Elder Oaks Addresses All Christians In His Talk

[Calm]

The real truth is that they don't care who is "saved" and who isn't. The only thing that they really care about is who joins their respective churches and who doesn't. It is like commercial companies competing with each other to get people to buy their products. The more people join their churches, the more power, influence, and money they get. That is what really motivates them. Your "salvation" is the last thing that they have in mind.

While some may operate with this motivation, I have known many who are primarily concerned with the welfare of their fellowmen, who have seen a specific need and started or worked with a congregation to meet that need. This above is an extreme position and if you really mean it (which considering your past statements I have to wonder as you seem to hold contradictory positions but have been willing to make such absolute accusations as well) and are not just using hyperbole as I hope, I would say it's a bigoted one as well.

Edited October 4, 2011 by calmoriah

[zerinus]

While some may operate with this motivation, I have known many who are primarily concerned with the welfare of their fellowmen, who have seen a specific need and started or worked with a congregation to meet that need. This above is an extreme position and if you really mean it (which considering your past statements I have to wonder as you seem to hold contradictory positions but have been willing to make such absolute accusations as well) and are not just using hyperbole as I hope, I would say it's a bigoted one as well.

There are genuine Christians among them as well as non-genuine ones, the ones whom the Lord has referred to as those churches which "are built up to get gain, and all those who are built up to get power over the flesh, and those who are built up to become popular in the eyes of the world, and those who seek the lusts of the flesh and the things of the world, and to do all manner of iniquity" (1 Nephi 22:23); and those who "do not fear me, neither keep my commandments but build up churches unto themselves to get gain, yea, and all those that do wickedly and build up the kingdom of the devil" (D&C 10:56). I agree that the genuine Christians are in the majority; but the non-genuine ones are the ones who shout the loudest; and drown out the voice of the genuine ones.

I always like to go by what the Lord has said, as you may have noticed. I find that that is always the safest way to go, and the most easily defendable in the face of criticism.

Edited October 4, 2011 by zerinus

[Gervin]

I am sure what you are seeing it wrong. Read my post again, and you will understand whom the Lord was referring to in the First Vision.

It's very clear who the Lord is referring to in the First Vision:

I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

The sects were all wrong - not just a small minority. All the creeds were an abomination - not just a few of the creeds. And "those" professors were corrupt. Who, by name, were the corrupt professors? Can you show they were a small minority of Christians of the day?

[zerinus]

It's very clear who the Lord is referring to in the First Vision:

I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

The sects were all wrong - not just a small minority. All the creeds were an abomination - not just a few of the creeds. And "those" professors were corrupt. Who, by name, were the corrupt professors? Can you show they were a small minority of Christians of the day?

Yes. By the "professors" is meant the ministers, preachers, and activists of those religions or churches; not necessarily the ordinary folks who had been duped by them. And they were all Protestant sects, and their "creeds" were the Protestant creeds and confessions. And they were the minority of the folks that were involved in those events. Let me quote you something else from Joseph Smith:

"The sects shall be sifted, the honest in heart brought out, and their priests left in the midst of their corruption" (TPJS 192).

Joseph Smith makes a distinction between the "priests" (i.e. the "professors," the preachers, the teachers, the activists), and the "honest in heart". The latter are the deceived majority; the former are the minority. The harsh indictment in the First Vision is directed at the former, not the latter.

Edited October 4, 2011 by zerinus

[Deborah]

While some may operate with this motivation, I have known many who are primarily concerned with the welfare of their fellowmen, who have seen a specific need and started or worked with a congregation to meet that need.

This has been my experience as well. And in fact to my non-LDS friends it didn't matter what church each belonged to and there was certainly no competition. I think some people have their glasses too dark.

[thesometimesaint]

Deborah:

Maybe it is just me but that sentiment makes absolutely no sense. IF it really didn't matter why would anyone want to join their congregation?

[stemelbow]

Rob,

Most if not all evangelical churches and denominations reject the idea that there is only one true denomination or one true Christian organization.

But most if not all draw a line somewhere. Afterall how many of them say The Church of Jesus Christ is really a Christian religion? The organization it seems to me, and most propounded by evangelical believers, from what I've seen, is that which they arbitrarily define as orthodox, which incidentally often excludes Catholics for many. Outside that group, and everyone else is wrong.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I kind of liked that. I wish more General Authorities would address their remarks to Christians as a whole, rather than just to Mormons. Get away from "us" and "them" attitude. It is all "us". The LDS Church is in a better position to provide moral and spiritual leadership to Christians as a whole, than a lot of their own "leaders" are. I think many Christians would be able to see, recognize, and appreciate that.

Of course, a prerequisite of that would be that Church leaders should educate themselves better with regard to Christian theology as a whole, and what Christians generally believe.

Here is a 1.2 minute clip form the opening remarks of his talk, showing how he addressed his remarks to all Christians, rather than just to Mormons:

https://skydrive.liv...61578FBD87A!163

His complete talk of course can be listened to here:

http://lds.org/gener...011/10?lang=eng

What do you think?

Wow, that is quite a statement- and how well do you actually know the "leaders" (putting that in quotation marks is interesting) of other Christian churches, their teachings, and leadership abilities to be able to make such a judgement? Or is it that you feel the LDS "leaders" (I suppose I should do the same here to play fair) are just naturally better because they are more "enlightened" because of the Restored Gospel?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Yes. By the "professors" is meant the ministers, preachers, and activists of those religions or churches; not necessarily the ordinary folks who had been duped by them. And they were all Protestant sects, and their "creeds" were the Protestant creeds and confessions. And they were the minority of the folks that were involved in those events. Let me quote you something else from Joseph Smith:

Joseph Smith makes a distinction between the "priests" (i.e. the "professors," the preachers, the teachers, the activists), and the "honest in heart". The latter are the deceived majority; the former are the minority. The harsh indictment in the First Vision is directed at the former, not the latter.

This is a LDS attitude I am SO glad I am free of now. Just because someone is a Pastor of a Protestant Church and may get some recompense for his work, does not automatically make him corrupt or mean he is engaging in Priestcraft. There are very specific attributes of evil ministers who practice Priestcraft, and not all Christian ministers fit the bill- even those that get paid for their time.

[Gervin]

Yes. By the "professors" is meant the ministers, preachers, and activists of those religions or churches; not necessarily the ordinary folks who had been duped by them. And they were all Protestant sects, and their "creeds" were the Protestant creeds and confessions. And they were the minority of the folks that were involved in those events.

Are you saying that all the Protestant ministers, preachers, and activists were corrupt? And what is an activist - I would think this includes missionaries, teachers, and deacons. It could also apply to ordinary folks challenged to follow the Great Commission - an activist command if ever there was one. It isn't clear to me who the Lord is condemning.

Joseph Smith makes a distinction between the "priests" (i.e. the "professors," the preachers, the teachers, the activists), and the "honest in heart". The latter are the deceived majority; the former are the minority. The harsh indictment in the First Vision is directed at the former, not the latter.

I don't understand how Joseph Smith could claim that not one of the preachers, teachers, and activists were "honest in heart." Not one? Is Charles Spurgeon (a preacher of that day) considered by LDS a "priest left in the midst of [his] corruption?"

[thesometimesaint]

BookofMormonLuvr:

Yes most do a commendable job, and it is most unfortunate that some abuse the good name of Christians in their persuit of fame and fortune at the expense of their parishioners.

[LeSellers]

Are you saying that all the Protestant ministers, preachers, and activists were corrupt? And what is an activist - I would think this includes missionaries, teachers, and deacons. It could also apply to ordinary folks challenged to follow the Great Commission - an activist command if ever there was one. It isn't clear to me who the Lord is condemning.

Please read the following:

5 Some time in the second year after our removal to Manchester, there was in the place where we lived an unusual excitement on the subject of religion. It commenced with the Methodists, but soon became general among all the sects in that region of country. … great multitudes united themselves to the different religious parties, … crying, “Lo, here!” and others, “Lo, there!”

…

6 … a scene of great confusion and bad feeling ensued—priest contending against priest, and convert against convert; so that all their good feelings one for another, if they ever had any, were entirely lost in a strife of words and a contest about opinions.

…

9 … The Presbyterians were most decided against the Baptists and Methodists, and used all the powers of both reason and sophistry to prove their errors, or, at least, to make the people think they were in error. On the other hand, the Baptists and Methodists in their turn were equally zealous in endeavoring to establish their own tenets and disprove all others.

…

12 … I reflected on it again and again, knowing that if any person needed wisdom from God, … for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible.

…

19 I was answered [by Jesus Christ] that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

…

22 I soon found, however, that my telling the story had excited a great deal of prejudice against me among professors of religion …

“Those professors [of religion]” in verse 12 are the same ones in v 22, and are the ones Joseph referred to in vv 6, 9, and 11. They are the ones “in the place where [they] lived”, the Baptists, the Methodists, and the Presbyterians of vv 5 and 9, and those alluded to in v 22.

Not all “professors of religion” were “corrupt”, nor were all church members and their churches “an abomination”, only “their creeds”.

It never ceases to amaze me how seemingly intelligent, literate people (even if “educated” in modern gctf-welfare schools) can read this passage and then charge us Saints with calling all non –LDS Christians corrupt, and their churches abominable: the passage does not say that at all. It charges a specific group, “those professors” with the crime of “drawing near to [Him] with their lips [while] their hearts are far from [Him].”

Webster Dictionary of the English Language (c 1828), under the entry Priest'] 2. In the modern [i.e., in the XIX] church, a person who is set apart or consecrated to the ministry of the gospel [i.e., any minister]; a man in orders or licensed to preach the gospel; a presbyter. In its most general sense, the word includes archbishops, bishops, patriarchs, and all subordinate orders of the clergy, duly approved and licensed according to the forms and rules of each respective denomination of christians; as all these orders “are ordained for men in things pertaining to God.” But in Great Britain, the word is understood to denote the subordinate orders of the clergy, above a deacon and below a bishop. In the United States, the word denotes any licensed minister of the gospel.’

I don't understand how Joseph Smith could claim that not one of the preachers, teachers, and activists were "honest in heart." Not one? Is Charles Spurgeon (a preacher of that day) considered by LDS a "priest left in the midst of [his] corruption?"

As he did not do that, your misunderstanding is quite normal. I don’t know anything significant about Spurgeon. Whether he was among “those professors”, I can’t say (but I doubt it). [it turns out that Spurgeon wasn't born until 1834, so he'd have been all of ten years old when Joseph died. Somehow we would be rather overshooting the mark to claim that he was among those to whom Joseph referred in 1832 or earlier.]

Lehi

Edited October 4, 2011 by LeSellers

[Gervin]

Please read the following:

“Those professors [of religion]” in verse 12 are the same ones in v 22, and are the ones Joseph referred to in vv 6, 9, and 11. They are the ones “in the place where [they] lived”, the Baptists, the Methodists, and the Presbyterians of vv 5 and 9, and those alluded to in v 22.

Not all “professors of religion” were “corrupt”, nor were all church members and their churches “an abomination”, only “their creeds”.

It never ceases to amaze me how seemingly intelligent, literate people (even if “educated” in modern gctf-welfare schools) can read this passage and then charge us Saints with calling all non –LDS Christians corrupt, and their churches abominable: the passage does not say that at all. It charges a specific group, “those professors” with the crime of “drawing near to [Him] with their lips [while] their hearts are far from [Him].”

As he did not do that, your misunderstanding is quite normal. I don’t know anything significant about Spurgeon. Whether he was among “those professors”, I can’t say (but I doubt it).

Lehi

I don't know that all that did/didn't happen, but if folks were so riled up then there must have been some documentation of all the contentious activities - what were the names of these purported trouble-making priests (question asked in post #28)?

[LeSellers]

I don't know that all that did/didn't happen, but if folks were so riled up then there must have been some documentation of all the contentious activities - what were the names of these purported trouble-making priests (question asked in post #28)?

Lane was among them. It was he, in my belief, who told Joseph a few days or weeks after that Easter morning that there were no more ministering of angels and revelations.

There has been a great deal of research on the matter. I suggest the Neal Maxwell Institute as a source. Here's one.

[it turns out that Spurgeon wasn't born until 1834, so he'd have been all of ten years old when Joseph died. Somehow we would be rather overshooting the mark to claim that he was among those to whom Joseph referred in 1832 or earlier.]

Lehi

Edited October 4, 2011 by LeSellers

[zerinus]

Wow, that is quite a statement- and how well do you actually know the "leaders" (putting that in quotation marks is interesting) of other Christian churches, their teachings, and leadership abilities to be able to make such a judgement? Or is it that you feel the LDS "leaders" (I suppose I should do the same here to play fair) are just naturally better because they are more "enlightened" because of the Restored Gospel?

I judge them "by their fruits," according to the criteria that the Lord has set (Matthew 7:16, 20). There are many kinds of "fruits" by which they can be judged; but there is one fruit that is the most obvious of all: Do they choose to "fight against Zion?" If they do, then they have automatically aligned themselves with the church of the devil (2 Nephi 10:16). You are welcome to judge LDS "leaders" in the same way.

This is a LDS attitude I am SO glad I am free of now. Just because someone is a Pastor of a Protestant Church and may get some recompense for his work, does not automatically make him corrupt or mean he is engaging in Priestcraft. There are very specific attributes of evil ministers who practice Priestcraft, and not all Christian ministers fit the bill- even those that get paid for their time.

See above. As regards your "gladness" at being "free" from the LDS Church, you can be certain that you are not the only one who feels that way about it. When a time comes that someone judges himself "unworthy of everlasting life" (Acts 13:46), "good riddance" is the qualifying words that can accompany them.

Are you saying that all the Protestant ministers, preachers, and activists were corrupt? And what is an activist - I would think this includes missionaries, teachers, and deacons. It could also apply to ordinary folks challenged to follow the Great Commission - an activist command if ever there was one. It isn't clear to me who the Lord is condemning.

See above.

I don't understand how Joseph Smith could claim that not one of the preachers, teachers, and activists were "honest in heart." Not one? Is Charles Spurgeon (a preacher of that day) considered by LDS a "priest left in the midst of [his] corruption?"

Apparently not! There was not even one of them who was willing to support and uphold Joseph. According to his own words, all of them without exception sought to persecute him. As I said, when you "fight against Zion," you automatically align yourself with the church of the devil. There is no compromise.

Edited October 4, 2011 by zerinus

[CV75]

What do you think?

I think it is a great way to carry out his role, just like bishops and stake presidents are called to serve everyone in their unit, not just the LDS. And he did it on a personal and direct level, showing that his role goes beyond providing leadership through the missionary or humanitarian organizations.

[Calm]

Sidney Rigdon was a protestant preacher prior to his conversion.

[Deborah]

Maybe it is just me but that sentiment makes absolutely no sense. IF it really didn't matter why would anyone want to join their congregation?

It makes perfect sense if you understand that people participate in churches based on what they have to offer them as far as fellowship or activities. Of course they tell each other about their churches and how much they like or don't like them, but it's hardly the competition that might have been present in JS's day.

[zerinus]

It makes perfect sense if you understand that people participate in churches based on what they have to offer them as far as fellowship or activities. Of course they tell each other about their churches and how much they like or don't like them, but it's hardly the competition that might have been present in JS's day.

LOL! You are kidding, right? Christians have fought devastating wars over religion following the Reformation that nearly destroyed the whole of Europe. The devastations wrought by the religious wars were greater than the destructions of the first and second World Wars combined. Have a look as the Wars of Religion, part I and part II. Also the Thirty Years War.

[Deborah]

LOL! You are kidding, right? Christians have fought devastating wars over religion following the Reformation that nearly destroyed the whole of Europe.

I thought we were talking about Christians today, not ancient history. Wars were fought when politics and religion were one and are still being fought for the same reason today. You have a very negative view of our fellow Christians.

[zerinus]

I thought we were talking about Christians today, not ancient history. Wars were fought when politics and religion were one and are still being fought for the same reason today. You have a very negative view of our fellow Christians.

They are still the same. Times have changed; but underneath they are still the same.

[Calm]

They are still the same. Times have changed; but underneath they are still the same.

Then I suppose you have no problem with those who equate the murderers at Mountain Meadows with other LDS as by the same rules of logic....or lack of logic, we are the same underneath.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

See above. As regards your "gladness" at being "free" from the LDS Church, you can be certain that you are not the only one who feels that way about it. When a time comes that someone judges himself "unworthy of everlasting life" (Acts 13:46), "good riddance" is the qualifying words that can accompany them.

Way to misquote me! I said I am glad to be free of the attitude that you, and many like you, have. As for being "glad" to be "free" from the LDS Church- I never stated such a thing. I don't believe I am totally "free" from it neither would I want to be. I fully expect to work alongside many of my LDS brothers and sisters in building Zion, the New Jerusalem.

As for your, not so vague, assertion that I am "unworthy of everlasting life" by leaving the LDS Church, I will put that in the hands of the LORD and remind you that you know nothing about me, my experiences, or my situation to be able to arrive at such a judgement.

Perhaps, you need to focus more on your walk with the Lord then on other peoples walk.

[Pahoran]

The problem for the Christian, as I see it, is accepting LDS teaching about Christ while outright rejecting the LDS-attributed words of Christ from the First Vision.

That's not a problem for this Christian.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Calm]

See above. As regards your "gladness" at being "free" from the LDS Church, you can be certain that you are not the only one who feels that way about it. When a time comes that someone judges himself "unworthy of everlasting life" (Acts 13:46), "good riddance" is the qualifying words that can accompany them.

The Good Shepherd cared enough to leave the 99 to seek after the one lost, somehow I don't see him sending the words "good riddance" after anyone.