Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

[waveslider]

7 hours ago, Pa Pa said:

I am 59 years old, I have never heard anyone say nasty things about Jesus Christ. I cannot count the horrifying things said about all our Prophets, and members. It does matter what people say, as speaking evil and hatred keeps them from feeling the (or being  led by) the Holy Spirit. Here is this very Nation, founded upon "freedom of religion", Joseph and Hyrum were murdered by a Christian mob, men who were never convicted, but were in Church the following Sunday. No one was convicted for the many murders, rapes and property stolen from Kirtland to Nauvoo, the burning of our Temple in Nauvoo. Words matter, words are what incite others to violence and murder. Also we are told often to govern our mouths, the words that we speak, "Let thy communication by yea, yea or nay nay, anything more than this commeth of evil". I hope I quoted it correctly, my father quoted it enough while I was growing up. Christ warned that "But I say unto you, that idle word men shall speak, they shall give an account on the day of judgement" (again to paraphrase working from memory). 

People said such horrible things about Christ that he got tortured and hung on a cross for it. I guess you haven't ever bumped into some of the atheists who have ridiculed me for my belief in Christ. I have on occasion heard some nasty things spoken of him.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, waveslider said:

People said such horrible things about Christ that he got tortured and hung on a cross for it. I guess you haven't ever bumped into some of the atheists who have ridiculed me for my belief in Christ. I have on occasion heard some nasty things spoken of him.

The post I was referring to was not about the reason Christ was hung on the cross. I guess I m lucky,mI have heard and read many things attacking the Church, but almost always from Christian, or those who call themselves Chrstians. 

[waveslider]

4 hours ago, theplains said:

Imagine how the Christians around Joseph Smith felt like when he said all their creeds were an abomination.

Jim

Did he repeat what God said, or did he say it of his own volition? I can imagine what a lot of people will think when we stand before the judgment bar of Christ. Things rationalized as good just might be pointed out as an abomination to each of us, whether religious based or not.

We can easily be deceived into believing things are good and that's why I'm glad that Christ makes it possible to be brought into his presence with His open arms of pure love, and be forgiven of our mistakes as long as we try our best to follow him, even if we belong to a sect created by man instead of Christ himself. His Holy Spirit of truth will eventually, "guide you into all truth," (John 16:13) if we listen.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So, Jim, you picture Joseph going about loudly declaring that to every Methodist and Presbyterian he met?  Or was that what Jesus told him?

In fact, even after his First Vision, didn't Joseph actually attend Methodist services?  And wasn't Joseph always extremely courteous and kind to members of other religions, saying that Mormonism should accept truth from any group?  Indeed, unlike other religions, the LDS Church has always had a policy of just preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ, instead of bad-mouthing and persecuting other religions.

The 'creeds being an abomination' is from the 1839-41 history according to 

https://history.lds.org/article/first-vision-accounts-synthesis?lang=eng

Do you know if this was ever referred to before then?

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

The 'creeds being an abomination' is from the 1839-41 history according to 

https://history.lds.org/article/first-vision-accounts-synthesis?lang=eng

Do you know if this was ever referred to before then?

Perhaps not.  The First Vision was not often referred to in the 19th century, and it wasn't until 1910 that it first entered an official LDS tract.  Even if that verbiage was used by Jesus in the Vision, there is no reason to think that Joseph wandered around repeating it.

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Perhaps not.  The First Vision was not often referred to in the 19th century, and it wasn't until 1910 that it first entered an official LDS tract.  Even if that verbiage was used by Jesus in the Vision, there is no reason to think that Joseph wandered around repeating it.

A common response in my experience of evangelical anti-mormons when told one feels attacking others' faiths is inappropriate is to claim that JS started it by labelling the creeds abominations (though usually they aren't accurate and apply it to the full belief system) and the professors corrupt.  It just occurred to me that perhaps that isn't correct if anti-mormon attacks actually started before this part of the FV was made public.

[TheSkepticChristian]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

though usually they aren't accurate and apply it to the full belief system) 

Just your interpretation. What did he really mean? I have no idea. 

[Calm]

Well, it is how Joseph used the word in his own writing.  He talked about how creeds set boundaries on belief/faith.  I am certain that the Prof has instant recall of an applicable quote or two.

Perhaps Christ meant it to apply to the various entire faith systems though and Joseph misunderstood.  If you prefer that interpretation, go for it though I don't think I will follow you since I don't see how faith systems that include teachings of Christ can be labeled as complete abominations.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Just your interpretation. What did he really mean? I have no idea. 

Calm was referring to evangelical interpretation of the phrase (a phrase which is clearly limited to the official or formal creeds, such as the Ante Nicene Creed, or the Westminster Confession of Faith, or the like).  The evangelicals improperly claim today that the phrase applies to entire belief systems and was used as such by Joseph in the 19th century, while in reality the phrase just simply was not used in the 19th century, and certainly did not apply to entire belief systems. Unlike the evangelicals, Mormons simply do not go off and picket or persecute other churches while chanting "your creeds are an abomination."  Quite the opposite is the case.

[Calm]

Here are three examples of how Joseph used "creed"

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-22?lang=eng

 

[waveslider]

6 hours ago, Pa Pa said:

The post I was referring to was not about the reason Christ was hung on the cross. I guess I m lucky,mI have heard and read many things attacking the Church, but almost always from Christian, or those who call themselves Chrstians. 

I haven't heard a whole lot of bad things spoken about Christ, only a few atheists from the LGBT community that were lashing out because they felt discriminated against by Christians, I think most though, seem to at least be respectful of Christian beliefs.

[Robert F. Smith]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

Here are three examples of how Joseph used "creed"

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-22?lang=eng 

Yes, and here are the relevant excerpts:

Quote

“… Mormonism is truth, in other words the doctrine of the Latter-day Saints, is truth. … The first and fundamental principle of our holy religion is, that we believe that we have a right to embrace all, and every item of truth, without limitation or without being circumscribed or prohibited by the creeds or superstitious notions of men, or by the dominations of one another, when that truth is clearly demonstrated to our minds, and we have the highest degree of evidence of the same.”⁵

In January 1843, Joseph Smith had a conversation with some people who were not members of the Church: “I stated that the most prominent difference in sentiment between the Latter-day Saints and sectarians was, that the latter were all circumscribed by some peculiar creed, which deprived its members the privilege of believing anything not contained therein, whereas the Latter-day Saints … are ready to believe all true principles that exist, as they are made manifest from time to time.”⁶ 

“I cannot believe in any of the creeds of the different denominations, because they all have some things in them I cannot subscribe to, though all of them have some truth. I want to come up into the presence of God, and learn all things; but the creeds set up stakes [limits], and say, ‘Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further’ [Job 38:11]; which I cannot subscribe to.”⁷

 

Edited July 9, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Calm]

Thanks, my old iPad doesn't allow me to copy and paste or even read some of the stuff on lds.org.  Just waiting til next semester to upgrade.

[california boy]

I too want to add my compliments to the church and it's members.  I think the church is a wonderful organization and does a lot of good in this world.  I have never regretted raising my children within the church.  It brought strength and a faith to my family in a way that is a positive effect for their whole lives.  I know of the goodness of the church members.  I know the value of so much of the doctrine the church teaches.  I know of the sacrifices that so many members make on a regular basis of their time and money to give service to others.  And while there are good people in other religions and organizations, there are no finer people than active members of the church.  

While many on this board like to paint me as being anti-Mormon, I am not.  Not even a little bit.  What I am firmly and passionately against is the church's efforts to work to take away the civil rights of gays and the continued attack against gay families both within and without the church.  I hold them accountable for their actions as they should be.  I have been posting on this board since the passage of Prop 9.  Not once have I said anything negative about the members of the church or it's leaders.  But as you all know, I have said plenty about the actions of the church against the gay community.

While this issue seems to be a hot issue for the past 10 years, I hope that someday the church can get past it and begin the healing process to be more welcoming to gay families.  Most Christian churches have been able to do that while still firmly holding on to their religious beliefs and practices.  Perhaps some day, the church will be able to do the same.  I sincerely believe that is possible.

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

While many on this board like to paint me as being anti-Mormon, I am not.  Not even a little bit.  

I marvel at, and appreciate, your goodwill towards the Church other than on issues of homosexuality and gay marriage. I am close friends with some gay members (under Church discipline and not under Church discipline), but they all fully support and agree with the Church's positions and teaching, even while not living Church standards in this area. I also know some who hate the Church because of its stance. You are unique, in my experience, in disagreeing strongly with the Church in this area, but being fair and supportive in other areas. I think that's great!  I feel that you can be counted on to defend the Church when it is unfairly attacked, and that's important to me.

[waveslider]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I too want to add my compliments to the church and it's members.  I think the church is a wonderful organization and does a lot of good in this world.  I have never regretted raising my children within the church.  It brought strength and a faith to my family in a way that is a positive effect for their whole lives.  I know of the goodness of the church members.  I know the value of so much of the doctrine the church teaches.  I know of the sacrifices that so many members make on a regular basis of their time and money to give service to others.  And while there are good people in other religions and organizations, there are no finer people than active members of the church.  

While many on this board like to paint me as being anti-Mormon, I am not.  Not even a little bit.  What I am firmly and passionately against is the church's efforts to work to take away the civil rights of gays and the continued attack against gay families both within and without the church.  I hold them accountable for their actions as they should be.  I have been posting on this board since the passage of Prop 9.  Not once have I said anything negative about the members of the church or it's leaders.  But as you all know, I have said plenty about the actions of the church against the gay community.

While this issue seems to be a hot issue for the past 10 years, I hope that someday the church can get past it and begin the healing process to be more welcoming to gay families.  Most Christian churches have been able to do that while still firmly holding on to their religious beliefs and practices.  Perhaps some day, the church will be able to do the same.  I sincerely believe that is possible.

I don't think the church is against gays in any type of bigoted way. It is against adultery, whether gay or not. The problems that have arisen are from political redefinition of what true marriage is.

I think any real active member who tries their best to follow Christ will love anyone whether or not gayness is an issue. We all have our own particular weaknesses that go against God's teachings. To judge others based on any particular flavor of a weakness doesn't line up with the gospel of repentance. That is why there are a lot of good doing people in our church.

[california boy]

12 hours ago, waveslider said:

I don't think the church is against gays in any type of bigoted way. It is against adultery, whether gay or not. The problems that have arisen are from political redefinition of what true marriage is.

I think any real active member who tries their best to follow Christ will love anyone whether or not gayness is an issue. We all have our own particular weaknesses that go against God's teachings. To judge others based on any particular flavor of a weakness doesn't line up with the gospel of repentance. That is why there are a lot of good doing people in our church.

There is indeed much good both in the doctrine and in the people that make up the church.  There is no other church that I could be in that would give me such a true understanding of God and my relationship with Him.  When you look at the general authorities, you see that goodness.  These are men trying their best to follow the will of God.  But they don't always get it right. When you have to define marriage in a way that takes away someone's civil rights, something is wrong.  

I grew up at a time when church leaders embraced a doctrine/revelation/teaching that prevented blacks from receiving all the blessings of the priesthood and temple in this life.  Something was not quite right about that either.  I believe all should be able to receive all the blessings of God in this life as well as the next.  When the brethren teach that the fulness of the gospel is only open to some in this life, then something is once again wrong.  They may be very good and sincere men.  But they don't always get it right.

[waveslider]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

There is indeed much good both in the doctrine and in the people that make up the church.  There is no other church that I could be in that would give me such a true understanding of God and my relationship with Him.  When you look at the general authorities, you see that goodness.  These are men trying their best to follow the will of God.  But they don't always get it right. When you have to define marriage in a way that takes away someone's civil rights, something is wrong.  

I grew up at a time when church leaders embraced a doctrine/revelation/teaching that prevented blacks from receiving all the blessings of the priesthood and temple in this life.  Something was not quite right about that either.  I believe all should be able to receive all the blessings of God in this life as well as the next.  When the brethren teach that the fulness of the gospel is only open to some in this life, then something is once again wrong.  They may be very good and sincere men.  But they don't always get it right.

I agree the church doesn't always get things right. God lets us figure things out on our own with free agency. Kind of like when Joseph gave transcripts of the Book Of Mormon translation to Martin Harris, and they were lost as a result. Sometimes God lets us make mistakes in order to learn.

As far as blacks not getting the priesthood at first, I don't know if that was a mistake or not. Who knows how much worse persecutions against the church might have been back in the day? Besides it isn't the first time certain lineages of people weren't allowed to have the priesthood and enter into certain portions of the temple. In Moses's time you could only do that if you were from the tribe of Levi.

Marriage never had been redefined to allow legal SSM in all of recorded history until recently, in any society. As far as it taking away civil rights, the only loss of benefits are because of governmental policies, allowing benefits to married people that unmarried people don't get.

I find it strange that the rainbow has been perverted in it's meaning to represent those who break God's laws of chastity when God placed the rainbow in the sky to show that he wouldn't destroy the world because of iniquities like this by flood, ever again. It sure does seem like a mockery toward God himself.

That said the true essence of the gospel isn't to shun sinners, but instead love them back into God's presence, through forgiveness and gentle persuasion, just like sinners of other types of sins, like the laws of God that we all break when we succumb to our own set of weaknesses of the flesh, and beg for our own forgiveness. Upholding firmly to God's laws doesn't equal bigotry. Ignorance and fear bring about bigotry if you ask me.

 

[california boy]

35 minutes ago, waveslider said:

I agree the church doesn't always get things right. God lets us figure things out on our own with free agency. Kind of like when Joseph gave transcripts of the Book Of Mormon translation to Martin Harris, and they were lost as a result. Sometimes God lets us make mistakes in order to learn.

As far as blacks not getting the priesthood at first, I don't know if that was a mistake or not. Who knows how much worse persecutions against the church might have been back in the day? Besides it isn't the first time certain lineages of people weren't allowed to have the priesthood and enter into certain portions of the temple. In Moses's time you could only do that if you were from the tribe of Levi.

Marriage never had been redefined to allow legal SSM in all of recorded history until recently, in any society. As far as it taking away civil rights, the only loss of benefits are because of governmental policies, allowing benefits to married people that unmarried people don't get.

I find it strange that the rainbow has been perverted in it's meaning to represent those who break God's laws of chastity when God placed the rainbow in the sky to show that he wouldn't destroy the world because of iniquities like this by flood, ever again. It sure does seem like a mockery toward God himself.

That said the true essence of the gospel isn't to shun sinners, but instead love them back into God's presence, through forgiveness and gentle persuasion, just like sinners of other types of sins, like the laws of God that we all break when we succumb to our own set of weaknesses of the flesh, and beg for our own forgiveness. Upholding firmly to God's laws doesn't equal bigotry. Ignorance and fear bring about bigotry if you ask me.

 

I really don't want to derail this thread any more than I have, so I won't comment on  what you said other than to say that I myself used many of the same arguments that you are using to defend the church's position.  I completely understand the need to do so.

[theplains]

On 08/07/2016 at 8:38 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

So, Jim, you picture Joseph going about loudly declaring that to every Methodist and Presbyterian he met?  Or was that what Jesus told him?

In fact, even after his First Vision, didn't Joseph actually attend Methodist services?  And wasn't Joseph always extremely courteous and kind to members of other religions, saying that Mormonism should accept truth from any group?  Indeed, unlike other religions, the LDS Church has always had a policy of just preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ, instead of bad-mouthing and persecuting other religions.

I wasn't questioning the tone that he used when he said all their creeds were an abomination to God or the method he used to proclaim this.

Jim

[theplains]

On 08/07/2016 at 10:39 PM, Calm said:

The 'creeds being an abomination' is from the 1839-41 history according to 

https://history.lds.org/article/first-vision-accounts-synthesis?lang=eng

Do you know if this was ever referred to before then?

Joseph asked the heavenly beings which church was right. “Must I join the Methodist Church?” 
he asked.25 “I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong.”26 The 
problem was that “all religious denominations were believing in incorrect doctrines.” God 
did not acknowledge any of them “as his church and kingdom.”27 The everlasting covenant, 
the tie between the ancient Christian gospel and the present day, “had been broken.”28

This is not the way it is recorded in the triple combo (BOM, D&C, POGP) that they distribute today.

Jim

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, theplains said:

I wasn't questioning the tone that he used when he said all their creeds were an abomination to God or the method he used to proclaim this.

Jim

If the first time this was taught was 1840ish, I suspect most who heard about it already had strong enough feelings about JS that it didn't make a difference.

[Calm]

 

4 minutes ago, theplains said:

Joseph asked the heavenly beings which church was right. “Must I join the Methodist Church?” 
he asked.25 “I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong.”26 The 
problem was that “all religious denominations were believing in incorrect doctrines.” God 
did not acknowledge any of them “as his church and kingdom.”27 The everlasting covenant, 
the tie between the ancient Christian gospel and the present day, “had been broken.”28

This is not the way it is recorded in the triple combo (BOM, D&C, POGP) that they distribute today.

Jim

If you read the link, you will see it claims to be a synthesis of all accounts.  I used it to get the date for the creed detail.

"Joseph left four known firsthand accounts of his vision, and contemporaries recorded five more known accounts after hearing him speak about it. Combined, these accounts are a rich resource, providing Latter-day Saints with a greater understanding of this significant event. The following narrative integrates details from all of the accounts."

[theplains]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

If the first time this was taught was 1840ish, I suspect most who heard about it already had strong enough feelings about JS that it didn't make a difference.

If Joseph saw the Father and Jesus in 1820, when did he start talking about it?

Jim

[theplains]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

If you read the link, you will see it claims to be a synthesis of all accounts.  I used it to get the date for the creed detail.

"Joseph left four known firsthand accounts of his vision, and contemporaries recorded five more known accounts after hearing him speak about it. Combined, these accounts are a rich resource, providing Latter-day Saints with a greater understanding of this significant event. The following narrative integrates details from all of the accounts."

Maybe they will alter the version currently published in BOM+POGP+D&C in subsequent versions.

Jim