"...Because None Of Them Had The Complete Truth."

[altersteve]

After lurking for several months and responding to a very few topics, I have come to some conclusions. And this topic, started by Rob is my chosen place to speak out. Hope no one minds a little ranting at the expense of the board.

Whenever someone begins to find fault with the gospel as taught and preached by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I do not become upset. My life experience has put me with family, friends, neighbors and others who have very strong feelings against the truth as we know and preach it. Agency is a wonderful blessing and I would not deny that to anyone.

But the Apostle Paul taught "...and now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity." (1Cor. 13:13)

When someone begins a deliberate attack on my beliefs and is incessant in their attempts to distort the truths of my religion I wonder if they really do understand the principle of charity. One need only to compare the websites of the detractors to the official website of the Church to see the difference in their understanding. A visitor to LDS.org would be hard pressed to find any negative commentary about ANY religion or group. What is contained at that website and all other official sites of the Church are principles and doctrines designed to teach about ONE church and one church only. We teach of Christ, we testify of Christ and we try to help others find Christ wherever they may want to find Him.

Those who come to discussion boards like this one and pluck "fruit" to be used to obfuscate the truth are treading on sacred ground -- even if they think they are justified. Preaching against someone is not the same as preaching for Christ.

May the Good Lord bless those who twist and destroy all that is good (not just our religion) and help them to see that they are hurting no one but themselves with their rancor and venom. I really do hope the best for them and want them to find happiness.

That's enough for today. MW

If only others had this kind of knowledge of what it truly means to be a Christian. Beautifully said.

[cinepro]

Joseph McConkie gave a talk that might be pertinent to the subject at hand:

The First Vision and Religious Tolerance

In this context the reader is invited to consider three touchy or sensitive texts that stand at the very heart of our theology. These texts have been chosen to honor Joseph and Hyrum Smith, the great martyrs of our faith. They did not seal their testimony with their blood in Carthage Jail so that we may teach ethics. They did not die hoping that future generations of Latter-day Saints would say to the world, "Look, we are just like you." Elder John Taylor said that in death Joseph and Hyrum sought to seal the revelations found in the Doctrine and Covenants and the Book of Mormon (see D&C 135:1). They sought neither acceptance nor approval from the historical Christian world; indeed, in all matters of faith, they sought to stand independent of that world. As ironic as it may seem to some, it was in this course and in this course alone that they and those who sustained them expected to find peace.

Each of the three texts comes from the revelations of the Restoration, and each is frequently considered offensive by those not of our faith. Even within the Church some are uncomfortable with these texts and feel a need to apologize for them.

The first text comes from the Lord's preface to the Book of Commandments, in which He calls the Church recently organized by Joseph Smith "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth" (D&C 1:30).

The second is part of the Prophet's account of the First Vision, in which he asked the Lord which church he should join: "I was answered," the Prophet said, "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'" (Joseph Smith-History 1:19).

The third text comes from the Book of Mormon, in which Nephi prophesied that in our day there would be "save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso 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" (1 Nephi 14:10).

[Calm]

I hope no one would require that I give full credit to a wrong answer because it was not wholly in error, because, if a physicist gets the wrong answer, even though his process was correct, or got the right answer purely by accident (his having used a questionable technique or bad math), we might be concerned that his later theories and conclusion would be highly suspect.

This is actually a great analogy because it demonstrates the relationship between the faiths well in this aspect...other faiths have sufficient error and lacks that they will not get those who believe all the way to the 'solution' on their own, corrections must be made and what is absent (authority) must be added in.

I believe His statement that their creeds were an abomination did not extend beyond the creeds themselves: the greatest error is to have a fallacious understanding of the nature of God and His relation to us, His children, and "their creeds" are exactly that.

And if the creeds had been correct or had not been established as the measure of what is or isn't orthodox (thus allowing a greater freedom for people to seek out knowledge of God through revelation), I believe that God would not view them as abominations, but as things stood and now stand it is---to continue the metaphor----as if scientists declared that Aristotle's science was the final word and anything that went beyond or claimed to correct his theories were wrong solely on the basis that they contradicted him.

[juliann]

Isn't this a misrepresentation of what Joseph himself claimed Christ had told him in that 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.'" (JS-H 1:19)

Oh, for heaven's sake, so what. Do you ride herd on every publication and production put out by your fellow fundamentalists?

[frankenstein]

Oh, for heaven's sake, so what. Do you ride herd on every publication and production put out by your fellow fundamentalists?

really that is your thought out educated response? Claim "who cares" then insult the person for asking a question? No wonder people the dislike the LDS so much. So much for cordiality and respect in debate as counseled by the Leaders of the LDS Church. There is very much a difference in claiming "lacked complete truth" and "all their creeds are an abomination".

Labeling the totality of "all creeds" as a abomination gives no indication that there is acceptance of any shred of the creeds. While yes, the LDS generally have gotten away from using the words "abomination" in describing the need for a the Restoration, it is certainly disingenuous for a person to misrepresent Joseph Smith's experience.

[T-Shirt]

Labeling the totality of "all creeds" as a abomination gives no indication that there is acceptance of any shred of the creeds.

You seem to be doing the same thing as Rob. I have never understood why people try to create such a false dichotomy as this. Let me give you an example:

Let's say that someone wrote the following statement about me:

"Mr. T-Shirt is 52 years old, tall, handsome, self employed, was born in Albuquerque and is a child molester."

Now, I would say this statement is both wrong and an abomination.

However, since five of the six things are, actually, true, it would not be misleading or disingenuous if someone were to, instead, say that the statement did not have all the truth or that the statement contained much truth but was not fully accurate.

Either way that one refers to the statement, it is both acceptable and accurate.

Best,

T-Shirt

Edited October 19, 2011 by T-Shirt

[cinepro]

You seem to be doing the same thing as Rob. I have never understood why people try to create such a false dichotomy as this. Let me give you an example:

Let's say that someone wrote the following statement about me:

"Mr. T-Shirt is 52 years old, tall, handsome, self employed, was born in Albuquerque and is a child molester."

Now, I would say this statement is both wrong and an abomination.

However, since five of the six things are, actually, true, it would not be misleading or disingenuous if someone were to, instead, say that the statement did not have all the truth or that the statement contained much truth but was not fully accurate.

Either way that one refers to the statement, it is both acceptable and accurate.

Best,

T-Shirt

I'm not sure I see the connection.

According to Joseph, he was told that "all" the Churches had the following characteristics:

- all wrong

- all their creeds were an abomination

- the professors were all corrupt

- they draw near to Jesus with their lips, but their hearts are from from him

- the teach the commandments of men as doctrine

- they have a form of godliness, but deny the power thereof.

Can you explain how this relates to your point?

[ldsfaqs]

Isn't this a misrepresentation of what Joseph himself claimed Christ had told him in that vision?

No Rob.... It's not a "misrepresentation", it's a BASIC SUMMARY of the subject matter.

You do know what summary's are don't you???

Let me guess.... You're likely like every other anti-mormon and also say the Church is "lying" also when it presents the "translation" of the BOM as being Joseph and the Plates, rather than with head in hat? What you don't realize, is that Joseph DID translate the plates with the plates just as the Church portrays. Further, he did translate it other ways also, in a hat and even with nothing at all with him. The translation didn't all only occur with a head in the hat, and in fact the head in the hat thing occurred the LEAST of any of the methods. Thus the portrayal by the Church is simply the most clear ARTISTIC method to display Joseph actually translating plates. Thus, the Church isn't lying at all.

Ultimately, basic story telling is not "lying". It's summation and simplicity.

Further, the entire point of the First Vision was exactly what the summary stated, that "none had the complete truth".

That's the overriding entire point of the restoration, which started with the First Vision. Even further, when you actually read Joseph's History of the Church of the First Vision story, it's utterly clear that was the entire point of the First Vision.

[ldsfaqs]

The video does make a misrepresentation of the truth. The LDS church does not claim to have the "complete truth". We believe things are revealed line upon line, precept upon precept. As far as truth goes, we may not have any more "truth" than any other Christian religion. Where we differ however is that we have the correct authority.

Not accurate..... We DO believe we have the "complete truth", as so far revealed in relation to the salvatory/exalting principles of the Gospel.

It's only a basic summation, not meant to exhibit every detail of the subject matter. Thus, it's inaccurate for you to be critical of the statement.

[Rob Bowman]

Anijen,

You wrote:

So what. Too bad some evangelicals feel slighted because LDS claim to have the fullness of the gospel restored, and other churchs did not have. Its not like a precedence, I mean Martin Luther, John Winthrop, and others did about the same thing.

Get over it.

An astonishingly irrelevant (and factually inaccurate) response. The issue is not how evangelicals feel about the LDS Church's claim. (I don't feel "slighted," by the way.) The issue is how some Mormons misrepresent statements in their own scriptures.

[Rob Bowman]

Sky,

You wrote:

Just to point out, ‘Mormons Made Simple’ is not an official website of the Church.

That makes it all right, then.

I didn't claim, suggest, or imply that it was an official LDS website. It is just one example of the fact that some Mormons misrepresent what Christ is said to have told Joseph in the First Vision according to LDS scripture. It's not an isolated occurrence; I have seen similarly strained restatements or explanations meant to take the sting out of that statement.

I assume you will also object if anyone here posts criticisms of statements made by evangelical or fundamentalist posters on the CARM website, since they are not official statements of any evangelical church or institution.

You wrote:

No offense Rob Bowman, but you are making a mountain out of a molehill. The Church is not watering down or trying to lessen the significance of the First Vision in the slightest.

So, you agree that the video misrepresents the First Vision account, but you don't think this is a significant fact because it wasn't done by the LDS Church. Right?

[Rob Bowman]

Lehi,

You wrote:

Thus is it, I believe, that when Jesus told Joseph that "they were all wrong," His words did not mean that everything they taught was erroneous.

Big yawn. No one claimed that was what those words meant. I have already said that isn't the point.

[Rob Bowman]

Zakuska,

You wrote:

I think this might answer your question...

"Have the Presbyterians any truth? Yes. Have the Baptists, Methodists, etc., any truth? Yes. They all have a little truth mixed with error. We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true "Mormons"."

(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 316)

It doesn't really answer my question. I know that Joseph said this, and I have already stated explicitly that the statement Christ is said to have made in the First Vision did not mean that everything the churches taught was false. But notice that the most Joseph felt he could acknowledge was that these Christian denominations have "a little truth." We also have to balance your quotation with the statement Joseph says he made after the First Vision:

"I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true" (JS-H 1:20).

[Scott Lloyd]

While yes, the LDS generally have gotten away from using the words "abomination" in describing the need for a the Restoration, it is certainly disingenuous for a person to misrepresent Joseph Smith's experience.

Was Joseph misrepresenting his own experience when he uttered the words I quoted in my post yesterday? To save you the trouble of scrolling up, I'll give it to you again here:

Have the Presbyterians any truth? Yes. Have the Baptists, Methodists, &c,, any truth? Yes. They all have a little truth mixed with error. We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true “Mormons.

It's a virtual certainty that the statement about the creeds and abomination don't even comprise the hundredth part of what Joseph experienced in the grove that day. How can you say with certainty they reflect the totality of his experience? Why would he later make the above statement if he left the grove with the impression that all the Christian denominations were absolutely devoid of truth?

Edited October 19, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[Rob Bowman]

Scott,

You wrote:

I note that in small type in the upper right of the web site are these words:

"This is not an official site of the LDS Church."

Without commenting one way or the other on the quoted material in the OP, I would hope that Rob Bowman understands the importance of using competent and authoritative sources in any evaluation or public criticism of the Church of Jesus Christ that he might undertake.

Yes, I understand this. But I wasn't criticizing the Church of Jesus Christ in the OP. I was criticizing a particular video produced by some Mormons. Doing so is just as appropriate as acknowledging and responding to an online post from you, which also is not an authoritative source of the LDS Church.

So, now that we've dealt with that irrelevancy, how about you comment on the issue that the OP raises? Would you agree that the video misrepresents the First Vision account?

[Sky]

No wonder people the dislike the LDS so much. So much for cordiality and respect in debate as counseled by the Leaders of the LDS Church.

So are you implying that people are justified for their dislike of the LDS religion and its people? If only I got a quarter for every time I read something mean and nasty or misleading about the LDS on the internet, I’d be a rich man.

And I don’t see anything amiss with offering some relatively mild criticism to a poster who comes on here and starts threads with the (not so) subtle intent to discredit Mormonism. Don’t always expect Mormons to just roll over and play nice.

[Scott Lloyd]

And I don’t see anything amiss with offering some relatively mild criticism to a poster who comes on here and starts threads with the (not so) subtle intent to discredit Mormonism.

And one who makes a career of that intent, to boot.

Edited October 19, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[Rob Bowman]

Scott,

You wrote:

Joseph Smith is on record as having made this statement:

(History of the Church 5:517)

Given this bit of historical context then, it is clear that the rather innocuous paraphrase in the YouTube video (which, after all, appears to be tailored to a child's understanding) does not distort the message of Mormonism or of Joseph Smith himself to any significant degree. This appears to be one more failed gotcha attempt by Rob Bowman drawn from insignificant Internet minutia.

I have already commented on the above quotation, which someone else had quoted before you did.

As I pointed out to someone else, by your standard no one should ever criticize a CARM post, or anything else that is not an official statement of a specific institution.

[Vance]

So what. Too bad some evangelicals feel slighted because LDS claim to have the fullness of the gospel restored, and other churchs did not have. Its not like a precedence, I mean Martin Luther, John Winthrop, and others did about the same thing.

Get over it.

[maklelan]

I have seen similarly strained restatements or explanations meant to take the sting out of that statement.

So it is dishonest to remove aggressive or otherwise unnecessary rhetoric or tone when paraphrasing an historical text in an independent context. Ok. So when you read Gen 38:9 or 2 Kgs 18:27 in church or with others, do you dishonestly misrepresent the rhetoric by using euphemisms like modern Bible translations do, or do you use the vulgarities they used?

[Vance]

This appears to be one more failed gotcha attempt by Rob Bowman drawn from insignificant Internet minutia.

INDEED!!!!

[maklelan]

Scott,

You wrote:

I have already commented on the above quotation, which someone else had quoted before you did.

As I pointed out to someone else, by your standard no one should ever criticize a CARM post, or anything else that is not an official statement of a specific institution.

If the point of the criticism is to attack whatever church it is they belong to, I would agree. I don't know anyone who posts at CARM for that reason, though.

[Rob Bowman]

Grundelwalken,

You wrote:

When someone begins a deliberate attack on my beliefs and is incessant in their attempts to distort the truths of my religion I wonder if they really do understand the principle of charity.

Whoever you have in mind here, what you say does not apply to me. I do not attempt at all (let alone incessantly!) to distort the truths of your religion.

You wrote:

A visitor to LDS.org would be hard pressed to find any negative commentary about ANY religion or group.

Try here and here (just two of the several places where the First Vision story appears on LDS.org). Also see here, for just one of many articles that comment negatively on Catholic and Protestant Christian groups. I'm sure a few more minutes would turn up quite a few more such examples.

You wrote:

Those who come to discussion boards like this one and pluck "fruit" to be used to obfuscate the truth are treading on sacred ground -- even if they think they are justified.

Again, I'm not obfuscating truth. The producers of the video I was criticizing did, however.

Preaching against someone is not the same as preaching for Christ.

I'm not preaching against anyone. I preach Christ. I do, however, seek to defend the truth about Christ and refute error about him.

May the Good Lord bless those who twist and destroy all that is good (not just our religion) and help them to see that they are hurting no one but themselves with their rancor and venom. I really do hope the best for them and want them to find happiness.

Again, I am not twisting anything, and there is no rancor and certainly no venom in my opening post or in my approach to the issues that divide us.

Edited October 19, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott,

You wrote:

I have already commented on the above quotation, which someone else had quoted before you did.

As I pointed out to someone else, by your standard no one should ever criticize a CARM post, or anything else that is not an official statement of a specific institution.

I think you pasted in the wrong quote from me.

I get what you're saying. But my post that you mistakenly quoted is more to the point, and I wonder what your response is to this quotation from Joseph Smith, which basically contradicts what you claim to be his position.

Add on:

In case you lost track of it, here again is Joseph's statement:

Have the Presbyterians any truth? Yes. Have the Baptists, Methodists, &c,, any truth? Yes. They all have a little truth mixed with error. We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true “Mormons.

Edited October 19, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

You wrote:

If the point of the criticism is to attack whatever church it is they belong to, I would agree. I don't know anyone who posts at CARM for that reason, though.

If you say so. In any case, I was certainly not attacking the LDS Church in my opening post. I was simply criticizing a particular video produced by some Mormons.