The general and negative public response to the LDS church through the 1800's is certainly a useful indicator, but a lot of the hostility came from eccentricities like polygamy, and the Church's geographical concentration made nearby settlers uneasy.

Splinter groups like the Reformed LDS Church with more moderate doctrines and practices, have been able to propagate similar revelations with a lot less trouble.

Still, I think mainstream Christianity has tended to be very cool on the subject of new revelations. Starting a new religious movement based on specific interpretations of existing scriptures (like the Adventists and JW's) and presenting NEW revelations and scriptures to the world are very different things. This I have always found interesting, for believing in the Bible means accepting that some people, in certain times and places, have been recipients of supernatural visitations and heavenly revelations. The only difference is that one type of prophet is immediate and accessible, and the other is long gone. But it's nothing new - true prophets or not, the Mormons have had the same trouble the prophets of the Old and New Testaments faced. Matthew 23:

29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, 30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. ... 34 ¶Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:

The LDS church has also run afoul of modernity. LDS Scholar Hugh Nibley had an interesting observation on this::

"To come down to modern times, why were people so furiously angry with Joseph Smith? It was not for being a reformer or rebuking a naughty world. In his day, the most popular preacher was the one who could denounce the manners of the times most fiercely and paint the most lurid picture of the wrath to come. Nobody led militant campaigns against even the most rabid preachers of hellfire or swore to drink their blood. We have said that the world in which Jesus lived was full of quacks and impostors who carried on unmolested. So in the time of Joseph Smith, the country was full of strange separatist cults with strange social programs and strange moral practices such as the Mormons were falsely accused of, but no one thought it virtuous to burn their settlements or shoot them on sight. In what did the modern prophet's deadly offense consist? In the summer of 1833 a much-publicized mass meeting was held in Missouri to protest the admission of Mormon immigrants into Jackson County, and this was the official objection: "The committee express fears that . . . they will soon have all the offices in the county in their hands; and that the lives and property of other citizens would be insecure, under the administration of men who are so ignorant and superstitious as to believe that they have been the subjects of miraculous and supernatural cures; hold converse with God and his angels, and possess and exercise the gifts of divination and unknown tongues." Charles Dickens, as is well known, was very favorably impressed by the Mormons he saw both in America and England, but one thing about them he could not tolerate: "What the Mormons do," he wrote in 1851, "seems to be excellent; what they say is mostly nonsense," because "it exhibits fanaticism in its newest garb," namely, "seeing visions in the age of railways."

EDIT: Added Bible verse.