Joseph Smith Died In A "shoot-out"

[HanClinto]

I said they were hated mostly for their religious beliefs.

Ah. At the end of your paragraph:

"Most of all the mobs hated the Mormons for their religious faith and unusual doctrines."

In the context, I understood your comment about "religious faith" to go along with such comments as "strict observance of the Sabbath and other commandments of God" and "social, political and religious cohesiveness", as if they were hated for their trust in God and their piety ("faith" vs. "belief" connotation contrast).

Regarding "unusual doctrines", I confess, I must have skipped over that part and did not notice it. Looking at it now, it's a bit tacked onto the end, but I'll admit, you did acknowledge this.

Please tell me you're not implying that unusual theological views are a justifiable excuse for the burning, looting, plundering, rapes, murders, assaults, dispossession of property and wholesale deprivation of human and Constitutional rights to which the Mormons were subjected in northern Missouri and western Illinois in the 1830s and 40s.

With pleasure! I'm not implying that unusual theological views are a justifiable excuse for heinous crimes. I'm merely trying to accurately represent the motivations for the pogroms. From my admittedly ignorant standpoint, I think it a misrepresentation of the facts to have an imbalanced laundry list of hate motivators, particularly when the imbalance seems out of motivation to sensationalize and drum up emotional response from distorted imagery.

Yes, the crimes were heinous. Yes, emotional response is good. I just want to make sure we don't go overboard and misrepresent the non-Mormons of that day.

Perhaps a parallel religious sect would help here. Mormons aren't the only peaceful and fairly "socially normal" religious break-out group who has been violently raped and persecuted primarily for heresy. To see this, one need look no further than our Sikh friends and their repeated violent encounters with their Muslim hosts and neighbors from whom they religiously parted ways. To bring the analogy home, I would be grossly misrepresenting the Muslims if I emphasized the social (rather than religious) motivations for their actions.

So now that you've helped me by clarifying your position, I don't see a whole lot to disagree with you on in content -- only in presentation. It was perhaps too petty of a critique on my part, and I should be more okay with the pro-Mo "spin" when in LDS territory. It just doesn't feel like a level-headed and balanced representation of the persecution -- that's what I'm trying to communicate.

I hope that helps? I feel we've belaboured this point long enough, and in so far as you understand (as much as you want to) where I'm coming from, I'm happy at this point to agree to disagree and move on.

Thanks for the discussion!

--clint

[Scott Lloyd]

Ah. At the end of your paragraph:

"Most of all the mobs hated the Mormons for their religious faith and unusual doctrines."

In the context, I understood your comment about "religious faith" to go along with such comments as "strict observance of the Sabbath and other commandments of God" and "social, political and religious cohesiveness", as if they were hated for their trust in God and their piety ("faith" vs. "belief" connotation contrast).

I think that in some measure, they were hated for those things.

Regarding "unusual doctrines", I confess, I must have skipped over that part and did not notice it. Looking at it now, it's a bit tacked onto the end, but I'll admit, you did acknowledge this.

There was a reason I used the introductory phrase "most of all." I don't accept your complaint that I minimized or "tacked it on" at the end.

You might be interested to know, however, that some critics don't accept the fact that the Mormons were hated for their religious beliefs; these critics do give social and political factors as the sole reasons for the mob violence. These are generally people who deny that Joseph was a martyr.

I disagree with them of course.

With pleasure! I'm not implying that unusual theological views are a justifiable excuse for heinous crimes. I'm merely trying to accurately represent the motivations for the pogroms. From my admittedly ignorant standpoint, I think it a misrepresentation of the facts to have an imbalanced laundry list of hate motivators, particularly when the imbalance seems out of motivation to sensationalize and drum up emotional response from distorted imagery.

I don't accept that I gave an imbalanced list. Nor do I acknowledge sensationalizing or distorting anything. See above.

Again, though, professional historians are pretty much at a consensus on the fact that the social and political factors I described played a part. In other words, this is not a controversial view.

Yes, the crimes were heinous. Yes, emotional response is good. I just want to make sure we don't go overboard and misrepresent the non-Mormons of that day.

Perhaps a parallel religious sect would help here. Mormons aren't the only peaceful and fairly "socially normal" religious break-out group who has been violently raped and persecuted primarily for heresy.

I never said they were. I decry and condemn religious persecution, no matter what the venue.

To see this, one need look no further than our Sikh friends and their repeated violent encounters with their Muslim hosts and neighbors from whom they religiously parted ways. To bring the analogy home, I would be grossly misrepresenting the Muslims if I emphasized the social (rather than religious) motivations for their actions.

I wasn't over-emphasizing the social motivations. I repeat, I used the phrase "most of all" before saying the Mormons were hated for their religious beliefs.

So now that you've helped me by clarifying your position, I don't see a whole lot to disagree with you on in content -- only in presentation. It was perhaps too petty of a critique on my part, and I should be more okay with the pro-Mo "spin" when in LDS territory. It just doesn't feel like a level-headed and balanced representation of the persecution -- that's what I'm trying to communicate.

I hope that helps? I feel we've belaboured this point long enough, and in so far as you understand (as much as you want to) where I'm coming from, I'm happy at this point to agree to disagree and move on.

What are you disagreeing with me about? That the early Mormons were unjustly persecuted and oppressed? If so, I can't blithely "agree to disagree." I think denying that fact of history is a contemptible view to take.

[sean0scott]

In response to the OP:

Granted that would have made the Joseph Smith movie at the visitors centers MUCH more entertaining

[LifeOnaPlate]

In response to the OP:

Granted that would have made the Joseph Smith movie at the visitors centers MUCH more entertaining

<---not a huge fan of said movie.

[truebeliever]

More like ... self-offense.

i thought He might be defending His house (Matthew 21:13).

[sean0scott]

<---not a huge fan of said movie.

Imagine it ending like a spaghetti western!

[Mudcat]

i thought He might be defending His house (Matthew 21:13).

Geez...this is of thread...

So...do you believe that the Hebrew Temple in which he spoke was the house of Jesus...or do you think it was the house of God the Father? Jesus was quoting scripture from Isaiah 56:7 and Jeremiah 7:11. IOW, was he defending his house or his Father's house?

Jesus also makes another address about his Temple.

Joh 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

Joh 2:21 But he spake of the temple of his body.

So..which Temple is Christ's...his body or the Hebrew temple?

[truebeliever]

Geez...this is of thread...

So...do you believe that the Hebrew Temple in which he spoke was the house of Jesus...or do you think it was the house of God the Father? Jesus was quoting scripture from Isaiah 56:7 and Jeremiah 7:11. IOW, was he defending his house or his Father's house?

I know that Jesus was referring to His body according to John 2:21. That being said, I believe...both...in the sense that I think He knew that the Jews were thinking of the structure. He led them to that in verse 16. He was then defending the Father's house. He changed the meaning of temple/Father's house between verses 16 and 21. The Jews did not realize this.

Jesus also makes another address about his Temple.

Joh 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

Joh 2:21 But he spake of the temple of his body.

So..which Temple is Christ's...his body or the Hebrew temple?

[consiglieri]

However, just how dangerous he could be towards his enemies was much more heavily manifested upon his return than prior to his death. ***

The scripture doesn't say if he did or did not strike people in the Temple. I don't want to make assumptions either way. However, I would think the sheer sight of our Lord wielding a scourge, the anger on his face, the strength of his words... would in and of itself be such a magnificintly fearsome thing to witness. I believe the sheer sight of him in that way would cause men to run.

Dear Mudcat,

Inasmuch as this thread has come to explore the comparison between Joseph Smith and Jesus, I would offer the following:

If Jesus is going to come again and wipe out millions who have rejected him through simple disbelief, can we be too critical of Joseph Smith for firing a few shots into an armed mob intent on killing him?

Don't Mess With Jesus.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Mudcat]

Dear Mudcat,

Inasmuch as this thread has come to explore the comparison between Joseph Smith and Jesus, I would offer the following:

If Jesus is going to come again and wipe out millions who have rejected him through simple disbelief, can we be too critical of Joseph Smith for firing a few shots into an armed mob intent on killing him?

Don't Mess With Jesus.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Consiglieri,

Though, I feel we have come to the mutual understanding that comparing Joseph Smith to Christ is an unfair comparison. Inasmuch as this thread has come to explore the comparison between Joseph Smith and Jesus, I would reply to your inquiry:

I think it would be a misrepresentation of the facts to say that Christ will come to wipe out millions. I would think it more aptly phrased...

All mankind, is "wiped out" from the day they are held accountable for their sin. That point of accountability; be it conception, birth, a specific age, etc.. is obviously subject to debate, but I would think that perhaps you and I could agree that there is a time we become accountable. Once we are accountable, we are "wiped out" so to speak. Christ offers us the oppourtunity to be redeemed and change our status through the acceptance of his atonement and following him as best we can. So to say he has come wipe out those that reject in him would be a different perception of the events as I see them. I think he will come to save those that accept him. I do not think he came here, taught us, suffered for us, died for us and was ressurected for his so that he could wipe out millions.

I think there is a judgment aspect, however, he has Satan and his minions to take care of etc..

In truth I think their are only two basic kinds of people in this world. Those that want a relationship with God and those that don't.

Though I don't quite agree with the premise to the original question, I can still give you my thoughts on, "can we be too critical of Joseph Smith for firing a few shots into an armed mob intent on killing him?"

Yes, we can, as critics...sometimes we can be overly critical. I have overcriticized in the past, wrongfully so, and though I do my best...most likely at somepoint I will be overly critical of something again.

However, just as critics can overcriticize, it is also very possible that supporters can over sensationalize the facts as well. No implied guilt on your part or anyone on this thread...just a broad observation.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

Don't Mess with Jesus

[HanClinto]

I don't accept that I gave an imbalanced list. Nor do I acknowledge sensationalizing or distorting anything. See above.

Well for instance, you didn't say anything about the non-Mo's hating the Mo's for harsh language being preached from the pulpit and in Mormon literature. I'm no expert (as we've established), but I can't help feeling that back-and-forth volleys of preaching between the two camps, including about how anyone who disagrees with him (the only modern prophet of God) is an unlearned fool who is under the influence of Satan, as well as the myriad of prophecies and pronouncements of bloodshed and judgement -- would serve to significantly increase the level of hostility (on both sides). Yet anything resembling "vitriolic preaching and publications" was left off of your list of contributing motivations to the hatred.

For reasons like this (and others), it felt like you were painting an unfair picture. Maybe I'm wrong, and maybe your summary would be whole-heartedly backed by the majority of Mo and non-Mo historians -- at the moment, I'm simply unpersuaded, and I'm not sure there's much to be done until I read more.

What are you disagreeing with me about? That the early Mormons were unjustly persecuted and oppressed? If so, I can't blithely "agree to disagree." I think denying that fact of history is a contemptible view to take.

I'm certainly not disagreeing that there were unjustices done to (and in a smaller measure, by) the early Mormons -- I apologize if I communicated that. I certainly feel that the crimes done against them were certainly unjust and heinous. (Edit: Even if the early Mormons committed an injustice against their neighbor, that in no way authorizes said neighbor to take vengeance into his own hands through mob action. One crime does not justify another -- I just want to make it clear that I'm acknowledging that, and not trying to argue something like "the Mormons weren't abused because they hit back" -- that would be ridiculous, and completely ignoring how morality works.)

Re: identifying the disagreement: Maybe it's not a huge deal, but perhaps I can summarize my difference with you by saying I didn't feel it was a fair portrayal of the situation. Then again, I'm a fairly unlearned peanut gallery, so I don't anticipate swaying many people to my side -- I'm just letting you know where I stand at the moment, though I'll certainly keep my eyes open as I continue to read about this subject. Thanks for your input -- it has not fallen on deaf ears, I will keep it in consideration, and it is genuinely appreciated.

I don't see you budging, and until I read more Kenneth Winn (and things like it), I don't see myself budging any time soon either. I was just trying to acknowledge this impasse, and that was all I meant by "agreeing to disagree" -- sorry for the cliche'.

Thanks for the discussion!

--clint

[Zakuska]

In truth I think their are only two basic kinds of people in this world. Those that want a relationship with God and those that don't.

You might be a Mormon after all...

1 Ne. 14: 10

10 And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, dwhoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth.

[Pahoran]

Consiglieri,

Though, I feel we have come to the mutual understanding that comparing Joseph Smith to Christ is an unfair comparison. Inasmuch as this thread has come to explore the comparison between Joseph Smith and Jesus, I would reply to your inquiry:

I think it would be a misrepresentation of the facts to say that Christ will come to wipe out millions. I would think it more aptly phrased...

All mankind, is "wiped out" from the day they are held accountable for their sin. That point of accountability; be it conception, birth, a specific age, etc.. is obviously subject to debate, but I would think that perhaps you and I could agree that there is a time we become accountable. Once we are accountable, we are "wiped out" so to speak. Christ offers us the oppourtunity to be redeemed and change our status through the acceptance of his atonement and following him as best we can. So to say he has come wipe out those that reject in him would be a different perception of the events as I see them. I think he will come to save those that accept him. I do not think he came here, taught us, suffered for us, died for us and was ressurected for his so that he could wipe out millions.

I think there is a judgment aspect, however, he has Satan and his minions to take care of etc..

In truth I think their are only two basic kinds of people in this world. Those that want a relationship with God and those that don't.

Though I don't quite agree with the premise to the original question, I can still give you my thoughts on, "can we be too critical of Joseph Smith for firing a few shots into an armed mob intent on killing him?"

Yes, we can, as critics...sometimes we can be overly critical. I have overcriticized in the past, wrongfully so, and though I do my best...most likely at somepoint I will be overly critical of something again.

However, just as critics can overcriticize, it is also very possible that supporters can over sensationalize the facts as well. No implied guilt on your part or anyone on this thread...just a broad observation.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

Don't Mess with Jesus

Mudcat,

I wish to apologise for coming down too hard on you earlier, and also to thank you for this post.

It is certainly true that at times we may tend to present Joseph with a bit of a "rosy glow" around him. However, even with that stripped away, I believe this discussion has progressed to the point where we really ought to be able to draw some conclusions.

Can we agree, first of all, that Joseph's recorded actions in the upper room cannot be reproached on moral grounds? IOW, do we agree that he did nothing wrong by shooting back at those who were set on murdering him and his friends?

Secondly, can we agree that defending oneself does not vitiate a claim to martyrdom?

It may be that part of the controversy arises from the martyrolatry that is found in significant portions of mainstream Christendom, and in which we do not share. Which is to say that we don't build shrines to the martyrs, light candles to their statues, or attribute miracles to their relics.

Regards,

Pahoran

[consiglieri]

It is certainly true that at times we may tend to present Joseph with a bit of a "rosy glow" around him.

Is it possible we sometimes present Jesus with a bit of a "rosy glow" around him?

I know that Mudcat sort of wants to let God off the hook for wiping out millions at his second coming; that they really wiped themselves out; and his coming isn't really wiping them out Himself; and they shouldn't take it personal or anything,

BUT

It seems to me that if God knows that his second coming is going to wipe out millions, and he still comes, his actions are at least "knowing" if not "intentional" and would support a conviction for a few counts of second degree murder if not first degree.

My main question is whether the sentence on a million counts of second degree murder would run concurrently or consecutively.

Joseph is a piker compared to Jesus.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mudcat,

I wish to apologise for coming down too hard on you earlier, and also to thank you for this post.

Regards,

Pahoran

To all who feel Pahoran is to hard (or insert favorite adjective here_______) on people and blind to what people actually write. Take a look at the above to a testimony that the great Pahoran is capible of recognizing error on his part. k Carry on.

[LifeOnaPlate]

To all who feel Pahoran is to hard (or insert favorite adjective here_______) on people and blind to what people actually write. Take a look at the above to a testimony that the great Pahoran is capible of recognizing error on his part. k Carry on.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

THat is to bad.

[Mudcat]

Mudcat,

I wish to apologise for coming down too hard on you earlier, and also to thank you for this post.

None necessary...but thankfully accepted.

It is certainly true that at times we may tend to present Joseph with a bit of a "rosy glow" around him. However, even with that stripped away, I believe this discussion has progressed to the point where we really ought to be able to draw some conclusions.

Can we agree, first of all, that Joseph's recorded actions in the upper room cannot be reproached on moral grounds? IOW, do we agree that he did nothing wrong by shooting back at those who were set on murdering him and his friends?

Self-defense and the defense of others is not a reproachable action...so in that...we can agree.

As Ive said previously on the post... I didn't question his actions. Merely the intent of his actions. Those in support of JS have presented a most compelling case. In fact, I would say the whole discussion has been very illuminating. Regardless of which side of the issues you are on...it is very easy to sensationalise or villianise Joseph Smith. I think this discussion has probably helped everyone take their blinders off and look at Joseph Smith the man....not the Prophet or the supervillian.

Secondly, can we agree that defending oneself does not vitiate a claim to martyrdom?

Sure.

It may be that part of the controversy arises from the martyrolatry that is found in significant portions of mainstream Christendom, and in which we do not share. Which is to say that we don't build shrines to the martyrs, light candles to their statues, or attribute miracles to their relics.

Regards,

Pahoran

This is an interesting point and Im not sure that I would let the LDS church entirely off the hook on martyrolatry. I think martyrolatry is a common trait in many religions....Evangelicals..at present don't involve them semselves heavily into this sort of thing, but I won't rule out the fact that it occurs. Baptists, to my knowledge don't build shrines...but we do have special offerings for missions that are named after martyrs who were Baptist.

I think all are a little guilty of it. I think its human nature for those of a particular faith to honor those who have fallen for their faiths sake. However, in a modern world...its a lot easier to encapsulate fallen heroes of their faiths in pictures, books, photographs, web pages, etc.... In many ways technology has changed us a little with the easy access to complicated knowledge. But I am constantly amazed at how unchanged we really are by it all. We still do the same things...the format of how we do them is really the only difference.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[Mudcat]

You might be a Mormon after all...

Sorry... Im not a Mormon

It would conflict with my work...

I employed as Daniel Peterson's sock puppet.

If I became LDS....hed fire me for agreeing with him

just kidding....

seriously though...

That was funny..

But dont quit your day job.

[Anijen]

Is it possible we sometimes present Jesus with a bit of a "rosy glow" around him?

I know that Mudcat sort of wants to let God off the hook for wiping out millions at his second coming; that they really wiped themselves out; and his coming isn't really wiping them out Himself; and they shouldn't take it personal or anything,

BUT

It seems to me that if God knows that his second coming is going to wipe out millions, and he still comes, his actions are at least "knowing" if not "intentional" and would support a conviction for a few counts of second degree murder if not first degree.

My main question is whether the sentence on a million counts of second degree murder would run concurrently or consecutively.

Joseph is a piker compared to Jesus.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

In reading these last couple of posts made me think yeah he is coming and whoo boy I hope I'm on his side. What is intriguing as Mudcat implies its our sins that are gonna kill us not Jesus. That age old question comes up; What about those who never heard of the Savior who has never had the opportunity to accept Christ? Seems a little harsh for the savior to burn these people to a crisp because they never had the chance. What say you guys?

Anijen

[Mudcat]

Consiglieri and Anijen,

I will consider this thread derailed for now...but this may be intersting to talk about.

Is it possible we sometimes present Jesus with a bit of a "rosy glow" around him?

I know that Mudcat sort of wants to let God off the hook for wiping out millions at his second coming; that they really wiped themselves out; and his coming isn't really wiping them out Himself; and they shouldn't take it personal or anything,

BUT

It seems to me that if God knows that his second coming is going to wipe out millions, and he still comes, his actions are at least "knowing" if not "intentional" and would support a conviction for a few counts of second degree murder if not first degree.

My main question is whether the sentence on a million counts of second degree murder would run concurrently or consecutively.

Joseph is a piker compared to Jesus.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

In reading these last couple of posts made me think yeah he is coming and whoo boy I hope I'm on his side. What is intriguing as Mudcat implies its our sins that are gonna kill us not Jesus. That age old question comes up; What about those who never heard of the Savior who has never had the opportunity to accept Christ? Seems a little harsh for the savior to burn these people to a crisp because they never had the chance. What say you guys?

Anijen

Those that never heard about Christ...what happens to them? This is the most difficult theological question IMO. Seriously...it is.

For the record, I am unsuportive of any doctrine I've heard concerning the matter from any Christian faith. LDS included. And to tell you the truth, I really don't know what happens to them.

I'll answer as best I can on this..but realize that it is not a formalized doctrine. Its Mudcat's current theory and is subject to change (it has before, it may again).

If God is fair and just, wishes we shouldn't perish... all of creation proclaims him. I think on some level he reaches everyone. I stated before that I thnk there are two kinds of people basically..those who want a relationship with God and those that don't.

I think somehow in this life...all get an oppourtunity to have God (in a simpler sense) revealed to them. I think if they choose to pursue a relationship with him..through limited knowledge. He will make sure they have an oppourtunity to choose. Now,...Im not sure how that happens. This is a very simplisticl version of my thoughts....but Im running late.

Have a great day,

Mudcat

[Zakuska]

You seem to be at odds with Paul.

Romans 10

1 Brethren, my heartâ??s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.

2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.

3 For they being ignorant of Godâ??s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.

6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:)

7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)

8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;

9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

18 But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.

19 But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you.

20 But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me.

21 But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.

[consiglieri]

If God is fair and just, wishes we shouldn't perish... all of creation proclaims him. I think on some level he reaches everyone. I stated before that I thnk there are two kinds of people basically..those who want a relationship with God and those that don't.

I think somehow in this life...all get an oppourtunity to have God (in a simpler sense) revealed to them. I think if they choose to pursue a relationship with him..through limited knowledge. He will make sure they have an oppourtunity to choose. Now,...Im not sure how that happens. This is a very simplisticl version of my thoughts....but Im running late.

Have a great day,

Mudcat

Dear Mudcat,

I think we would agree that God is fair and just, and wishes us to not perish.

If it is only in and through Jesus Christ that we can be saved, with some sort of knowledge about him and commitment to him, then it makes sense that all should get the opportunity to be presented with the gospel plan before they are judged.

The LDS position resolves this problem (which you correctly note may be "the most difficult theological question) with a simple, though apparently radical, answer:

That all who have died without hearing the gospel proclaimed will get that opportunity prior to being judged.

Thus all may be judged on their acceptance or rejection of the saving gospel through Jesus Christ.

You say that you reject the LDS position on this, but intimate that you basically agree with it in principle, at least.

To your credit, you equally reject the normative evangelical position that if you die without hearing about Jesus, that is just too bad for you.

Is it possible for us to simply agree that you are closer to the LDS position than the normative evangelical position on this one issue?

I mean, without scheduling your for baptism or anything?

Though I would like you challenge you to commit to a tentative baptismal date . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Mudcat]

Consiglieri,

Thanks for your response. I'll do my best to be as thorough as I can in a reply.

I think we would agree that God is fair and just, and wishes us to not perish.

Im with you 100% on this.

If it is only in and through Jesus Christ that we can be saved, with some sort of knowledge about him and commitment to him, then it makes sense that all should get the opportunity to be presented with the gospel plan before they are judged.

This is where what I believe and LDS doctrine seperate... the difference hinges on the last statement, "all should get the opportunity to be presented with the gospel plan before they are judged." The key word being all. I was with you 100% on that one up until the word all...here is why.

I believe,their are two kinds of people(basically)..those who want a relationship with God and those who dont. I believe God is revealed to man (outside of scripture) through creation, perhaps conscience, etc... I believe God is the God of Truth. Those that embrace and conform to what truth they have been given of God, in the best way they can, I think will have an oppourtunity. However, there are wicked people who could actually care less. They are selfserving and ignorant of what God would give them. I don't think they get to hear, bear in mind I believe God does reveal himself to all men in this world. If they thought nothing of it in this life, being dead won't make it any different. In short...I believe they are some decisions on this world that must be made...on some level.

Is it possible for us to simply agree that you are closer to the LDS position than the normative evangelical position on this one issue?

Since current formal Evangelical doctrine would most likely think everything I've stated on this topic is nothing less than heretical....I would say on this one issue I am outside the normative of evangelicalism.

And the fact that LDS have a doctrinal solution that would in some ways seem similar to my thoughts..I suppose you could say...yes, in a very limited way we may agree more closely on this than I do an evangelical position.

I mean, without scheduling your for baptism or anything?

Though I would like you challenge you to commit to a tentative baptismal date . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Don't hold your breath.

Deepest Regards,

Mudcat

[consiglieri]

This is where what I believe and LDS doctrine seperate... the difference hinges on the last statement, "all should get the opportunity to be presented with the gospel plan before they are judged." The key word being all. I was with you 100% on that one up until the word all...here is why.

I believe,their are two kinds of people(basically)..those who want a relationship with God and those who dont. I believe God is revealed to man (outside of scripture) through creation, perhaps conscience, etc... I believe God is the God of Truth. Those that embrace and conform to what truth they have been given of God, in the best way they can, I think will have an oppourtunity. However, there are wicked people who could actually care less. They are selfserving and ignorant of what God would give them. I don't think they get to hear, bear in mind I believe God does reveal himself to all men in this world. If they thought nothing of it in this life, being dead won't make it any different. In short...I believe they are some decisions on this world that must be made...on some level.

Since current formal Evangelical doctrine would most likely think everything I've stated on this topic is nothing less than heretical....I would say on this one issue I am outside the normative of evangelicalism.

And the fact that LDS have a doctrinal solution that would in some ways seem similar to my thoughts..I suppose you could say...yes, in a very limited way we may agree more closely on this than I do an evangelical position.

Deepest Regards,

Mudcat

Thanks for your thorough response. I confess that, in some ways, I am myself outside the normative of Mormonism. Perhaps you and I can meet somewhere outside the normative of our respective religious affiliations.

One of the reasons that I think "all" should get the opportunity to hear the gospel is because we don't know (as humans) who will accept and who will not, and oftentimes appearances can be deceiving.

The apostle Paul would be a classic example of someone who, from all outward appearances, could not have been any less likely to accept the gospel . . . and yet he did.

I think that part of God's fairness and justice requires him to give all the opportunity, whether he may know beforehand that they will accept it or not.

Then, his judgment can be fair and impartial.

The alternative would be for God to judge somebody as not even meriting the opportunity to hear the gospel, because they wouldn't have accepted it anyway.

Now, while I think that God may well be in a position to make such a judgment, in order to be fair, the person has to have at least had the full opportunity to hear and then accept or reject.

I don't see God as being really fair and just otherwise.

By the way, have you given consideration as to how 1 Peter 3:16-18 and 1 Peter 4:6 may play into this discussion?

Heretically yours,

--Consiglieri