the subject I suffer my candle to remain under, nor make no exertions to dissipate their happy delusions . . .”
