Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

[Calm]

[plains asking when he talked about it]

The specific detail of the creeds or the general experience?

Edited July 11, 2016 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours 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

Yet, in fact he does not appear to have proclaimed that at all, and his successors soft-pedaled that notion, Jim.  You have invented a picture of Mormonism akin to the hate-filled mode adopted by the evangelical community.  Yet it never existed.

[Calm]

The appearance of the phrase was late and limited it would seem:

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/searchNew?query=Creeds abominations&sort=relevance&page=1&perpage=10&startdate=&enddate=&transcripts=false&issuggestion=false&types=documents-papers|documents-papers-histories|documents-papers-documents|related-materials|biographical-directory|geographical-directory|glossary|event

[The Nehor]

On 7/8/2016 at 11:33 PM, Calm said:

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.

A great irony as evangelicals are largely not a huge fan of the creeds themselves. Not that they disagree with all the concepts in them but they tend to take the creeds as subordinate to scripture.

[theplains]

On 12/07/2016 at 2:19 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

Yet, in fact he does not appear to have proclaimed that at all, and his successors soft-pedaled that notion, Jim.  You have invented a picture of Mormonism akin to the hate-filled mode adopted by the evangelical community.  Yet it never existed.

According to synthesis accounts of the first vision at  

"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 ...
The “creeds” governing the Christian churches were “an abomination” in God’s sight.

That is the whole reason for the LDS Church preaching the restoration message.  As the 1997 
version of Gospel Principles says, "More and more error crept into Church doctrine, and 
soon the destruction of the Church was complete".

You seem to be under the impression that Joseph kept these sayings all to himself and
could never explain why there was a need for a restoration.

While I don't agree with Mormon teachings, I would never interpret their actions as
hate-filled against the evangelical community so I hope you would offer me the same
respect.

Please don't lump me into some hate-filled group.  I love Mormons as I do people of
all faiths.

Thanks,
Jim

[Robert F. Smith]

17 minutes ago, theplains said:

According to synthesis accounts of the first vision at  

"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 ...
The “creeds” governing the Christian churches were “an abomination” in God’s sight.

That is the whole reason for the LDS Church preaching the restoration message.  As the 1997 
version of Gospel Principles says, "More and more error crept into Church doctrine, and 
soon the destruction of the Church was complete".

You seem to be under the impression that Joseph kept these sayings all to himself and
could never explain why there was a need for a restoration.

While I don't agree with Mormon teachings, I would never interpret their actions as
hate-filled against the evangelical community so I hope you would offer me the same
respect.

Please don't lump me into some hate-filled group.  I love Mormons as I do people of
all faiths.

Thanks,
Jim

Since that is the case, it should be very easy for you to acknowledge that the picture you have painted of Joseph inveighing against other churches with such claims is nonsense.  In my experience, evangelicals have usually made the false claim that the LDS Church makes vicious attacks on other churches, and that therefore all of the harsh attacks on Mormonism by evangelicals are justified.  Richard Mouw himself apologized repeatedly to the Mormons for that harsh and unfair mistreatment by his fellow evangelicals.  Dr Mouw was embarrassed by all the obviously false claims being made against the LDS Church and people by his fellow evangelicals.  Likewise, Rob Bowman (who spent quite a bit of time here on this board) conducted himself like a gentleman and did not besmirch the evangelical name.  It is possible to disagree without bearing false witness or being just plain nasty, Jim.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

 

You seem to be under the impression that Joseph kept these sayings all to himself and
could never explain why there was a need for a restoration.

All I am suggesting is the 'creeds are an abomination' teaching might not have been used before 1842ish (not showing up before this time in the JSP) and not much after (per Robert's posts).  The only reason at this point I think that matters is because that is the specific comment many in my experience have pointed to as being an attack of such significance (vileness to be more precise) that it justifies their and others' anti-mormon behaviours.  If what Joseph and others were saying was more mild and perhaps even comparable to what protestant ministers in the area said themsrlves (I don't know) to justify when they started new demoniations, the "he started it " approach suffers dramatically.

I am not lumping you or anyone else in this thread in that group, the discussion merely triggered my curiosity about this possibility.

[theplains]

On 14/07/2016 at 5:16 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Since that is the case, it should be very easy for you to acknowledge that the picture you have painted of Joseph inveighing against other churches with such claims is nonsense.

What do you mean exactly by Joseph inveighing against other churches?

Jim

[coolrok7]

The focal point of the term "them" in the text of Matthew 7, from which the thread title derives from, are the false prophets and their fruit which is false teaching:

Quote

¹⁵ Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. ¹⁶ Ye shall know them by their fruits. . . .²⁰ Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

There is of course in context a contrast between good fruit and evil fruit but the context of the them are the false prophets.

Not taking anything away from the "people are good decent caring loving people" you referenced Johnnie Cake.

Edited July 16, 2016 by coolrok7
added bolding

[Robert F. Smith]

On 7/15/2016 at 5:18 PM, theplains said:

What do you mean exactly by Joseph inveighing against other churches?

Jim

Are you looking for a dictionary definition of inveighing: "speak or write about (something) with great hostility"?  Or are you looking for your own assertion that Joseph was speaking and writing about other christian churches with great hostility?  For example, your suggestion that Joseph was going about actively claiming that 'The “creeds” governing the Christian churches were “an abomination” in God’s sight,' seems like a circular and false claim.  Can you back it up?  Seems to me that the shoe is on the other foot, i.e., that it is the Mormons who are the aggrieved party.

Edited July 19, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[theplains]

On 14/07/2016 at 5:16 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Are you looking for a dictionary definition of inveighing: "speak or write about (something) with great hostility"?  Or are you looking for your own assertion that Joseph was speaking and writing about other christian churches with great hostility?  For example, your suggestion that Joseph was going about actively claiming that 'The “creeds” governing the Christian churches were “an abomination” in God’s sight,' seems like a circular and false claim.  Can you back it up?  Seems to me that the shoe is on the other foot, i.e., that it is the Mormons who are the agrieved party.

It is unclear what tone Joseph Smith was using.  I don't believe Joseph Smith was actively 
proclaiming this 24x7 but you can be sure he was proclaiming it as the basis of his restoration 
message.  It does not solely rely on his belief that only priesthood authority disappeared 
from the earth.  It involves more than this.  This is why the 1998 Gospel Principles manual 
said that the destruction of Christ's church was complete.

A common theme of the first vision accounts is that:

"The creeds governing the Christian churches were “an abomination” in God’s sight."  (another 
version says it was ALL creeds).

"The problem was that “all religious denominations were believing in incorrect doctrines." (but 
he only mentions 3 denominations and lumps them into the category of all denominations or all 
doctrines being wrong. After all, he doesn't say they believe in some correct doctrines).

I would say some LDS creeds are an abomination to God, but I would never say all LDS creeds are 
an abomination.  I hope you don't agree with the Joseph Smith account on this matter.

Thanks,
Jim

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, theplains said:

It is unclear what tone Joseph Smith was using.  I don't believe Joseph Smith was actively 
proclaiming this 24x7 but you can be sure he was proclaiming it as the basis of his restoration 
message.  It does not solely rely on his belief that only priesthood authority disappeared 
from the earth.  It involves more than this.  This is why the 1998 Gospel Principles manual 
said that the destruction of Christ's church was complete.

A common theme of the first vision accounts is that:

"The creeds governing the Christian churches were “an abomination” in God’s sight."  (another 
version says it was ALL creeds).

"The problem was that “all religious denominations were believing in incorrect doctrines." (but 
he only mentions 3 denominations and lumps them into the category of all denominations or all 
doctrines being wrong. After all, he doesn't say they believe in some correct doctrines).

I would say some LDS creeds are an abomination to God, but I would never say all LDS creeds are 
an abomination.  I hope you don't agree with the Joseph Smith account on this matter.

Thanks,
Jim

But that is just not true.  Joseph was simply not proclaiming that all their creeds are an abomination.  If he said that all religious denominations were believing in incorrect doctrines (you don't cite your source, as usual for you), he was simply saying what the denominations themselves said about each other, but he never went into attack mode the way you do, nor in the way those denominations did in attacking and persecuting the LDS faith.  There is a long history of so-called christians persecuting the Mormons, but not the other way around.  You should be ashamed of yourself for making these false accusations.

[smac97]

On 7/8/2016 at 7:19 AM, ERMD said:

I just saw your location.  We went to Hawaii for the first time this past January and at the end of our trip spent a couple of days on the North Shore.  Loved it!

I was born in Kahuku.  Lived on Moana Street in Laie until I was five.  Moved to the mainland.  Haven't been back since.

But the islands call to me . . . to this day I miss them.  I still think of them as home.

[theplains]

On 18/07/2016 at 9:09 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

But that is just not true.  Joseph was simply not proclaiming that all their creeds are an abomination.

Another plausible explanation is that Joseph really did experience a visitation by Heavenly 
Father and Jesus (telling him all Christian creeds were an abomination) but for some reason 
he refused to tell this to anyone.  Or maybe he thought people's feelings would be offended, 
so he only told the Latter-day Saints and the eventual news slipped out to the mainstream.

As long as this is part of LDS Church history, it is a proclamation to the world of what was 
'supposedly' told to Smith. 

Thanks,
Jim

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

Another plausible explanation is that Joseph really did experience a visitation by Heavenly 
Father and Jesus (telling him all Christian creeds were an abomination) but for some reason 
he refused to tell this to anyone.  Or maybe he thought people's feelings would be offended, 
so he only told the Latter-day Saints and the eventual news slipped out to the mainstream.

As long as this is part of LDS Church history, it is a proclamation to the world of what was 
'supposedly' told to Smith. 

Thanks,
Jim

I guess the point you keep missing, Jim, is that Joseph didn't go about proclaiming what he had supposedly been told, even among his fellow Mormons.  Indeed, the First Vision story was virtually unknown among Mormons until the late 19th century.  And only in the early 20th century did it become a point of interest and the content of a tract.  There are a number of such disconnects or disjunctures between modern Mormonism and the form of it in Joseph's day. Presentists have a very hard time conceiving of that fact.

[Nevo]

On 7/18/2016 at 6:09 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

But that is just not true.  Joseph was simply not proclaiming that all their creeds are an abomination.  If he said that all religious denominations were believing in incorrect doctrines (you don't cite your source, as usual for you), he was simply saying what the denominations themselves said about each other. . . .

Joseph went well beyond what other denominations said about each other. He claimed that the whole Christian world was in apostasy. And Joseph apparently didn't keep this under his hat as much as we once believed. In 1853, Milo Andrus recalled hearing Joseph relate his first vision experience in 1833. George Watt took down Andrus's words in shorthand: "I was a boy first 19 years of age when I heard the testimony of that man Joseph Smith that angel came and that [glory?] and trees seemed to be consumed in blaze and he was there entrusted with this information that darkness covered the earth that the great mass of Christian world universally wrong their creeds all upon uncertain foundation now as young as you are I call upon you from this obscurity go forth and build up my kingdom on  the earth" (Papers of George D. Watt, MS 4534, box 2, disk 1, May 1853–July 1853, images 231–56, transcribed by LaJean Purcell Carruth, 3 October 2012, corrected October 2013, quoted in Ann Taves and Steven C. Harper, " Joseph Smith’s First Vision: New Methods for the Analysis of Experience-Related Texts," Mormon Studies Review 3 [2016]: 81). This is hearsay, of course, but it is consistent with the condemnatory language in Joseph's 1832 and 1838 accounts.

[strappinglad]

For those who don't get out much, be it known that there are some really nasty folks around who make it their mission to mess with the peace of others. Go on youtube and enter ' neighbors ' . So much fun. As Robert said or implied, some cultures are very good at raising solid, moral, kind people. Other cultures have a way of producing  SOBs regularly. For insight into the internet culture, just read the comment section on ANY site.

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, Nevo said:

Joseph went well beyond what other denominations said about each other. He claimed that the whole Christian world was in apostasy. And Joseph apparently didn't keep this under his hat as much as we once believed. In 1853, Milo Andrus recalled hearing Joseph relate his first vision experience in 1833. George Watt took down Andrus's words in shorthand: "I was a boy first 19 years of age when I heard the testimony of that man Joseph Smith that angel came and that [glory?] and trees seemed to be consumed in blaze and he was there entrusted with this information that darkness covered the earth that the great mass of Christian world universally wrong their creeds all upon uncertain foundation now as young as you are I call upon you from this obscurity go forth and build up my kingdom on  the earth" (Papers of George D. Watt, MS 4534, box 2, disk 1, May 1853–July 1853, images 231–56, transcribed by LaJean Purcell Carruth, 3 October 2012, corrected October 2013, quoted in Ann Taves and Steven C. Harper, " Joseph Smith’s First Vision: New Methods for the Analysis of Experience-Related Texts," Mormon Studies Review 3 [2016]: 81). This is hearsay, of course, but it is consistent with the condemnatory language in Joseph's 1832 and 1838 accounts.

I agree, Nevo, and thanks for the detail.  I have no problem with the evidence for the First Vision or the claims Joseph made.  I am simply saying that such a proclamation is very rare.  Mormons and interested outsiders did not commonly hear that sort of thing, and the record bears out that view.  The same applies to the Book of Mormon, which was only rarely cited in the 19th century -- perhaps because it only became available with easily referenced chapter and verse in Orson Pratt's 1879 edition.  The same applies to the Word of Wisdom in the 19th century, along with the very late shift from wine to water in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper.  Mormons and anti-Mormons all tend to believe that such features of Mormonism were normative in the 19th century, but they were not.

When I said "If he said that all religious denominations were believing in incorrect doctrines (you don't cite your source, as usual for you), he was simply saying what the denominations themselves said about each other," I was referring directly to Jim's claim that some LDS source (he does not cite) says "The problem was that 'all religious denominations were believing in incorrect doctrines'."  Your argument in response misses the softer point Jim is making with that quotation.

[ERMD]

On 7/18/2016 at 8:25 PM, smac97 said:

I was born in Kahuku.  Lived on Moana Street in Laie until I was five.  Moved to the mainland.  Haven't been back since.

But the islands call to me . . . to this day I miss them.  I still think of them as home.

YOU NEED TO GO!!

[smac97]

4 hours ago, ERMD said:

YOU NEED TO GO!!

I hope to sometime in the next few years.  My first trip overseas (outside the continental U.S.) will be to go with my wife to Ireland (she's of Irish/Welsh extraction, and is writing a novel set in a fictionalized version of Ireland) and Scotland (I'm pretty much all Scottish, with a peppering of English and French).

Thanks,

-Smac

[theplains]

16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Indeed, the First Vision story was virtually unknown among Mormons until the late 19th century.

Who was the first person Joseph told about his vision details and when?

Thanks,
Jim

[strappinglad]

I'm going to guess a family member, but then again , there was that minister recorded in the history. Once burnt, twice shy.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, theplains said:

Who was the first person Joseph told about his vision details and when?

Thanks,
Jim

strappinglad says "I'm going to guess a family member, but then again , there was that minister recorded in the history. Once burnt, twice shy,"  but we have no confirmation in any source as to whom he told first.  We have at hand scholarly accounts of the First Vision, including one in Joseph's own hand, but we have only rare accounts of him telling someone about it.  The First Vision only becomes a matter tor preaching in the late 19th century, long after Joseph is dead, and only becomes a part of an official tract in the early 20th century.  You need to own up to the obvious, Jim.  The First Vision was simply not a prominent matter until the 20th century,, something a presentist cannot abide.

[theplains]

On 20/07/2016 at 6:23 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

We have at hand scholarly accounts of the First Vision, including one in Joseph's own hand, but we have only rare accounts of him telling someone about it.  The First Vision only becomes a matter tor preaching in the late 19th century, long after Joseph is dead, and only becomes a part of an official tract in the early 20th century.  You need to own up to the obvious, Jim.  The First Vision was simply not a prominent matter until the 20th century,, something a presentist cannot abide.

I'll let the official LDS Church history speak for itself:

"Some few days after I had this vision, I happened to be in company with one of the
Methodist preachers, who was very active in the before mentioned religious excitement;
and, conversing with him on the subject of religion, I took occasion to give him an
account of the vision which I had had. I was greatly surprised at his behavior; he treated
my communication not only lightly, but with great contempt, saying it was all of the
devil, that there were no such things as visions or revelations in these days; that all
such things had ceased with the apostles, and that there would never be any more of them.

I soon found, however, that my telling the story had excited a great deal of prejudice
against me among professors of religion, and was the cause of great persecution, which
continued to increase; and though I was an obscure boy, only between fourteen and fifteen
years of age, and my circumstances in life such as to make a boy of no consequence in the
world, yet men of high standing would take notice sufficient to excite the public mind
against me, and create a bitter persecution; and this was common among all the sects—all
united to persecute me.

It caused me serious reflection then, and often has since, how very strange it was that an
obscure aboy, of a little over fourteen years of age, and one, too, who was doomed to the
necessity of obtaining a scanty maintenance by his daily blabor, should be thought a
character of sufficient importance to attract the attention of the great ones of the most
popular sects of the day, and in a manner to create in them a spirit of the most bitter
persecution and reviling. But strange or not, so it was, and it was often the cause of
great sorrow to myself."

Regards,
Jim

[Robert F. Smith]

1 minute ago, theplains said:

I'll let the official LDS Church history speak for itself:

"Some few days after I had this vision, I happened to be in company with one of the
Methodist preachers, who was very active in the before mentioned religious excitement;
and, conversing with him on the subject of religion, I took occasion to give him an
account of the vision which I had had. I was greatly surprised at his behavior; he treated
my communication not only lightly, but with great contempt, saying it was all of the
devil, that there were no such things as visions or revelations in these days; that all
such things had ceased with the apostles, and that there would never be any more of them.

I soon found, however, that my telling the story had excited a great deal of prejudice
against me among professors of religion, and was the cause of great persecution, which
continued to increase; and though I was an obscure boy, only between fourteen and fifteen
years of age, and my circumstances in life such as to make a boy of no consequence in the
world, yet men of high standing would take notice sufficient to excite the public mind
against me, and create a bitter persecution; and this was common among all the sects—all
united to persecute me.

It caused me serious reflection then, and often has since, how very strange it was that an
obscure aboy, of a little over fourteen years of age, and one, too, who was doomed to the
necessity of obtaining a scanty maintenance by his daily blabor, should be thought a
character of sufficient importance to attract the attention of the great ones of the most
popular sects of the day, and in a manner to create in them a spirit of the most bitter
persecution and reviling. But strange or not, so it was, and it was often the cause of
great sorrow to myself."

Regards,
Jim

Yes, that is the content of the official history created almost 20 years after the event, and not in Joseph's  hand (indeed, Richard Bushman wonders how much of that account is actually Joseph, and how much his scribes' version).  That official account becomes a key part of a 20th century LDS tract called "Joseph Smith Tells His Own Story," but is seldom commented on before that -- maybe one late 19th century sermon.  Otherwise, we have only this comment attributed to Joseph that he was immediately rebuffed when describing his First Vision experience.  However, we do not know to which preacher he spoke, nor what he said that so riled him up.  He was after all just a kid at that time, around 14 years old.  He may have been ridiculed and bullied for a time, but that doesn't tell us what he in fact told anyone at that time.  As usual, Jim, you miss the point that Joseph was not going about railing against other churches for having abominable creeds.  We simply have no record of him doing so.