President Hinckley: "Bring Your Good" and Conversion

[MiserereNobis]

40 minutes ago, manol said:

Let me suggest an alternative interpretation of President Hinkley's "let us see if we can add to [the good you already have]":

You could also REMAIN Catholic, fully retaining your relationship with the Virgin Mary, and ADD TO your personal beliefs whatever you find good within the LDS Church.  For instance if something feels right to you about the "nobody gets cheated" aspect of baptism for the dead, add "nobody gets cheated" to your personal beliefs, even if the mechanics of how that works are not clearly taught within Catholicism.  If something feels right to you about the "plant the seed" teaching on how to recognize what is of God in Alma chapter 32, then add that to your beliefs.  If the LDS practice of not only praying for the sick but also actively blessing them feels right, then there you go.

And just ignore anything within Mormonism which does not speak peace to your soul, because that means it does not "add to" what you already have.  

I assume you don't mind if various Mormons and ex-Mormons borrow from Catholicism here and there... like the idea of advanced spirits on the other side, aka "Saints", being able and happy to assist us mortals is one I have incorporated.  Likewise the practice of having a few memorized prayers just a thought away which can very quickly shift one's energy away from the fearful and into the peaceful.  And imo the Catholic idea of "having Christ form within us" is not incompatible with the LDS idea of becoming "the same manner of man or woman that Christ is." 

That's a great way to interpret the quote, manol. Thanks for sharing. We should always been adding to our religious and spiritual good.

[Bernard Gui]

15 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

No disagreement there. But that doesn't address President Hinckley's statement.

If the Holy Ghost witnesses to you that the Book of Mormon is true, you may choose to accept or reject the revelation. By accepting, you would add much good to your previously-gained spiritual knowledge, but you might have to leave some other things behind. This is true for anyone who converts to another religion. If I were to convert to Catholicism, there are many things that I love about the LDS Church that I would have to put aside, for example The Book of Mormon, but there are also many things I could take with me. I would have to choose.

A Jewish friend told me this story.

A Jewish family moved into a Catholic neighborhood. Every Friday night, they would enjoy a dinner of steak, burgers, or chops cooked on the outdoor grill. After several weeks, a neighbor stopped by and asked if they would not cook meat on Friday’s because it was disconcerting to his neighbors. The Jew thought about it, but decided to continue.

Eventually the neighbors decided it would be best if they converted the Jews to Catholicism. After much effort, they succeeded. The whole neighborhood came to the baptism and rejoiced. At the baptism, the Priest sprinkled the Jews with Holy Water and said, “You were born Jews, you were raised Jews. Now you are Catholics.”

The next Friday the neighbors were dismayed to smell the the tantalizing odor of cooking meat. They went to the new converts’ home and asked what they were doing.

The Jew was sprinkling barbecue sauce on steaks as he said, “You were born a cow, you were raised a cow. Now you are a fish.” 😊

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

How is that comment relevant to the  opening post?

If the Holy Ghost witnesses to you that the Book of Mormon is true, you may choose to accept or reject the revelation. By accepting, you would add much good to your previously-gained spiritual knowledge, but you might have to leave some other things behind. This is true for anyone who converts to another religion. If I were to convert to Catholicism, there are many things that I love about the LDS Church that I would have to put aside, for example The Book of Mormon, but there are also many things I could take with me. I would have to choose.

[Teancum]

26 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

If the Holy Ghost witnesses to you that the Book of Mormon is true, you may choose to accept or reject the revelation. By accepting, you would add much good to your previously-gained spiritual knowledge, but you might have to leave some other things behind. This is true for anyone who converts to another religion. If I were to convert to Catholicism, there are many things that I love about the LDS Church that I would have to put aside, for example The Book of Mormon, but there are also many things I could take with me. I would have to choose.

Sure.  But Hinckley said bring all your good.  He should have added that maybe some that they want to bring is not good.

[Bernard Gui]

4 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Sure.  But Hinckley said bring all your good.  He should have added that maybe some that they want to bring is not good.

That is a given.

[Teancum]

17 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

That is a given.

So the statement is really meaningless pablum.

[InCognitus]

16 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

In another thread, I responded to a quote from President Hinckley where he said:

I have responded to this quote before, but thought a thread devoted to it might be good.

Here's what I said:

I have an issue with President Hinckley's statement. It appears very open and inclusive. However, I doubt it as a practical matter. It seems rather rhetorical. This is something I've commented on before. He says to bring the good that I have and let the LDS church add to it. One of the "goods" I have is my devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary. She has been with me from the beginning of my conversion to Christianity to the present moment. In a short post I cannot explain how much Our Lady has done for me. She is so good to me. I would not be Christian without Her intercession.

Yet, if I were to convert to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I would have to leave that behind. No more rosaries. No more candles lit to Her Honor. No more prayers to Her. No more devotion to Her.

How is my conversion to your faith taking the good I have and letting you add to it? It appears to me that a conversion to your faith means letting go of the things I thought were good but were actually contrary to your beliefs, and then adding your beliefs to what was left. In other words, the only "good" I bring is that which is already LDS.

I'm ok with that as a definition of conversion. That's what it definitely means to convert to Catholicism -- you gotta leave your non Catholic beliefs at the door. But President Hinckley's words seem to try to hide that fact in order to appear softer or more inclusive or more ecumenical. How can I bring non-LDS "goods" to my conversion to being LDS?

Many others have responded to your post already, but I'll just try to provide my own point of view.

I think President Hinckley may be speaking from the perspective of what the Book of Mormon teaches about doing things that are "good".  For example:

Quote

"For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.   But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him."  (Moroni 7:16–17)

And:

Quote

"And whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do good is of me; for good cometh of none save it be of me. I am the same that leadeth men to all good; he that will not believe my words will not believe me—that I am; and he that will not believe me will not believe the Father who sent me. For behold, I am the Father, I am the light, and the life, and the truth of the world."  (Ether 4:12)

Now take a look again at what President Hinckley said:

“Let me say that we appreciate the truth in all churches and the good which they do. We say to the people, in effect, you bring with you all the good that you have, and then let us see if we can add to it. That is the spirit of this work. That is the essence of our missionary service”

He also affirms that there is "truth in all churches".  Obviously that can't mean that everything that other churches teach are true, because other churches don't agree on every point of doctrine.  

So in this context, with respect to the specific things that you say are "good", I think it could be asked:  Is it the rosaries or candles lit to the honor of the virgin Mary, or the prayers to her that lead you to do good?  Or is it your devotion to the truth of what she stands for, and your belief in Jesus Christ?   I think it is the latter that President Hinckley has in mind.

 

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

I think President Hinckley may be speaking from the perspective of what the Book of Mormon teaches about doing things that are "good".

Thanks for your response. Calm brought this idea up, too, and the focus on doing good helps me understand his statement better.

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

So in this context, with respect to the specific things that you say are "good", I think it could be asked:  Is it the rosaries or candles lit to the honor of the virgin Mary, or the prayers to her that lead you to do good?  Or is it your devotion to the truth of what she stands for, and your belief in Jesus Christ?   I think it is the latter that President Hinckley has in mind.

To me, the two are intertwined. In Catholicism, we have "lex orandi, lex credendi" which means that the law of prayer/worship/action is the law of belief. So, for example, the action of praying the rosary informs the belief in Mary. Having said that, I can see how President Hinckley could mean the "truth of what she stands for."

[BlueDreams]

23 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

In another thread, I responded to a quote from President Hinckley where he said:

I have responded to this quote before, but thought a thread devoted to it might be good.

Here's what I said:

I have an issue with President Hinckley's statement. It appears very open and inclusive. However, I doubt it as a practical matter. It seems rather rhetorical. This is something I've commented on before. He says to bring the good that I have and let the LDS church add to it. One of the "goods" I have is my devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary. She has been with me from the beginning of my conversion to Christianity to the present moment. In a short post I cannot explain how much Our Lady has done for me. She is so good to me. I would not be Christian without Her intercession.

Yet, if I were to convert to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I would have to leave that behind. No more rosaries. No more candles lit to Her Honor. No more prayers to Her. No more devotion to Her.

How is my conversion to your faith taking the good I have and letting you add to it? It appears to me that a conversion to your faith means letting go of the things I thought were good but were actually contrary to your beliefs, and then adding your beliefs to what was left. In other words, the only "good" I bring is that which is already LDS.

I'm ok with that as a definition of conversion. That's what it definitely means to convert to Catholicism -- you gotta leave your non Catholic beliefs at the door. But President Hinckley's words seem to try to hide that fact in order to appear softer or more inclusive or more ecumenical. How can I bring non-LDS "goods" to my conversion to being LDS?

I haven't gotten to read all of the thread so this might be repetitive. I've been thinking about it off and on today and I think my thoughts are still fairly scatter shot. I think you make a fair point. There will be an obvious limitation to this. One doesn't have their beliefs and practices completely unchanged in practice when one converts to the faith. Any faith...or lack there of. That's part of the deal with conversion. But I do think there can be a practical difference in how one converts from one faith to another and how it is practiced by existing members in missionary works. 

Let me start with the latter. I think there were difference on my mission that surrounded if not this exact wording than in spirit (I think it was in a quote in the manual used for missionaries at the time...though if it was it was removed in later versions....but this was 12-ish years ago, so this could just be a failure of my memory). Missionaries were generally warned away from contentions means of "teaching" namely bible bashing...but other forms that were more pushy were generally not valued/discouraged. We were taught to start with common ground/values and build on that. Our focus was definitely on missionary work, including serving, sharing the gospel, and facillitating conversion. But I never felt a sense of discouragement in understanding other people's POV in this process. And the longer I went along doing the work, I came to more and more value the little moments of communion with good souls of any walk. Moments that may not go anywhere in terms of conversion...but where our presence and sharing aspects of our faith helped another. And it still goes with me now. When I talk to my brother (not a member currently) about our beliefs, I practice that same basic point....start with similarities and points of agreement and move outward. Personally it effects how I read and understand other faiths. I'm more likely to see the commonalities before the differences. NOT that I don't see differences, I do,  but the way I've practiced my faith has focused on coming together in commonalities as much as possible. While reading up on this, I randomly looked up "muhammad" in the LDS website search engine and found this article talk from 2000. It's long, so I wouldn't expect you to read all of it...but it's a great example of how this idea is practiced. Here's some applicable quotes.

Another hinckley quote that I think fleshed the OP quote out a little further.

Quote

President Gordon B. Hinckley has consistently advocated dialogue and mutual respect in interfaith relations. He has admonished members of the Church to cultivate “a spirit of affirmative gratitude” for those of differing religious, political, and philosophical persuasions, adding that “we do not in any way have to compromise our theology” in the process. He gave this counsel: “Be respectful of the opinions and feelings of other people. Recognize their virtues; don’t look for their faults. Look for their strengths and their virtues, and you will find strength and virtues that will be helpful in your own life.”

It's followed by several quotes and paraphrases from previous leaders and scripture expounding on this same idea. It follows with a history of interactions between Muslims and LDS members with an emphasis on practicing respect and collaboration. It continues with a quick respectful historical rundown about Muhammad and then the values that Muhammad/Islam teaches that we are in complete agreement including several direct quotes from the Quran. 

It ends with this quote:

Quote

How, then, might Latter-day Saints regard the Muslim community? The most helpful approach is to recognize the truths and values we share with our Muslim brothers and sisters, even while politely acknowledging that theological differences exist. Certainly Latter-day Saints do not agree with Islamic teachings that deny the divinity of Jesus Christ, the need for modern prophets, or the principle of eternal progression. But by being humble and open to spiritual light wherever it may be found, we benefit from the religious insights of Muslims and affirm similarities in belief such as faith, prayer, fasting, repentance, compassion, modesty, and strong families as cornerstones of individual spirituality and community life.

This to me is more of a direct example of just how Hinckley's quote works in our faith and engagement with other faiths. It's likely why we don't think twice to say lend our churches for worship when there's need or giving boxes of Quran's to families in a muslim majority country with varying other relief sources. 

 

In terms of conversion, I think of a few stories and differences. Because there can be considered good in beliefs, there's less of an absolute cut-off from all previous practices proscribed. For example, let's say someone is going from a non-christian faith to ours. One may likely need to let go of beliefs around other gods or sacred texts as originally taught BUT one doesn't have to let go of an overarching value message that they found valuable from their previous faith, certain passages they find inspiring, moral lessons taught, etc. As a current member, I can see the beauty and truth in different faiths and what may be congruent. Other denominations and faiths (particularly more small c conservative derivatives) may be more strict about that and feel a discomfort or concern when one engages in another faith or keeping some of the values, practices, etc (with some change). We don't to that same degree. 

If you were to convert, there would be things that would obviously have to shift around your experiences with the virgin mary. We do not hold similar doctrines around her specifically; we do not hold any form of a mariology really. She is important and was critical in bringing Jesus here but in the way that many righteous men and women helped to carry out the work of God. BUT instead of a complete repudiation, there may be space for a reintegration of what was most valuable (spiritual development, answers, etc) may become a step in one's spiritual development that leads to Baptism in our faith. I don't know what that would exactly look like. Calm, I think mentioned HM. It's true that this would be a definite step down in mariology practice (we have no current rites overtly tied to Her worship). But I think there's things in the doctrine itself that is more expansive as well.

In general we focus in conversion less on moving away from falsehoods and moreso on moving towards truth...a journey we are all on to some degree. 

I would add as a personal faith critique that we (in the LDS faith) can be a little slow on the other end of taking in and incorporating new truths from other faiths (or exanding on ones we have, like HM). I think in part it's a balance and we also tend to value consensus or unity in moving forward. So instead of big pushes, it's usually more a gentle shift over time. Individual practice doesn't have to be as much constrained. I would also note that though this respectful tone and practice is definitely apart of our church...members differ greatly, some more cautious and circumspect on different faiths than others. Including some who are critical of either their previous faiths or faiths they’ve had poor interactions with usually. Even I have my moments. It's natural to look at a different faith and see differences as "wrong" before truly understanding it. 

 

With luv,

BD

 

Edited September 12, 2022 by BlueDreams

[Jane_Doe]

23 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

In another thread, I responded to a quote from President Hinckley where he said:

I have responded to this quote before, but thought a thread devoted to it might be good.

Here's what I said:

I have an issue with President Hinckley's statement. It appears very open and inclusive. However, I doubt it as a practical matter. It seems rather rhetorical. This is something I've commented on before. He says to bring the good that I have and let the LDS church add to it. One of the "goods" I have is my devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary. She has been with me from the beginning of my conversion to Christianity to the present moment. In a short post I cannot explain how much Our Lady has done for me. She is so good to me. I would not be Christian without Her intercession.

Yet, if I were to convert to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I would have to leave that behind. No more rosaries. No more candles lit to Her Honor. No more prayers to Her. No more devotion to Her.

How is my conversion to your faith taking the good I have and letting you add to it? It appears to me that a conversion to your faith means letting go of the things I thought were good but were actually contrary to your beliefs, and then adding your beliefs to what was left. In other words, the only "good" I bring is that which is already LDS.

I'm ok with that as a definition of conversion. That's what it definitely means to convert to Catholicism -- you gotta leave your non Catholic beliefs at the door. But President Hinckley's words seem to try to hide that fact in order to appear softer or more inclusive or more ecumenical. How can I bring non-LDS "goods" to my conversion to being LDS?

The difference is very big picture: LDS Christians believe that folks in other faiths do have the light of Christ & teach many good things (intermingled with not-so-good thing).  I know many converts from Catholics, and they bring many good things: their love of Christ, priesthood, scripture, tradition, etc.  But yes, they do need to bring some false things behind (such as the extreme glorification of Mary).  But there is still much good there & we celebrate that.

 

Versus: The Catholic church doesn't even acknowledge the fact that I'm a Christian.  What good does Catholicism see me bringing to the table?   (these are honest question, I'm asking for the purposes of listening to the answer).  

Edited September 12, 2022 by Jane_Doe

[Rain]

14 hours ago, Jerry Atric said:

You can't. First, mormonism teaches the "goods" you're referring to are the very small amount of "truth bits" left in your apostate religion. I know that sounds harsh, but that's what we're taught.  We have the full truth. We have the true and living gospel. We have 100% authority from God.

Including the keys of creation and resurrection?

14 hours ago, Jerry Atric said:

Starting from around 50AD to 1830, there wasn't a Christian church on earth, just apostate churches.

So toss out the Book of Mormon churches after Christ came and any possible churches in records from "other sheep".

14 hours ago, Jerry Atric said:

Very few truths remained during that time. That's the truth Hinckley is talking about.

Think of it like this. After the original apostles were killed,  God removed all priesthood authority from earth. Men were left to figure out religion without any divine help from God. Today's "Christianity" has a lot of Paganism engrafted into it. We're are here to pave the way for the return of Christ. No other church can do this. We are Latter-day Saints. 

 

[BlueDreams]

9 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

What you've written, MiserereNobis, resonates with my experiences with my Latter-day Saint family members (the adults, anyway).  We're all trying to be very open to the good that one another brings, but it can just feel too narrow sometimes. I think my SiL has been alluding to the quote you mention, as she's said she's glad for the good I can add to the family, but....yeah....that good doesn't include me offering a prayer at meals at her home (something about the sign of the cross and an electric chair), and she's made it clear that she doesn't want me talking religion when her children are within earshot. She did accept herbal tea from me, so maybe that's a start.

My BiL, has been different, though. He's come to Mass a few times and has apologized for the "Church of the Devil" stuff. He drinks Mountain Dew and listens to Aerosmith when his wife isn't around, and those are "good" things in their own way. 

Life's just messy, and while a mixed-faith family isn't the same as a convert to a church, I couldn't help but notice the parallels. I hope my in-laws don't feel that I'm rejecting the good they're trying to bring. Something to mediate on during Adoration this week. 

 

I'm sorry to hear that. For what it's worth, my catholic grandmother gave me a cross for one of my b-days many moons ago. I wore it happily... for me it's a dear reminder of a sweet lady who quietly lives her faith. 

Though I can figure out why people can become rigid and fearful in their approach to other faiths, it still bothers me to see it in action. 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited September 12, 2022 by BlueDreams

[Jerry Atric]

6 hours ago, Rain said:

Including the keys of creation and resurrection?

 

6 hours ago, Rain said:

So toss out the Book of Mormon churches after Christ came and any possible churches in records from "other sheep"

I guess so. Here's a couple of quotes from some of the most important Mormons that helped Joseph restore the church. Maybe you explain them better than me.

"This great apostacy commenced about the close of the first century of the Christian era, and it has been waxing worse and worse from then until now. A short time after the death of the last of the Apostles, the Christian Church, what few of them remained, were persecuted from mountain to mountain, from den to den, from one cave of the earth to another, and from nation to nation until they were entirely exterminated and rooted out of the earth. Well, what was left? An apostate Christianity, a Christianity without revelators, without any voice of God, without any Prophets to unfold the future, without visions, without any communications from the heavens.”

 

- Apostle Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, v. 18, 

 

If what Orson Pratt is saying is true, then my reasoning is correct, correct? Don't we still look at all of Christianity as an "Apostate Christianity"?  I was under the impression that the reason Joseph had to restore the gospel without using an existing church was because all religions on the earth at that time, 1830s, were all led by the influence of satan. When did we stop believing that to be the case? 

 

 

[CV75]

6 hours ago, Jerry Atric said:

 

I guess so. Here's a couple of quotes from some of the most important Mormons that helped Joseph restore the church. Maybe you explain them better than me.

"This great apostacy commenced about the close of the first century of the Christian era, and it has been waxing worse and worse from then until now. A short time after the death of the last of the Apostles, the Christian Church, what few of them remained, were persecuted from mountain to mountain, from den to den, from one cave of the earth to another, and from nation to nation until they were entirely exterminated and rooted out of the earth. Well, what was left? An apostate Christianity, a Christianity without revelators, without any voice of God, without any Prophets to unfold the future, without visions, without any communications from the heavens.”

 

- Apostle Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, v. 18, 

 

If what Orson Pratt is saying is true, then my reasoning is correct, correct? Don't we still look at all of Christianity as an "Apostate Christianity"?  I was under the impression that the reason Joseph had to restore the gospel without using an existing church was because all religions on the earth at that time, 1830s, were all led by the influence of satan. When did we stop believing that to be the case? 

 

 

We never did "look at all of Christianity as an "Apostate Christianity"..."  because "all of Christianity" includes that Christianity which had to be and was restored to the earth, which is the opposite of apostate. This is the Christianity which still existed, uncorrupted, in Zion above and in heaven, and among the translated angels still ministering upon the earth, and in bits and pieces among faithful mortal followers. When you parse out that which can exist only by virtue of delegated priesthood keys upon the earth, yes, the loss of the keys created a serious state of apostasy. But there were believers in Christ who still abided by AoF 13 (and other similar beliefs) for centuries before Joseph Smith, and were not apostate on that point. I think the following represents the Church's position more accurately:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/apostasy?lang=eng

"This is “restored,” not “reformed,” Christianity. Their belief in a restored Christianity helps explain why most Latter-day Saint converts, from the 1830s to the present, converted from other Christian denominations. None of these converts thought they were leaving Christianity; they are simply grateful to learn about, and become part of, the restored Church of Jesus Christ, which they believe offers a more complete and rich Christian Church spiritually, organizationally, and doctrinally."

[Jerry Atric]

46 minutes ago, CV75 said:

We never did "look at all of Christianity as an "Apostate Christianity"..."  because "all of Christianity" includes that Christianity which had to be and was restored to the earth, which is the opposite of apostate

Yes we did. Anyone Christian religion before the restoration in 1830 was considered an apostate religion, correct? Growing up in the church I  was always taught that. Even today, we still believe Christianity needs to be saved from Satan's influence. 

What about this quote from Joseph Smith....

"What is it that inspires professors of Christianity generally with a hope of salvation? It is that smooth, sophisticated influence of the devil, by which he deceives the whole world"

 

- Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 270

 

What is Joseph trying to tell us by saying "Christianity" is influenced by the Devil himself? 

[MiserereNobis]

14 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

Versus: The Catholic church doesn't even acknowledge the fact that I'm a Christian.

The Catholic Church doesn't recognize LDS baptism as valid. Some people might take the further step and say that means you're not Christian, but that's not an official Catholic position. I don't think you are not a Christian. I view you as an unbaptized Christian, which is (I assume) how you view me, since your church doesn't recognize Catholic baptism as valid.

14 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

What good does Catholicism see me bringing to the table?

The same things that you see Catholic converts bringing to your church. To quote you:

14 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

I know many converts from Catholics, and they bring many good things: their love of Christ, priesthood, scripture, tradition, etc.

 

[CV75]

6 minutes ago, Jerry Atric said:

Yes we did. Anyone Christian religion before the restoration in 1830 was considered an apostate religion, correct? Growing up in the church I  was always taught that. Even today, we still believe Christianity needs to be saved from Satan's influence. 

What about this quote from Joseph Smith....

"What is it that inspires professors of Christianity generally with a hope of salvation? It is that smooth, sophisticated influence of the devil, by which he deceives the whole world"

 

- Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 270

 

What is Joseph trying to tell us by saying "Christianity" is influenced by the Devil himself? 

But you used the phrase, "all of Christianity" -- which would include the perfect form and power of godliness. Likewise, the "professors of Christianity" are not Christianity, whatever denomination they may profess. Also note that the suffix, "-ity" denotes a degree of a quality or condition. So, there is a degree of "Christian" quality in "all of Christianity," some greater and same less. 

What do you really wish to say? That the priesthood keys were nowhere to be found in any mortal church/denomination/religion upon the earth until they were restored to mortal men, beginning with Joseph Smith? That would be better, and semantically a more accurate and true statement than "all of Christianity" was apostate. It is also more accurate to say that we all need to be saved from Satan's influence.

 

[Jerry Atric]

20 hours ago, CV75 said:

"professors of Christianity" are not Christianity, whatever denomination they may profess.

"The Christian world, so-called, are heathens as to the knowledge of the salvation of God"

 

- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 8, p. 171

 

I think it's great us Mormons are trying to fit in better with the Christians, but that goes against everything this church stands for, don't you think? What about the quote above.  That's exactly what I was taught growing up! 

[CV75]

32 minutes ago, Jerry Atric said:

"The Christian world, so-called, are heathens as to the knowledge of the salvation of God"

 

- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 8, p. 171

 

I think it's great us Mormons are trying to fit in better with the Christians, but that goes against everything this church stands for, don't you think? What about the quote above.  That's exactly what I was taught growing up! 

But you used the phrase, "all of Christianity" -- which would include the perfect form and power of godliness. Likewise, the "professors of Christianity" are not Christianity, whatever denomination they may profess. Also note that the suffix, "-ity" denotes a degree of a quality or condition. So, there is a degree of "Christian" quality in "all of Christianity," some greater and same less. 

What do you really wish to say? That the priesthood keys were nowhere to be found in any mortal church/denomination/religion upon the earth until they were restored to mortal men, beginning with Joseph Smith? That would be better, and semantically a more accurate and true statement than "all of Christianity" was apostate. It is also more accurate to say that we all need to be saved from Satan's influence.

[Duncan]

33 minutes ago, Jerry Atric said:

"The Christian world, so-called, are heathens as to the knowledge of the salvation of God"

 

- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 8, p. 171

 

I think it's great us Mormons are trying to fit in better with the Christians, but that goes against everything this church stands for, don't you think? What about the quote above.  That's exactly what I was taught growing up! 

I think a better way of looking at it is from Pres. Boyd K. Packer

Jesus spoke of “the stone which the builders rejected” (Matt. 21:42). Then the shadow of apostasy settled over the earth. The line of priesthood authority was broken. But mankind was not left in total darkness or completely without revelation or inspiration. The idea that with the Crucifixion of Christ the heavens were closed and that they opened in the First Vision is not true. The Light of Christ would be everywhere present to attend the children of God; the Holy Ghost would visit seeking souls. The prayers of the righteous would not go unanswered....God never abandons His children. He never has abandoned this earth."

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2005/04/the-light-of-christ?lang=eng

You said "That's exactly what I was taught growing up! "

Well, we all need to change our views regardless of what we were taught growing up, otherwise we'd all believe the same stuff we did when we were three years old, We can all learn a lesson from Elder Scott-he's talking specifically about PMG and missionary work in general

 

Elder Richard G. Scott, from 14 Jan 2006 Church News

"I hate to admit this, but when I've given up some of the very deeply held convictions of my personal experience and followed this more precisely, it's worked out a lot better. Things change; the world has changed, and the fact that we have a new emphasis and direction now in no way criticizes what has been done before. This is for our time and our need now."

[Jerry Atric]

6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

That would be better, and semantically a more accurate and true statement than "all of Christianity" was apostate.

"Christianity...is a perfect pack of nonsense...the devil could not invent a better engine to spread his work than the Christianity of the nineteenth century."

 

- Prophet John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, v. 6, p. 167

 

President Taylor seems to be saying all of Christianity is a perfect pack of nonsense, don't you think? Why would he say this?

[Jerry Atric]

5 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I think a better way of looking at it is from Pres. Boyd K. Packer

Jesus spoke of “the stone which the builders rejected” (Matt. 21:42). Then the shadow of apostasy settled over the earth. The line of priesthood authority was broken. But mankind was not left in total darkness or completely without revelation or inspiration. The idea that with the Crucifixion of Christ the heavens were closed and that they opened in the First Vision is not true. The Light of Christ would be everywhere present to attend the children of God; the Holy Ghost would visit seeking souls. The prayers of the righteous would not go unanswered....God never abandons His children. He never has abandoned this earth."

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2005/04/the-light-of-christ?lang=eng

You said "That's exactly what I was taught growing up! "

Well, we all need to change our views regardless of what we were taught growing up, otherwise we'd all believe the same stuff we did when we were three years old, We can all learn a lesson from Elder Scott-he's talking specifically about PMG and missionary work in general

 

Elder Richard G. Scott, from 14 Jan 2006 Church News

"I hate to admit this, but when I've given up some of the very deeply held convictions of my personal experience and followed this more precisely, it's worked out a lot better. Things change; the world has changed, and the fact that we have a new emphasis and direction now in no way criticizes what has been done before. This is for our time and our need now."

I agree with you,  we all need to change as time goes on, it's healthy. But our church has made it abundantly clear that we're in the last days and we are going to be the ones who usher in the second coming. Let's say in 50 years the church looks totally 100% different than it did before the millennium, and we're not preaching about christ return, what does that mean for the churches credibility? Because our beliefs are changing extremely fast. 

[Rain]

18 minutes ago, CV75 said:

But you used the phrase, "all of Christianity" -- which would include the perfect form and power of godliness. Likewise, the "professors of Christianity" are not Christianity, whatever denomination they may profess. Also note that the suffix, "-ity" denotes a degree of a quality or condition. So, there is a degree of "Christian" quality in "all of Christianity," some greater and same less. 

What do you really wish to say? That the priesthood keys were nowhere to be found in any mortal church/denomination/religion upon the earth until they were restored to mortal men, beginning with Joseph Smith? That would be better, and semantically a more accurate and true statement than "all of Christianity" was apostate. It is also more accurate to say that we all need to be saved from Satan's influence.

Except that if you go by his dates then this conflicts with the Book of Mormon.

[Rain]

9 minutes ago, Jerry Atric said:

"Christianity...is a perfect pack of nonsense...the devil could not invent a better engine to spread his work than the Christianity of the nineteenth century."

 

- Prophet John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, v. 6, p. 167

 

President Taylor seems to be saying all of Christianity is a perfect pack of nonsense, don't you think? Why would he say this?

Please share the quote in entirety (without the elipses) and the context. A link would be good.

The quote I responded  to initially could use that as well though I'm not going to ask for it at this point.

[Rain]

16 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I think a better way of looking at it is from Pres. Boyd K. Packer

Jesus spoke of “the stone which the builders rejected” (Matt. 21:42). Then the shadow of apostasy settled over the earth. The line of priesthood authority was broken. But mankind was not left in total darkness or completely without revelation or inspiration. The idea that with the Crucifixion of Christ the heavens were closed and that they opened in the First Vision is not true. The Light of Christ would be everywhere present to attend the children of God; the Holy Ghost would visit seeking souls. The prayers of the righteous would not go unanswered....God never abandons His children. He never has abandoned this earth."

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2005/04/the-light-of-christ?lang=eng

You said "That's exactly what I was taught growing up! "

Well, we all need to change our views regardless of what we were taught growing up, otherwise we'd all believe the same stuff we did when we were three years old, We can all learn a lesson from Elder Scott-he's talking specifically about PMG and missionary work in general

 

Elder Richard G. Scott, from 14 Jan 2006 Church News

"I hate to admit this, but when I've given up some of the very deeply held convictions of my personal experience and followed this more precisely, it's worked out a lot better. Things change; the world has changed, and the fact that we have a new emphasis and direction now in no way criticizes what has been done before. This is for our time and our need now."

Ooo thank you!