Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

LDS history - chapter 2 - Hear Him


Recommended Posts

Posted

According to https://lds.org/languages/eng/content/history/saints-v1/02-hear-him
             
"His burden lifted, Joseph repeated his question: “What church shall I join?”  "Join none of them,” 
the Savior told him. “They teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, 
but they deny the power thereof
.”

http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/js_h/1 says in verse 19 "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
.”

Why are the parts about all the churches being wrong and all their creeds being an abomination in 
his sight removed?  Did Joseph Smith ever produce a list of these supposedly abominable creeds?

Thanks,
Jim

Posted
1 hour ago, theplains said:

According to https://lds.org/languages/eng/content/history/saints-v1/02-hear-him
             
"His burden lifted, Joseph repeated his question: “What church shall I join?”  "Join none of them,” 
the Savior told him. “They teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, 
but they deny the power thereof
.”

http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/js_h/1 says in verse 19 "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
.”

Why are the parts about all the churches being wrong and all their creeds being an abomination in 
his sight removed?  Did Joseph Smith ever produce a list of these supposedly abominable creeds?

Thanks,
Jim

Why would Joseph have a list? Jesus made the statement. If you want a listing of the creeds he finds abominable you will have to ask him.

Posted
3 hours ago, theplains said:

According to https://lds.org/languages/eng/content/history/saints-v1/02-hear-him
             
"His burden lifted, Joseph repeated his question: “What church shall I join?”  "Join none of them,” 
the Savior told him. “They teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, 
but they deny the power thereof
.”

http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/js_h/1 says in verse 19 "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
.”

Why are the parts about all the churches being wrong and all their creeds being an abomination in 
his sight removed?  Did Joseph Smith ever produce a list of these supposedly abominable creeds?

Thanks,
Jim

The church obviously wants to lighten up what the Lord supposedly said to young Joseph.  The Lord is too direct sometimes and other religious leaders seem to take offense to being called abominable and corrupt.  I guess they just aren't humble enough to be called out by deity.

Posted
21 minutes ago, Exiled said:

The church obviously wants to lighten up what the Lord supposedly said to young Joseph.  The Lord is too direct sometimes and other religious leaders seem to take offense to being called abominable and corrupt.  I guess they just aren't humble enough to be called out by deity.

Well, to be fair, if Joseph's other versions of the story are also correct, then apparently he did to.  The Church is just carrying on the tradition of tailoring the story so it says what you want it to say.  For the audience, of course.

Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, theplains said:

Why are the parts about all the churches being wrong and all their creeds being an abomination in 
his sight removed?  Did Joseph Smith ever produce a list of these supposedly abominable creeds?

Thanks,
Jim

Truth is given by God, through revelation.  It is not decided by men voting in counsels.  When folks kicked God out of the driver's seat and put men their instead when the declared the cannon to be closed, public revelation to be done, and turned to men's voting on Creeds as a way of deciding Truth.  That is indeed an abomination in the highest regard. 

Edited by Jane_Doe
Posted
11 hours ago, theplains said:

According to https://lds.org/languages/eng/content/history/saints-v1/02-hear-him
             
"His burden lifted, Joseph repeated his question: “What church shall I join?”  "Join none of them,” 
the Savior told him. “They teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, 
but they deny the power thereof
.”

http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/js_h/1 says in verse 19 "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
.”

Why are the parts about all the churches being wrong and all their creeds being an abomination in 
his sight removed?  Did Joseph Smith ever produce a list of these supposedly abominable creeds?

Thanks,
Jim

Here's one: the Nicene Creed. Basically, all the others too.

Posted

Maybe it is because too many members have used those words as an excuse to be judgmental and unkind, when God only meant that creedal Christianity (specifically the doctrine of the Trinity) was wrong.

Posted (edited)
On 5/20/2018 at 7:26 AM, theplains said:

According to https://lds.org/languages/eng/content/history/saints-v1/02-hear-him
             
"His burden lifted, Joseph repeated his question: “What church shall I join?”  "Join none of them,” 
the Savior told him. “They teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, 
but they deny the power thereof
.”

http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/js_h/1 says in verse 19 "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
.”

Why are the parts about all the churches being wrong and all their creeds being an abomination in 
his sight removed?  Did Joseph Smith ever produce a list of these supposedly abominable creeds?

Thanks,
Jim

The 1838 first vision narrative is a snapshot in a time where there church was going through a lot of persecution, so it makes some sense in that context that there was a very strong language about other groups.  They had just gone through the Missouri extermination, many of the top leaders left and Joseph and the other remaining leaders crafted a story with strong language about other creeds and outsiders.  The context of the time period is captured in this account.  

I suggest looking at the 1832 account which doesn't saying anything about not joining other churches, and doesn't have any of the negative language about other creeds.  

Edited by hope_for_things
Posted
2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The 1838 first vision narrative is a snapshot in a time where there church was going through a lot of persecution, so it makes some sense in that context that there was a very strong language about other groups.  They had just gone through the Missouri extermination, many of the top leaders left and Joseph and the other remaining leaders crafted a story with strong language about other creeds and outsiders.  The context of the time period is captured in this account.  

I suggest looking at the 1832 account which doesn't saying anything about not joining other churches, and doesn't have any of the negative language about other creeds.  

If you eliminate the negative language of 1838 version, it seems you severely water down the need for a Restoration.

Should people remove the negative language Jesus had for the churches in Revelation 2 and 3?

Do you believe the statement  "... they were all wrong; ... all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; ... those
professors were all corrupt .."  were the actual words of Jesus or something Joseph Smith made up?

Thanks,
Jim

Posted
1 hour ago, theplains said:

If you eliminate the negative language of 1838 version, it seems you severely water down the need for a Restoration.

Should people remove the negative language Jesus had for the churches in Revelation 2 and 3?

Do you believe the statement  "... they were all wrong; ... all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; ... those
professors were all corrupt .."  were the actual words of Jesus or something Joseph Smith made up?

Thanks,
Jim

Firstly, I don't think we need negative language to make the church relevant.  That's not a gospel principle from my perspective. 

Secondly, Jesus didn't write the book of Revelation, scholars mostly agree that we don't know who the author of that book was.  Also, that was one of the more controversial books that became part of the bible canon, which Mormons believe is only correct as far as it is translated correctly, and since this compilation of the bible was agreed upon during the apostasy time period, its possible that it shouldn't have been part of the bible.  I think its safe think a little more critically about that text and not just assume that your interpretation reflects the mind of Jesus.  

Posted
6 hours ago, rpn said:

Maybe it is because too many members have used those words as an excuse to be judgmental and unkind, when God only meant that creedal Christianity (specifically the doctrine of the Trinity) was wrong.

You know what God meant?

Posted
On 5/20/2018 at 9:46 AM, Exiled said:

The church obviously wants to lighten up what the Lord supposedly said to young Joseph.  The Lord is too direct sometimes and other religious leaders seem to take offense to being called abominable and corrupt.  I guess they just aren't humble enough to be called out by deity.

yes, we need to downplay this abominable stuff and forget the crazy devil choking encounter. 

Posted
On 5/20/2018 at 9:40 AM, The Nehor said:

Why would Joseph have a list? Jesus made the statement. If you want a listing of the creeds he finds abominable you will have to ask him.

Yeah....Good  luck getting an answer.😂

Posted
On 5/21/2018 at 4:41 PM, hope_for_things said:

Firstly, I don't think we need negative language to make the church relevant.  That's not a gospel principle from my perspective. 

So returning back to what is recorded in LDS history, do you believe the statement  "... they were all wrong; ... all their
creeds were an abomination in his sight; ... those 
professors were all corrupt .."  were the actual words of Jesus to 
Joseph Smith or just something Joseph made up?

Thanks,
Jim

Posted
9 minutes ago, theplains said:

So returning back to what is recorded in LDS history, do you believe the statement  "... they were all wrong; ... all their
creeds were an abomination in his sight; ... those 
professors were all corrupt .."  were the actual words of Jesus to 
Joseph Smith or just something Joseph made up?

Thanks,
Jim

They weren’t even the actual words of Joseph as the 1838 history was written by a committee.  

Posted
2 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Yeah....Good  luck getting an answer.😂

1 Nephi 15:

8 And I said unto them: Have ye inquired of the Lord?

9 And they said unto me: We have not; for the Lord maketh no such thing known unto us.

 

that-is-why-you-fail-quote-1.jpg

Posted (edited)

This kind of discussion always cracks me up.

The whole church is based on a first person account of one persons personal experience of God- an experience alleged to have occurred and of course not verifiable or witnessed in anyway by any body else.

No statement of this kind has ANY credibility whatsoever to anyone unless God HIMSELF confirms to you that it happened.  Absent that the whole story is absurd on its face!

And then we get the geniuses who want to actually say the story is bogus because the original author changed the wording of what was allegedly said!!

The story is logically absurd on its face and then they want to say another account is bogus because it adds some particulars to the first absurd story, as if anyone could possible discover what "actually happened" as if it is an objective event!!

Let's call in the scientists to weigh the credibility of the whole thing!!

Quote

 

"I saw a little green man land and he said he  was from Mars and told me other stuff"

 

Years later:

Quote

"The little green man had a companion, and they also said more stuff"

So NOW you dispute the story because NOW there were 2 green men?  And the whole point that the story is ridiculous on its face doesn't matter- now the "conflict" in the ridiculous story proves it is ridiculous????   Are you kidding me??

Don't get me wrong- I KNOW WITHOUT A DOUBT that Joseph saw God.  I KNOW BECAUSE GOD TOLD ME!!

Is it ridiculous?  Of course yet I KNOW IT HAPPENED!!  It is about as ridiculous a story as the one that some man being crucified 2000 years ago means my sins are forgiven!!   How wacky is that??

 I do not KNOW it because it is a plausible story!!  The whole idea is totally IMPLAUSIBLE on it's face- AND that is the whole point!!!

And I am supposed to quibble because the totally implausible story is not complete in one account so other implausible details are added later??

Holy cow it takes a real genius to think that way, and totally miss the importance of the story in the first place. God can appear and did!!

Either you take it on faith as it is or just move on.  This is not about logic it is about spiritual confirmation which is ridiculous to those who do not believe in it anyway.  Get over it.

Face the absurdity, know we take it on faith and get your own confirmation or don't

This has nothing to do with logic!!!

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Posted
5 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Yeah....Good  luck getting an answer.😂

Oh I have, thank you and luck had nothing to do with it.

Posted (edited)
On 5/21/2018 at 3:28 PM, sunstoned said:

yes, we need to downplay this abominable stuff and forget the crazy devil choking encounter. 

Definitely bad PR, but guess what?

The whole story is bad PR in today's world.  So what's the difference?

When someone says God appeared and said gay marriage was cool, women have the priesthood, now you will believe THAT??

Tell you what- make up your own vision and see who follows- ok??

Give me a break!!

Edited by mfbukowski
Posted
3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

They weren’t even the actual words of Joseph as the 1838 history was written by a committee.  

Not that it matters much in weighing its credibility...

At least a committee shows that SOMEONE actually believes it

Posted

" to some it is given to know... , to some it is given to believe on the word of others ... "  I'm paraphrasing the quote .

Then there are some who, although confronted by an angel, refuse to believe for very long. Apparently it takes all kinds to make this world work.

Posted
54 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Not that it matters much in weighing its credibility...

At least a committee shows that SOMEONE actually believes it

If by credible you mean accurately representative of how Joseph would have described the experience immediately after he experienced it, I think the 1838 account fails that test of credibility.  

Unfortunately we’ll never know how Joseph would have described his vision immediately after he experienced it because he never recorded anything at that time.  

Not that it really should matter much anyway.  A dream, a vision, these are personal and subject experiences that can mean a great deal to the person experiencing them, but don’t translate well when they are shared.  Unless someone is attempting to use their vision as proof of divine approval, but I think that’s a misuse of a personal mystical experience.  

Posted
20 hours ago, The Nehor said:

1 Nephi 15:

8 And I said unto them: Have ye inquired of the Lord?

9 And they said unto me: We have not; for the Lord maketh no such thing known unto us.

 

that-is-why-you-fail-quote-1.jpg

Great Nehor,now we are putting our trust in Yoda's Hollywood fantasy.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...