Excommunicatin'

[The Nehor]

And yet Jesus seems to prefer to hang around the stinkers.  He also seems to avoid the ones who point out another stink.

 

Except of course when he was calling people out for their own stink which he did regularly to his friends and his enemies.

 

The mythical non-judgmental Jesus is just that: a myth. At one point he rightly told us not to judge the eternal destiny of anyone and that has been generalized beyond all belief.

[carbon dioxide]

But joseph was told to join none of them because their creeds were abominable. So my question still stands: were they an abomination in the site of god based on their history, their actions and their creed?

 

Cal, point taken. However, he was told to join none of the churches and this where the confusion rests.

 

It is funny how people make these claims about Joseph Smith saying other churches were abominations and ignore the nice things that have been said about about these Churches by LDS leaders including Joseph Smith

 

"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)

 

"We believe in righteousness. We believe in all truth, no matter to what subject it may refer. No sect or religious denomination in the world possesses a single principle of truth that we do not accept or that we will reject. We are willing to receive all truth, from whatever source it may come." (Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine p. 1)

 

"We recognize the truth that exists everywhere. That which is true is part of our religion; for it embraces all truth. Our Church is truth's magnet; truth from anywhere and everywhere is attracted by it, comes to it, assimilates with it, has an affinity with it. Truth from every source is recognized by our Church... If Catholicism has any truth that we have not, we will be glad to have it. If Protestantism had any truth that we have not, we welcome it. If Mohammedanism has any truth that we have not yet learned, we will be pleased to get it. If truth should come from any part of the world that we have not yet obtained, we will receive it and rejoice in it." (Charles Penrose in Brain Stuy, Collected Discourses Vol. 5 p. 365)

 

"We see the providence of God in all things; we see them in raising up different communities and establishments in the world for the general and universal benefit of mankind. We see the providence of God in raising up a Luther and a John Wesley; we see the providence of God in all the Christian organizations and communities..." (Lorenzo Snow, Journal of Discourses  Vol. 14  p. 301-302)

 

All Christian Churches have it, those who seek truth and righteousness. The Baptists, if they are honest, have it; so have the Presbyterians and the Methodists; so also have all Christian and heathen nations. ...We can trace the providence of the Almighty in raising up certain individuals to establish religious organizations, and we see in these things the workings of the Spirit of God for the general interest of the human family. We look upon George Washington, the father of our country, as an inspired instrument of the Almighty; we can see the all-inspiring Spirit operating upon him. ...We can see not only what the Baptists, Methodists, Quakers, Shakers, Presbyterians, and Campbellites see, — the hand of the Lord working with them, but we can see the hand of the Almighty establishing a kingdom spoken of in ages long past by Daniel the Prophet..." (Lorenzo Snow, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 14 p. 304–305)

 

I see far more charity and acceptance of LDS for the non-LDS Christian churches than from the non-LDS Churches towards the LDS Church.   Can you imagine some Christian minister or leader of some denomination saying that that they could see God raising up Joseph Smith and see the providence of God in the LDS Church?  Never.  Because it is ok for them to call us an evil cult but if Joseph Smith reports Jesus calling the creeds an abomination, they complain and even change the meaning to be all churches are an abomination to make it worse and attach to Joseph Smith and not Jesus

Edited January 17, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[carbon dioxide]

That's very true, but it doesn't apply to Mister Dehlin.

 

His problem isn't that his testimony is small.  His problem is that his integrity is small.

 

He has an active un-testimony, and he proselytes within the Church to convert people to it.

 

He markets himself as a fellow Latter-day Saint who's just trying to help people out, but he's really trying to help people out -- all the way out -- of the Church.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

There is a saying. "With friends like this,who needs enemies."  Apply that to Mr. Dehlin "Which members like this, who needs exmormons/anti-mormons."

Edited January 17, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[Pahoran]

John is not a member.....oh wait....yes he still is.....but not in YOUR narrow small minded definition of a member.

 

My "narrow small minded definition of a member" is someone whose name is on the records of the Church.  IOW, it is, AFAICT, the same as the Church's definition of a member.

 

But my definition of a Latter-day Saint is someone who (1) believes in God, (2) believes the truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ, (3) has made sacred covenants, and (4) strives to live according to those covenants.

 

Mister Dehlin, by his own (proud) admission, scores 0/4 on those criteria.

 

I'm sorry that's too "narrow small minded" for you.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

[Bobbieaware]

How many times must you be reminded, Tacenda, Joseph Smith DID NOT say other churches abominable. He said their CREED's were.

For the sake of accuracy, Joseph Smith said it was THE SAVIOUR who told him the creeds were an abomination in his sight. Joseph was just repeating what He heard Someone Else say. And considering how often God and his prophets condemned religions and religious leaders throughout the Bible, this comment from the Lord shouldn't be too surprising. The Lord has even come down hard on the Latter-day Saints in the Doctrine and Covenants, so it appears God is an equal opportunity upbraided of religious unfaithfulness and error. But the anti's, like some we know around here, will not bring this point up for conversation.because it interferes with their "bash narrative."

Edited January 17, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[why me]

 

I see far more charity and acceptance of LDS for the non-LDS Christian churches than from the non-LDS Churches towards the LDS Church.   Can you imagine some Christian minister or leader of some denomination saying that that they could see God raising up Joseph Smith and see the providence of God in the LDS Church?  Never.  Because it is ok for them to call us an evil cult but if Joseph Smith reports Jesus calling the creeds an abomination, they complain and even change the meaning to be all churches are an abomination to make it worse

This was a good  point. Even members confuse what Joseph said with what god said. Instead of understanding that it was god who said the abomination remark they claim that it was joseph. But joseph said some wonderful things about other faiths when he was giving his own opinion. .

[Teancum]

I am reasonably smart, know the LDS faith, know where the lines are, and know he crossed them. Who are you to defend him?

 

 

I was not talking to you and I was not defending anyone.

[Teancum]

A person can both have great respect for the Catholic Church and believe that the LDS Church is uniquely situated among ("more special than") the other religions of the world. These are not at all incompatible, and I haven't back-pedaled.

 

Maybe.

I think broad stereotypes have little value. We cannot characterize all Muslims as terrorists because some of them are, or Baptists as bigots because of Westboro, or Jews as greedy because of Madoff. Your caricature of "Utah Mormons" fits in among these.

 

I found the implicit slur in your inquiry beneath contempt, so I didn't bother answering.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

So still a yes......

[Teancum]

That's very true, but it doesn't apply to Mister Dehlin.

 

His problem isn't that his testimony is small.  His problem is that his integrity is small.

 

He has an active un-testimony, and he proselytes within the Church to convert people to it.

 

He markets himself as a fellow Latter-day Saint who's just trying to help people out, but he's really trying to help people out -- all the way out -- of the Church.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

 

 

Ah so you are able to over ride a member of the FP and decide who his comments apply to you.  And you think his integrity is small?

 

You really don't know what a person's testimony is like unless you walk in their shoes now do you Pahoran?   My guess is you have never talked to nor communicated with Dehlin yet you think you know him?  Tell us what how many of his podcasts have you listened to?  Or have you just read the awful articles by Greg Smith about him?  

 

The problem really is he just does not fit your mold so you loathe him.  You refuse to take him at his word and impune his character. Really no surprise but all the same it is very bad form.

[Teancum]

My "narrow small minded definition of a member" is someone whose name is on the records of the Church.  IOW, it is, AFAICT, the same as the Church's definition of a member.

 

But my definition of a Latter-day Saint is someone who (1) believes in God, (2) believes the truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ, (3) has made sacred covenants, and (4) strives to live according to those covenants.

 

Mister Dehlin, by his own (proud) admission, scores 0/4 on those criteria.

 

I'm sorry that's too "narrow small minded" for you.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

 

 

President Uchdorf disagrees with you.

[The Nehor]

I was not talking to you and I was not defending anyone.

 

Don't care and yes, you pretty much were respectively.

[Teancum]

Don't care and yes, you pretty much were respectively.

 

 

Nor do I and no, I pretty much was not.  Other posts perhaps, but not that one. 

[Calm]

The fact that some creedal Christians behaved as if they weren't followers of the Christian gospel has zero relation to whether the Creeds are valid. 

I agree with this.

[Calm]

But joseph was told to join none of them because their creeds were abominable. So my question still stands: were they an abomination in the site of god based on their history, their actions and their creed?

 

I don't think so, there were likely many more good people involved in their history than bad.  The specific actions by those individuals may have been abominations in God's eyes….or not, it is not for me to judge when so little is known about their actual thinking and desires, only God can be a good judge in that situation in my opinion.  Abominations by some individuals in a church does not render the whole church forever and ever an abomination or even for that time period.

[Calm]

I see far more charity and acceptance of LDS for the non-LDS Christian churches than from the non-LDS Churches towards the LDS Church.   Can you imagine some Christian minister or leader of some denomination saying that that they could see God raising up Joseph Smith and see the providence of God in the LDS Church?  Never.  Because it is ok for them to call us an evil cult but if Joseph Smith reports Jesus calling the creeds an abomination, they complain and even change the meaning to be all churches are an abomination to make it worse and attach to Joseph Smith and not Jesus

Too great of a generalization.  I have known Christian ministers and leaders who might just say that and even have said that.

[mormonnewb]

No, I would say 99% of our "genuine critics" are enemies. They may not feel hatred. They may even think they are being helpful but they are still enemies.

The analogy does not work. The US political system is a gigantic mess with no one really in charge and plenty of room to disagree and screw up. The church is led by God. It makes minor mistakes due to the people leading it but it is the sole source of exaltation in this life. To criticize it is to fight God. You are not disagreeing with fallible Senator John Q Idiot who believes we need 200 aircraft carriers because his constituents build naval ships. You are dealing with the infallible. He admits his servants can make errors but reserves to himself and to those who hold keys of leadership over those fallible people to correct them.

Our critics are our enemies. All of them are not seething balls of salivating hatred who thirst for our blood. It is kind of a shame. It would be easier if they were.

How did I not see this before? Anyone who disagrees with our leaders disagrees with God Himself. That doesn't sound cultish at all.

[The Nehor]

How did I not see this before? Anyone who disagrees with our leaders disagrees with God Himself. That doesn't sound cultish at all.

Yawn. We are called a cult no matter what we do so the pejorative has lost its sting.

[ERayR]

How did I not see this before? Anyone who disagrees with our leaders disagrees with God Himself. That doesn't sound cultish at all.

 

Yep just like the Baptist cull, the Presbyterian cult, the Methodist cult, the Catholic cult and well you get the picture.

[mormonnewb]

It's part of Newb's schtick.

So you put me on ignore so that you could sling unprovoked barbs at me, but not have your wittle feewings hurt when I respond?

PS. And yes, I know that Ken can't see my comment, but this 21st century version of putting your fingers in your ear and shouting, "No, you are!" had to be called out. If Ken doesn't want to have any interaction with me, then perhaps he should stop bringing me up in his posts. Certainly, with 15 million Mormons, he can find one to talk about whom he hasn't put on "ignore."

[JLHPROF]

How did I not see this before? Anyone who disagrees with our leaders disagrees with God Himself. That doesn't sound cultish at all.

 

[mormonnewb]

Yep just like the Baptist cull, the Presbyterian cult, the Methodist cult, the Catholic cult and well you get the picture.

That's what you fail to understand. I could tell my former Baptist pastor that he was wrong to his face. He might get mad. He might even politely (or impolitely) suggest that I join another BAPTIST congregation. What he would NOT do is insert itself into the place of God Almighty and say that disagreeing with him is disagreeing with God.

In fact, he repeatedly preached that the day he said that his word was as good as God's is the day we should ALL find a new church because he had officially crossed the line into personal deification. And at that point, it wouldn't be safe (spiritually or temporally) to follow him. And I suspect that just about all Protestant clergy would agree.

Edited January 17, 2015 by mormonnewb

[why me]

That's what you fail to understand. I could tell my former Baptist pastor that he was wrong to his face. He might get mad. He might even politely (or impolitely) suggest that I join another BAPTIST congregation. What he would NOT do is insesurt itself into the place of God Almighty and say that disagreeing with him is disagreeing with God.

In fact, he repeatedly preached that the day he said that his word was as good as God's is the day we should ALL find a new church because he had officially crossed the line into personal deification. And at that point, it wouldn't be safe (spiritually or temporally) to follow him. And I suspect that just about all Protestant clergy would agree.

I am sure that if you were to actively fight against his church and led members away, he may not be too friendly and consider you an enemy or a sick person. For example, if you flooded his web page discussion forum with constant negatives about him and his church, he may just find you a mad hatter or a nutter or under satan's influence. You would be an enemy to his church.

Edited January 18, 2015 by why me

[mormonnewb]

For example, if you flooded his web page discussion forum with constant negatives about him and his church, he may just find you a made hatter or a nutter or under satan's influence. You would be an enemy to his church.

I guess that explains why members of that church did NOT set up a web page discussion forum to talk about their church and its policies. If so, I can guarantee you that it would be far more contentious than this board could even fathom.

So tell me, what would this forum look like if not for us "enemies" of the Church? Would it be just a series of threads about archeological finds in Central America? Or would you all just take turns starting threads like, "How perfect do YOU think the Church is?"

And yes, I understand that this forum was around long before my appearance and will continue long after my departure, but without "enemies" like me to fight, you wouldn't have much to DISCUSS.

[JLHPROF]

So tell me, what would this forum look like if not for us "enemies" of the Church? Would it be just a series of threads about archeological finds in Central America? Or would you all just take turns starting threads like, "How perfect do YOU think the Church is?"

 

 

Perhaps it would give us chance to discuss and (heaven forbid) speculate on the meatier things of the gospel instead of getting bogged down in whether or not Joseph Smith had sex with his wives (he did) or whether or not we are Christians (we are, but not traditional).

 

It would be nice to move on to more interesting topics.  And before someone says "well why don't you start a topic", I have.  They aren't as interesting apparently as whether or not the Church will allow gay marriage one day. 

[Avatar4321]

That's what you fail to understand. I could tell my former Baptist pastor that he was wrong to his face. He might get mad. He might even politely (or impolitely) suggest that I join another BAPTIST congregation. What he would NOT do is insert itself into the place of God Almighty and say that disagreeing with him is disagreeing with God.

In fact, he repeatedly preached that the day he said that his word was as good as God's is the day we should ALL find a new church because he had officially crossed the line into personal deification. And at that point, it wouldn't be safe (spiritually or temporally) to follow him. And I suspect that just about all Protestant clergy would agree.

in other words he admits he hasn't been given any authority to act and speak on behalf of the Lord. We on the other hand have been called by the spirit of prophecy to speak the word of the Lord to the people and to administer the ordinances on His behalf.

when you say no man has been given the power to bind and loose on earth and in heaven despite Jesus Christ specifically saying otherwise, then yes you are speaking against the Word of the Lord.