How Did Joseph Smith Learn Christianity Was In Error?

[T-Shirt]

I'm afraid the problem remains.

Rob, I think you should have highlighted another portion of the quote above:

"Searching the Scriptures believeing as I was taught, that they contained the word of God thus applying myself to them and my intimate acquaintance with those of differant denominations led me to marvel excedingly far I discovered that <they did not adorn> instead of adorning their profession by a holy walk and Godly conversation agreeable to what I found contained in that sacred depository"

This portion of the quote indicates, to me, that as Joseph searched, in his locality, for a church that fit his understanding of the Bible, he could not find one. He had determined that all the churches, he had investigated, had turned from the true gospel, yet he continued to search. The later account clarifies this by showing that even though he had not found a true church, he had never considered the possibility that the true church of God was not to be found anywhere on earth.

I don't see the problem that you do.

Best,

T-Shirt

Edited August 16, 2011 by T-Shirt

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mola,

You wrote:

I have discussed in another thread the three accounts of Paul's conversion in Acts (there is no comparable narrative account of that event in Paul's own writings). There is one, and only one, alleged contradiction in these accounts. Since all three accounts come in the very same book (Acts), one should consider the possibility that we are missing something in the English translation. This is probably correct, as I have explained. Furthermore, the discrepancy is picayune in comparison to the apparent discrepancies in the various accounts of the First Vision; it has nothing to do with the basic facts (who, what, where, when, why, and how) as they pertain to Paul's experience. I'm guessing you can find that thread easily enough; I don't wish to repeat the whole thing here. If I remember correctly, the thread was about the claim that Joseph was persecuted because of the First Vision story.

So Paul's contradiction is only alleged?

I know, it is not necessary to repeat what you did in that thread. Your response there is just as if not more creative than what I have seen here.

The "big deal" with regard to Joseph Smith's account in Joseph Smith--History is that there are several major factual issues and significant discrepancies that go to the heart of the credibility of the stories told in that text. There are really serious problems pertaining to the account at almost every turn. These concern, for example, the reason for Joseph's prayer in the woods, who appeared to him in the woods, the claim that he was persecuted for the First Vision story, whether the Anthon transcript included an English translation of the characters, whether Anthon could have validated such a translation, and the various problems arising from the loss of the 116 pages. One cannot slough off all of these problems by pleading that Joseph's memory was not infallible or that like anyone else he told the same story a little differently on different occasions.

I disagree that there are "several major factual issues and significant discrepancies".

If you think this thread represent a significant discrepancy then I just have to laugh. Oh well I guess it is ok for opinions to differ?

IF you will note too Rob that you are presenting a straw man. I have never once argued that "all of these problems" were a result of JS memory. I am merely stating about this one issue. Some of the other issues are not issues at all but people trying to make them issues.

Edited August 16, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Questing Beast]

I've read the various First Vision accounts told by Joseph Smith and I don't see too many problems. For me, the only thing that sounds like a contradiction is Joseph's telling of how he learned the churches were in apostasy.

1832 Account:

1838 Account:

In one account he says that the scriptures led him to believe all churches were wrong. In the other, he say it was revealed to him by God. Is this a significant contradiction?

Yes. The two reasons for praying to know cannot be mutually true. On the one hand he already knows none of the sects are correct. Later he remembers his reason for praying was to ask which if any to join, and he was then told they were all wrong and abominable.

I go with the explanation that Joseph Smith's memory was as fallible and facile as anyone's. He remembered in 1838 that he had already asked which church was true, if any were; because by then his authority was being challenged by the Kirtland apostates, and he required authority to refute them. His "1820" first vision already answered the apostates' assertions that they possessed at least as good authority as "Joe Smith's". If the 1838 version is literally true, then God had already shown that authority did not then exist on the earth: that meant that Joseph Smith's revelations were God restoring authority through him, i.e. there could be no possibility of other visionaries also having authority from God. The earlier versions, especially the 1832 in his own hand, did not have apostates attacking his authority in mind. In fact, the 1832 account is simply stating how Joseph Smith came to know God and his standing before him. It was the story of how his religious calling began....

[LeSellers]

he was then told they [the churches he knew] were all wrong and abominable.

No!

This is not rocket science. It was not the churches that were abominable, it was the creeds that were abominable. It was "those professors" who were corrupt, i.e.., the ones who were running the revival meetings, not the individual members, and not even all the ministers in the area. (I bid you read Samuel Clemens' The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn for details about the ethics of many revivalist ministers.)

Lehi

Edited August 16, 2011 by LeSellers

[stemelbow]

Hmmm...the way I see it is this:

In 1838 Joseph ponderously added the phrase, including heart purposefully, to suggest though he thought all were in apostacy, he couldn't quite bring himself to really embrace the thought. "could they be all wrong? Perhaps so." But in his heart perhaps that didn't quite square, afterall why would God allow Christianity to go into apostacy?

In this, its not so much a contradiction, per se, but a very specific way of wanting to say what he truly felt about it all (which afterall, incidentally, is the exact reason why he decided to create the 1838 account anyway).

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Hmmm...the way I see it is this:

In 1838 Joseph ponderously added the phrase, including heart purposefully, to suggest though he thought all were in apostacy, he couldn't quite bring himself to really embrace the thought. "could they be all wrong? Perhaps so." But in his heart perhaps that didn't quite square, afterall why would God allow Christianity to go into apostacy?

In this, its not so much a contradiction, per se, but a very specific way of wanting to say what he truly felt about it all (which afterall, incidentally, is the exact reason why he decided to create the 1838 account anyway).

This is plausible.

[Ahab]

I've read the various First Vision accounts told by Joseph Smith and I don't see too many problems. For me, the only thing that sounds like a contradiction is Joseph's telling of how he learned the churches were in apostasy.

1832 Account:

1838 Account:

In one account he says that the scriptures led him to believe all churches were wrong. In the other, he say it was revealed to him by God. Is this a significant contradiction?

The scriptures led him to believe [something] and God personally appeared to him later to confirm, through his Son, what the scriptures had led him to believe.

Wouldn't it be nice if all of us learned that way?

Most of us learn about God by getting ideas from the scriptures, first, with God (our Father) later confirming the truth of our ideas through his Son and the promptings of the Holy Ghost, but most of us don't have our Father or his Son personally appear to us, as they did to Joseph.

That's about the only difference between what happens to us and what happened to Joseph, in that instance, but eitiher way it's still God who is talking to us and there is no contradiction in what he has told us.

[Ahab]

No!

This is not rocket science. It was not the churches that were abominable, it was the creeds that were abominable. It was "those professors" who were corrupt, i.e.., the ones who were running the revival meetings, not the individual members, and not even all the ministers in the area. (I bid you read Samuel Clemens' The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn for details about the ethics of many revivalist ministers.)

Lehi

I think the "professors" our Lord was referring to were the professors of those creeds. It was they who were corrupt, and they had become corrupt by not only "accepting" the creeds which our Lord has said are abominable, but by "professing" those creeds as the truth.

To be a false teacher all you have to do is teach things which are false, and a false teacher is a not a good teacher of truth, hence, they are corrupt teachers.

[Rivers]

delete

Edited August 16, 2011 by Rivers

[Rivers]

I've always understood that there were many details of the first vision that were too personal and sacred for Joseph speak of right away. He even explains, in the 1838 account, that there were many things that couldn't be written. Is it possible that Joseph purposely told the story in different ways as his confidence grew and his role as a prophet developed?

[LeSellers]

I think the "professors" our Lord was referring to were the professors of those creeds. It was they who were corrupt, and they had become corrupt by not only "accepting" the creeds which our Lord has said are abominable, but by "professing" those creeds as the truth.

That's another compatible reading of the words that are actually there, rather than those the antis continually try to pass off as what Joseph wrote.

Lehi

[Mansquatch]

There seems to be a distinction between something "entering into a heart" and something being pondered or thought about in a heart in Joseph's usage of the phrase. To "enter into a heart" seems to have a certain and solidifying meaning when used by Joseph. In other uses of the phrase by Joseph this seems to be the case that when something "enters" the heart it has a spiritual confirmation followed by a solid conviction thereafter.

In a letter to William Smith, Joseph says that never did it "enter into his heart" that there was any wrangling or jealousy toward Joseph in William's heart. Joseph then describes uneasy feelings he had in his "breast" about the whole situation even before meeting up with William. So which is it? Did Joseph feel great about things with William before he met with him only to have it enter his heart later, or did he have feelings about it in his breast before the meeting? Maybe Joseph meant something different by using the word "breast", maybe the thought went into his pectoral or a nipple and waited there a while, only to finally enter the heart later. How else can we nitpick and avoid the spirit in anything said?

No takers? Really??

I thought it was a great explanation for pondering in heart or finding something vs. "entering the heart" and I have some examples of usage by Joseph following the same pattern. I kinda wanted this to either be shot down or further supported if either was possible. Anyone?

The only phrase, I see, that on the surface could appear inconsistent is that it hadn't entered into his heart. If the phrase "entered into his heart" had a more specific, conversion and resolution related definition to Joseph then this is easily explained. All examples I have found of him using this phrase come with a surety and conviction of things.

Also we kind of skipped over this part of the 1832 account that is written right before he says he found that mankind had apostatized:

thus from the age of twelve years to fifteen

Kind of important to note since the first vision occurred when he was 14. The 1832 account doesn't seem to follow any strict timeline. That's just another hole in this shaky boat though.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

No takers? Really??

I confess I missed your response. It is also quite plausible.

[Calm]

This portion of the quote indicates, to me, that as Joseph searched, in his locality, for a church that fit his understanding of the Bible, he could not find one. He had determined that all the churches, he had investigated, had turned from the true gospel, yet he continued to search. The later account clarifies this by showing that even though he had not found a true church, he had never considered the possibility that the true church of God was not to be found anywhere on earth.

I would agree. It is hardly a stretch or difficult "artificial" construction to add "that I knew" as a qualifier to his judgment while allowing for him to still retain a question about churches he did not know.

Joseph Smith was at most 16 or 17 and possibly only 14 at the time of the First Vision. Teens often tend to think and talk in absolutes, all or nothing constructs, but even a teen---especially an intelligent, sensitive one with a limited experience of the world----would hesitate to assume that his experience could be extrapolated to everywhere in the world even if his despair might make him feel like it. Yes, he would tend to see the excesses and lacks of the local denominations in black and white and thus condemn them in his heart as not the true faith that he believed he found in the Bible as opposed to the reactions of adults like Luther in the past where the true faith was seen as still present, just contaminated by the world; but he would also have enough self-doubt (as teens tend to have both unreasonable confidence and self-doubt at the same time) to hope that there was somewhere out there that the true faith might still exist within the organization of a church he had not yet encountered.

I believe it is a profound mistake to attempt to apply mature reasoning and perception to a teen's internal experiences, even if the society they are a part of sees them as a cultural adult as the brain has not fully developed into the same patterns that a fully matured individual has. Add to that the circumstance that it is a mature adult with many additional experiences relaying what happened to him as a youth and thus adding layers of understanding that weren't present in Joseph's mind at the time of the First Vision and you have the result where the description of the experience includes both the extremes of youth and cautions of maturity.

[Calm]

No takers? Really??

I thought it was a great explanation for pondering in heart or finding something vs. "entering the heart" and I have some examples of usage by Joseph following the same pattern. I kinda wanted this to either be shot down or further supported if either was possible. Anyone?

The only phrase, I see, that on the surface could appear inconsistent is that it hadn't entered into his heart. If the phrase "entered into his heart" had a more specific, conversion and resolution related definition to Joseph then this is easily explained. All examples I have found of him using this phrase come with a surety and conviction of things.

Also we kind of skipped over this part of the 1832 account that is written right before he says he found that mankind had apostatized:

Kind of important to note since the first vision occurred when he was 14. The 1832 account doesn't seem to follow any strict timeline. That's just another hole in this shaky boat though.

Excellent work to find additional examples of how Joseph used the phrase in general to add to the understanding of how he used the phrase in specific. If FAIR doesn't already have these examples on its website that deals with this issue, I would encourage you to mail them so they can add them to the info there.

add-on: in fact, I am posting a link to the FAIR wiki writers myself as I do not see the other examples listed on the page here: http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith%27s_First_Vision/Contradiction_about_knowing_all_churches_were_wrong

Edited August 16, 2011 by calmoriah

[Ahab]

There seems to be a distinction between something "entering into a heart" and something being pondered or thought about in a heart in Joseph's usage of the phrase. To "enter into a heart" seems to have a certain and solidifying meaning when used by Joseph. In other uses of the phrase by Joseph this seems to be the case that when something "enters" the heart it has a spiritual confirmation followed by a solid conviction thereafter.

I get that sense, too. From the scriptures he seemed to think or sense the Christian world had gone apostate, in general, even though he might have thought there could be one which was the Lord's church, and then later when the LORD told him that ALL of the churches had gone apostate, his thought or sense was confirmed and the message the Lord gave him actually entered into his heart, thus not only confirming his idea that all "might" have gone apostate, according to his idea and his understanding of how the Church should be, but that all of them actually DID!!!

In a letter to William Smith, Joseph says that never did it "enter into his heart" that there was any wrangling or jealousy toward Joseph in William's heart. Joseph then describes uneasy feelings he had in his "breast" about the whole situation even before meeting up with William. So which is it? Did Joseph feel great about things with William before he met with him only to have it enter his heart later, or did he have feelings about it in his breast before the meeting? Maybe Joseph meant something different by using the word "breast", maybe the thought went into his pectoral or a nipple and waited there a while, only to finally enter the heart later. How else can we nitpick and avoid the spirit in anything said?

This one's a little more clear to me, or at least I have an idea of what that was about which makes more sense in my own mind. I think Joseph could sense there was something troubling his brother, William, but he really didn't know what it was, for sure, and then he later found out that what was troubling William was his own feelings of jealousy and a spirit of contention which caused him to "wrangle" against Joseph, his brother.

[zerinus]

I've always understood that there were many details of the first vision that were too personal and sacred for Joseph speak of right away. He even explains, in the 1838 account, that there were many things that couldn't be written. Is it possible that Joseph purposely told the story in different ways as his confidence grew and his role as a prophet developed?

Yes, I am sure that is what he did do. We tend to do that, if we have a story to tell, if it is too long, or if for some reason we don't want to tell it in full detail, we will condense it, and leave some parts out and leave some parts in. We won't tell all the story, but parts of it. And if we tell that story at different times to different people, the bits we leave out and the bits we disclose might be different in each occasion, depending on how we assess the situation. I think that all of us might have done something like that at some stage in our lives.

Edited August 17, 2011 by zerinus

[ldsfaqs]

ldsfaq,

The 1838 account does say that Joseph asked God which church to join. That is not in dispute.

Yes, but my point of making the statement is to show "what was in Joseph's mind".

If Joseph already had in his mind that NO CHURCH on the earth existed that was true as you claim by focusing on his later "hadn't entered into my mind" statement and comparing it to the earlier statement of him thinking there "was no true Church", then he WOULD NOT have asked the question.

Make sense?

What is in dispute is whether or how the account in this regard coheres with the 1832 account. Neither account says that he thought all of the churches were false but wasn't absolutely sure he was right. That is a harmonization of the two accounts, not something either account says. Furthermore, it is an artificial harmonization that does not do justice to either account, as I shall explain below.

Just because he didn't "mention" in either account that specific detail doesn't mean he didn't think it. And as I showed you, the very fact that he even ASKED which Church was true proves unequivocally that he had to have thought it. Thus, you're ignoring important details for the sake of your "legalistic" interpretation of his words.

Yes, let's notice the actual wording of the 1832 account:

This is hardly the description of an "intellectual exercise" as distinguished from having something in his heart. In fact, Joseph says here that he pondered in his heart the contentions, divisions, wickedness, abominations, and darkness that characterized the complete apostasy he says he had come to recognize through searching the Scriptures. This means your explanation for the differences between the two accounts simply doesn't work:

No one is saying that the "heart" wasn't involved in both accounts. I'm only saying that the fact that the particular judgment in question was based on his own intellectual experience, doesn't somehow "rule out" as you believe any possibility that he still wondered if there was a True Church on the earth. And as I've already showed, his asking Christ the question, proves clearly that his intellectual judgment in the 1832 version wasn't somehow "absolute" and firm as you believe, and as the wording seems to imply.

This actually points to a main problem with believers of other religions, especially ones that feel the need to be anti-mormon.

You all have a bad "habit" of creating theology, and creating judgments from simply ONE STATEMENT or scripture, instead of understanding both the context the statement was made AND the context of other statements, scriptures, etc. It's like anti-mormon claims from statements by various leaders in history. You all try to create "doctrine" alone from every statement, completely ignoring the context of the statement, and completely ignoring what the actual doctrine is.

On another forum I had another anti-mormon quoting the JofD that a statement by one of the First Presidency of Brigham Young, Newl Whitney or whatever had actually denied the official version of the First Vison, 40 years after it was given. This by the way is a common repeated anti-mormon claim. Well, by going and actually reading the JofD one sees clearly that the guy wasn't talking about the First Vision at all, he was talking about Priesthood delegation of authority, etc.

You guys do it with the Grace scriptures or the God is spirit scripture in the Bible also, and many other subjects. You create an entire doctrine or theory that is false by only focusing on those words alone, instead of the full context of the subject and scriptures. You're doing her with Joseph's Words.

No, in the 1832 account Joseph claims that he had considered the matter in his heart, pondering it in his heart and being grieved in his soul over the matter. He claims that he took the matter very seriously indeed, so much so that he became exceedingly distressed and mourned for his own sins and for the sins of the world.

I understand that..... See above.

I'm afraid the problem remains.

Nope, see mine and T Shirts comments, and others.

The anti-mormon obsession with "legalism" when it concerns mormonism, but generally not applying the same to their own faith is fascinating to me.

I mean goodness, the 4 Gospels Matt., Mark, Luke, & John couldn't be more contradictory, even much more so than the First Vision in certain cases, yet it's okay for the Bible, but not okay for Mormonism.

[Ahab]

Yes, but my point of making the statement is to show "what was in Joseph's mind".

If Joseph already had in his mind that NO CHURCH on the earth existed that was true as you claim by focusing on his later "hadn't entered into my mind" statement and comparing it to the earlier statement of him thinking there "was no true Church", then he WOULD NOT have asked the question.

Make sense?

Makes sense, yes, but that's not the only scenario that makes sense and I can see what I think is a better way to put the whole picture together. I tried to explain that before but I'll try to do better this time. I think this is how it played out for Joseph:

1) Joseph grew up reading and studying the scriptures with his family and throughout his young life he had developed ideas in his own mind about how the true Church of Christ was during the days of our Lord and his first apostles.

2) Joseph eventually came to the point where he wanted to join a particular church, and during his search he was looking for which church appeared to be the church that had continued since the days of our Lord and his first apostles.

3) Joseph particularly favored the Methodist sect, even though he didn't feel sure it was the true church of Christ because certain things didn't line up according to how he thought the true church of Christ should be, and he also entertained the idea that all of the churches he knew of had grown apostate in some sense since the days of our Lord and his apostles even though maybe, just maybe, the Lord still accepted one or more of the churches as still somehow being acceptable for him to join.

4) Joseph contemplated joining the Methodist sect, but he still didn't feel totally right about that idea, and to make sure he made the right choice he needed some more wisdom so he went into the woods to pray for more wisdom because he felt sure the Lord would give him more wisdom, based on what he felt about what James had said in James 1:5.

5) The Lord then appeared to him, along with his Father, and he asked him which church he should join, and although he had had the idea in his mind that all of the churches "might" have gone apostate, it never really did enter into his "heart" that all of them actually HAD and there actually was NO true church of Christ on the Earth at that time.

Understand, at least mentally, that according to the Lord, all of the churches then extant drew near to the Lord with their mouths, and probably to some extent in their minds, but according to the Lord their "hearts" were far from him, having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof.

Just because he didn't "mention" in either account that specific detail doesn't mean he didn't think it. And as I showed you, the very fact that he even ASKED which Church was true proves unequivocally that he had to have thought it. Thus, you're ignoring important details for the sake of your "legalistic" interpretation of his words.

To "think" something and to actually have something in your "heart" are 2 different, but related, things.

Most people have something in their mind before making a decision or choice about something, but what do they have in their heart, and who can really tell, for sure?

[Ahab]

Yes, but my point of making the statement is to show "what was in Joseph's mind".

If Joseph already had in his mind that NO CHURCH on the earth existed that was true as you claim by focusing on his later "hadn't entered into my mind" statement and comparing it to the earlier statement of him thinking there "was no true Church", then he WOULD NOT have asked the question.

Make sense?

Makes sense, yes, but that's not the only scenario that makes sense and I can see what I think is a better way to put the whole picture together. I tried to explain that before but I'll try to do better this time. I think this is how it played out for Joseph:

1) Joseph grew up reading and studying the scriptures with his family and throughout his young life he had developed ideas in his own mind about how the true Church of Christ was during the days of our Lord and his first apostles.

2) Joseph eventually came to the point where he wanted to join a particular church, and during his search he was looking for which church appeared to be the church that had continued since the days of our Lord and his first apostles.

3) Joseph particularly favored the Methodist sect, even though he didn't feel sure it was the true church of Christ because certain things didn't line up according to how he thought the true church of Christ should be, and he also entertained the idea that all of the churches he knew of had grown apostate in some sense since the days of our Lord and his apostles even though maybe, just maybe, the Lord still accepted one or more of the churches as still somehow being acceptable for him to join.

4) Joseph contemplated joining the Methodist sect, but he still didn't feel totally right about that idea, and to make sure he made the right choice he needed some more wisdom so he went into the woods to pray for more wisdom because he felt sure the Lord would give him more wisdom, based on what he felt about what James had said in James 1:5.

5) The Lord then appeared to him, along with his Father, and he asked him which church he should join, and although he had had the idea in his mind that all of the churches "might" have gone apostate, it never really did enter into his "heart" that all of them actually HAD and there actually was NO true church of Christ on the Earth at that time.

Understand, at least mentally, that according to the Lord, all of the churches then extant drew near to the Lord with their mouths, and probably to some extent in their minds, but according to the Lord their "hearts" were far from him, having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof.

Just because he didn't "mention" in either account that specific detail doesn't mean he didn't think it. And as I showed you, the very fact that he even ASKED which Church was true proves unequivocally that he had to have thought it. Thus, you're ignoring important details for the sake of your "legalistic" interpretation of his words.

To "think" something and to actually have something in your "heart" are 2 different, but related, things.

Most people have something in their mind before making a decision or choice about something, but what do they have in their heart, and who can really tell, for sure?

[ldsfaqs]

A proper analysis Ahab.....

What's further interesting to me is that most of us LDS are essentially "Mini-Joseph Smiths", at least in the process of discovery in trying to find the truth or the true church, especially converts.

I went to these different religions, and I would be reading the Bible myself, and I'm looking at what the Bible says on the various subjects, then looking at the religions, and I'm saying, this stuff doesn't match. It makes me further laugh that Christian Anti-mormons try to claim that "their" religion is really what the Bible teaches. It's simply can't be so..... because I didn't have any bias or interest in any particular religion or religious ideology's, and it was clear that the Bible didn't fit any of those religions. Yet, someone who's had only bias in his particular religious box in nearly all respects is somehow "objective" in judging that "their" religious ideology is what the Bible really says? Of course, not saying people in a box can't be objective, but you especially often can't when you have a bigotry ideology of needing to "cult" identify every other religion, i.e. that which is good in the world. Good doesn't attack good, only evil and perversion attacks good. Thus, it's clear that anti-mormons are FAR from proper "objectivity".

Edited August 17, 2011 by ldsfaqs

[jo1952]

Well there you have it. I'm leaving the church.

hahaha....

Hi MF (is it okay to abbreviate your name that way?):

Seriously, "grappled"?

I never tell my conversion story the same way twice, because I remember different details at different times. This is really seriously grasping at straws. If he was lying you can bet the stories would be perfectly consistent because he would have checked out what he had written before. Do you really think he was a stupid man?

I suppose if one has never had a spiritual experience, one might think that way.

Maybe it's time to talk about "altar calls" and how you know if you're saved again, and what exactly you believed before you were saved, and how you recall what you believed.

This is a very weak argument, Rob

Your comment about "altar calls" reminded me of my own younger brother and his wife. He was Lutheran, and she was RCC. In the mid 1980's they went to a "Harvest" held at the Angel Stadium in Anaheim, California. While there, they became "born again" Christians. I don't know what type of Christians they then considered themselves to have been before that event.

Now, I had converted to the LDS faith back in 1974 from the Lutheran church. Though I was baptized again when I became LDS, I never considered myself as changing from Christianity to...well...Christianity by joining the LDS Church. For me, I was changing denominations as I had finally found one that agreed with what the Bible had been teaching me my whole life. Much like Joseph Smith, I had been searching - my search, from the time I realized the Lutheran church's doctrine was very different from what I had personally learned, took nine years. I had the most amazing experience with the Holy Ghost (with whom I was already familiar with experiencing throughout my life), when I prayed about the Book of Mormon.

Interestingly (and sadly), it wasn't until after my brother and sister-in-law became "born again", that they started to attend Calvary Chapel. At that time, in their eyes they suddently considered me damned and demonic.....sigh. It has been the same with them ever since.

Best regards,

jo

[jo1952]

A proper analysis Ahab.....

What's further interesting to me is that most of us LDS are essentially "Mini-Joseph Smiths", at least in the process of discovery in trying to find the truth or the true church, especially converts.

I went to these different religions, and I would be reading the Bible myself, and I'm looking at what the Bible says on the various subjects, then looking at the religions, and I'm saying, this stuff doesn't match. It makes me further laugh that Christian Anti-mormons try to claim that "their" religion is really what the Bible teaches. It's simply can't be so..... because I didn't have any bias or interest in any particular religion or religious ideology's, and it was clear that the Bible didn't fit any of those religions. Yet, someone who's had only bias in his particular religious box in nearly all respects is somehow "objective" in judging that "their" religious ideology is what the Bible really says? Of course, not saying people in a box can't be objective, but you especially often can't when you have a bigotry ideology of needing to "cult" identify every other religion, i.e. that which is good in the world. Good doesn't attack good, only evil and perversion attacks good. Thus, it's clear that anti-mormons are FAR from proper "objectivity".

If I might share a little about my husband's conversion. I don't think he will mind. I met him about three years ago. On our very first date he told me that he had become a Christian about two years previous to our meeting. He also mentioned that he had so much more to learn and was still searching for more and more truth (music to an LDS person's ears....). Of COURSE I almost burst out with the offering that I had some things to share with him!! He told me not to get my hopes up because he was VERY thorough in studying and reasoning things out in his mind. That is when he shared his story about coming to read and study the Bible because he had come to a point in his studies of quantum mechanics where there was no other explanation for what he was seeing other than there HAD to be an unseen power at work beyond what was physically seen in our world. He put the Bible to task for about two and a-half years; researching, reading, re-reading, building charts out of what he was reading in the Bible, making sure there were no loose ends or inconsistencies, etc., before he would allow himself to exercise faith in Christ. (You should see some of those studies he created!!) His faith is so solid; so pure! One of the other things he told me on our first date is that he thought it would be wise for me to start putting together a good year's supply of food, and clothing, etc. (!!!) Again, I couldn't believe my ears. Truth really IS everywhere, and the Holy Ghost leads you right to it!!!!

He immediately went out and purchased his own copies of the Book of Mormon, D&C and PofGP, and began studying them. He also started having the Missionaries teach him. Meanwhile, he introduced me to apologetics. I discovered that he was continually butting heads with Orthodoxy. He was already convinced, before he ever heard it from a Missionary, that there had been a huge apostasy. He could also not be convinced by other Christians that the Trinity was a correct explanation, or that it was necessary to have a correct "true nature" of God in your mind when you prayed, or in order to be saved. When we would post to the same threads he would be accused of being my alter ego - people thought we were the same poster. They accused him of not being honest in portraying his religious affiliation (something other websites require of participants).

To make a very long story much shorter, it took him two and a-half years of studying the Standard Works and the Church in general, when he suddenly said, let's call the Missionaries and set a time for my baptism. We are planning to be sealed as soon as his first year of Church membership has been completed!

Best regards,

jo (aka Franktalk's wife)

[ldsfaqs]

Thank you jo..... Wonderful story, and absolutely the truth.

As to the "nature of God", I posted this on another forum...... It was in response to some scriptures the person quoted which said they "did know" the Purpose of Life from the Bible.

You know part of it, but not all. The above statement also says why that is. (this was the statement she had quoted)

"The Lord restored His gospel through Joseph Smith because there had been an apostasy. Since the fifth century, Christianity taught that Adam and Eve’s Fall was a tragic mistake, which led to the belief that humankind has an inherently evil nature. That view is wrong—not only about the Fall and human nature, but about the very purpose of life."

LDS Elder Bruce C. Hafen, The Atonement: All for All, Ensign, May 2004

"Traditional" Christians have completely changed Key Doctrines of God, including as related to who we are, and who we are to be.

You believe we are nothing, only creatures, we believe we are literal children of the Father, who are to be even as he is. Yes, you sort of believe the same, but not literally so, for you still view yourselves as "creatures", a creation completely separate and different from God, and even Christ. Heck, you don't even believe in a Christ. You believe in a Trinity, one being manifested as three "persons", an essence manifested in three different ways, and whatever else.

I mean, you speak in literal terms, but you don't really believe them. For you believe Christ is actually the Father, but just a different manifestation or whatever nuance you all believe. The Restoration makes absolutely clear who God is, who the Godhead is, who Christ and the Holy Ghost are, and who we are, ALL of our natures.

You call Angels and Satan and whomever as something "other" than us. When we call them us in the pre-mortal life etc.

- You say you know the purpose, but you don't really believe it.

- You don't actually believe we are able to be exactly as the Father is.

- You don't actually believe we can inherit His Glory and Kingdom (after all how can we since we are only "creatures/creations" something completely different than God)?

- You don't really believe you can be like Christ, be One with Him as he is One with the Father. After all, he's God, and you aren't gods and can't be gods.

- You say you are his children.... yet you don't really believe it, again, you are creatures/creations....

- You believe Christ is the "Son of God", yet you don't actually believe it, instead believing in a Trinity manifestation whatever.

- You believe Christ is the "

Only Begotten Son

of God", yet you don't actually believe it, again the Trinity thing.

On and on......

The Baptism of Christ at the River Jordon made absolutely clear that the Godhead is THREE DIFFERENT BEINGS.....

- Christ was there

- A voice from Heaven Spoke (Father)

- And the Holy Ghost was there (form of a dove)

These are not three "persons" of the same whatever thing, it's three separate beings, individuals, etc.

Christ said, why call me "good", there is none good accept the Father.

That's a separate BEING statement!

The Bible is FULL of different ways of indicating who we are, who Christ is in relation to us, and who the Father is in relation to Christ and us.

I knew THE BIBLE.... while I was in all the various religions, and NONE fit the Bible until I knew Mormonism.

You "think" you know the Bible, but you only see what your religion tells you to see, you don't actually know the book by itself. You have a vision bias. I however, saw the book as itself. I was invested in no particular ideology, I just read the book, and saw how all the various religions got various things wrong, and how they were missing many things.

I know you "feel" good and all, about your current intellectual judgment. But as the Bible says, your feelings decieve you, without wisdom in truth that comes from God. Key word is wisdom....

A wise man can see, that when you say Christ is the only begotten, and don't really believe it, there is a LOSS of logic there.

A wise man can see, that when the Bible continually shows the Godhead are separate beings and individuals, yet your religion tells you something else esoteric and mystical, that there is a loss of logic there.

On and on and on....

Truth must have logical consistency to be truth. Truth cannot defy the absolutes that make Truth, if it does, it's not truth anymore, it's something else of men.

Anyone with wisdom can look through history and see clearly how the doctrines of men have mingled with the doctrines of God, and changed simple and clear concepts into something nonsensical. Without any bias toward any one thing, this was the very first thing I noticed of the religions.

The very act of the Protestant Reformation is a blatant "New Religion". Anyone not seeing that is lacking wisdom and denying basic logic. To claim "truth" from that, is simply denying reality for a fantasy that you have been told to accept.

I mean, it's fine if you feel "good" where you are and it feels "right" to you..... But to claim the "absolute truth" and "Biblical Truth" from God where you are given all the facts above, is completely without logic. You have no claim to make such a claim. You have no "right" to be making such a claim. No one gave you that right, especially given your "traditions" which clearly show you have no claim to the Holy Prophets, the High Priesthood.

[jo1952]

Thank you jo..... Wonderful story, and absolutely the truth.

As to the "nature of God", I posted this on another forum...... It was in response to some scriptures the person quoted which said they "did know" the Purpose of Life from the Bible.

You know part of it, but not all. The above statement also says why that is. (this was the statement she had quoted)

"The Lord restored His gospel through Joseph Smith because there had been an apostasy. Since the fifth century, Christianity taught that Adam and Eve’s Fall was a tragic mistake, which led to the belief that humankind has an inherently evil nature. That view is wrong—not only about the Fall and human nature, but about the very purpose of life."

LDS Elder Bruce C. Hafen, The Atonement: All for All, Ensign, May 2004

"Traditional" Christians have completely changed Key Doctrines of God, including as related to who we are, and who we are to be.

You believe we are nothing, only creatures, we believe we are literal children of the Father, who are to be even as he is. Yes, you sort of believe the same, but not literally so, for you still view yourselves as "creatures", a creation completely separate and different from God, and even Christ. Heck, you don't even believe in a Christ. You believe in a Trinity, one being manifested as three "persons", an essence manifested in three different ways, and whatever else.

I mean, you speak in literal terms, but you don't really believe them. For you believe Christ is actually the Father, but just a different manifestation or whatever nuance you all believe. The Restoration makes absolutely clear who God is, who the Godhead is, who Christ and the Holy Ghost are, and who we are, ALL of our natures.

You call Angels and Satan and whomever as something "other" than us. When we call them us in the pre-mortal life etc.

- You say you know the purpose, but you don't really believe it.

- You don't actually believe we are able to be exactly as the Father is.

- You don't actually believe we can inherit His Glory and Kingdom (after all how can we since we are only "creatures/creations" something completely different than God)?

- You don't really believe you can be like Christ, be One with Him as he is One with the Father. After all, he's God, and you aren't gods and can't be gods.

- You say you are his children.... yet you don't really believe it, again, you are creatures/creations....

- You believe Christ is the "Son of God", yet you don't actually believe it, instead believing in a Trinity manifestation whatever.

- You believe Christ is the "

Only Begotten Son

of God", yet you don't actually believe it, again the Trinity thing.

On and on......

The Baptism of Christ at the River Jordon made absolutely clear that the Godhead is THREE DIFFERENT BEINGS.....

- Christ was there

- A voice from Heaven Spoke (Father)

- And the Holy Ghost was there (form of a dove)

These are not three "persons" of the same whatever thing, it's three separate beings, individuals, etc.

Christ said, why call me "good", there is none good accept the Father.

That's a separate BEING statement!

The Bible is FULL of different ways of indicating who we are, who Christ is in relation to us, and who the Father is in relation to Christ and us.

I knew THE BIBLE.... while I was in all the various religions, and NONE fit the Bible until I knew Mormonism.

You "think" you know the Bible, but you only see what your religion tells you to see, you don't actually know the book by itself. You have a vision bias. I however, saw the book as itself. I was invested in no particular ideology, I just read the book, and saw how all the various religions got various things wrong, and how they were missing many things.

I know you "feel" good and all, about your current intellectual judgment. But as the Bible says, your feelings decieve you, without wisdom in truth that comes from God. Key word is wisdom....

A wise man can see, that when you say Christ is the only begotten, and don't really believe it, there is a LOSS of logic there.

A wise man can see, that when the Bible continually shows the Godhead are separate beings and individuals, yet your religion tells you something else esoteric and mystical, that there is a loss of logic there.

On and on and on....

Truth must have logical consistency to be truth. Truth cannot defy the absolutes that make Truth, if it does, it's not truth anymore, it's something else of men.

Anyone with wisdom can look through history and see clearly how the doctrines of men have mingled with the doctrines of God, and changed simple and clear concepts into something nonsensical. Without any bias toward any one thing, this was the very first thing I noticed of the religions.

The very act of the Protestant Reformation is a blatant "New Religion". Anyone not seeing that is lacking wisdom and denying basic logic. To claim "truth" from that, is simply denying reality for a fantasy that you have been told to accept.

I mean, it's fine if you feel "good" where you are and it feels "right" to you..... But to claim the "absolute truth" and "Biblical Truth" from God where you are given all the facts above, is completely without logic. You have no claim to make such a claim. You have no "right" to be making such a claim. No one gave you that right, especially given your "traditions" which clearly show you have no claim to the Holy Prophets, the High Priesthood.

That was awesome!! Thank you very much for sharing!!

Love,

jo