Lesson 17 - The Power of the Word - is the past still relevant for us today?

[marineland]

I'm into lesson 17 of the manual (Religion 275).  I did not have any queries for lessons 15 and 16.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/12557_eng.pdf?lang=eng

Page 79 - students will be reminded that as they study and abide by the words of prophets, 
they can receive power to overcome Satan, navigate their way through mortality, and
eventually obtain eternal life.

"We owe [a great] debt to those who faithfully recorded and preserved the word through the 
ages, often with painstaking labor and sacrifice—Moses, Isaiah, Abraham, John, Paul, Nephi, 
Mormon, Joseph Smith, and many others. What did they know about the importance of scriptures 
that we also need to know?" ("The Blessing of Scripture," Ensign or Liahona, May 2010, 32).

I can admire this sentiment but I see a derogatory statement of past scriptures by Joseph 
Smith and Brigham Young in one of their past talks.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-16?lang=eng

"Brother Joseph turned to Brother Brigham Young and said, 'Brother Brigham, I want you to take 
the stand and tell us your views with regard to the [living] oracles and the written word of 
God.' Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; he took the Book 
of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down 
before him, and he said: 'There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God 
from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day. And now, said he, 'when compared with the 
living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct 
to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and 
generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books.' That was 
the course he pursued. When he was through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation: 'Brother 
Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth.' "

Is the Book of Mormon really nothing to present day Latter-day Saints even when they have a
living prophet?  Personally, I put great importance and faith in the ancient scriptures. They still
convey the word of God directly to me.

How about you?

[Benjamin McGuire]

Here is something I wrote a few years ago:

Quote

Along these same lines, a highlight of Nephi’s writings (and perhaps a description of an event that was instrumental in Nephi’s developing perspective) is his vision of the Tree of Life. The vision is filled with a language of looking and seeing; in fact, in his description he tells us “I looked” sixteen times, and “I saw” thirty-five times. This way of describing coincides with his early views on what it means to write and to be an author. Within this narrative section of his writings, however, we discover a hidden tension that encourages us to look again.

The narrative unit in which this vision occurs begins with Lehi’s having a dream and sharing it with his family. Following that dream, two responses are presented. One is the response of Nephi and the other comes from his brothers Laman and Lemuel. The first is given in this way:

For it came to pass after I had desired to know the things that my father had seen, and believing that the Lord was able to make them known unto me, as I sat pondering in mine heart I was caught away in the Spirit of the Lord, yea, into an exceedingly high mountain, which I never had before seen, and upon which I never had before set my foot. And the Spirit said unto me: Behold, what desirest thou? And I said: I desire to behold the things which my father saw. And the Spirit said unto me: … wherefore, thou shalt behold the things which thou hast desired. (1 Nephi 11:1–6)

Laman’s and Lemuel’s approach is portrayed in this way:

And it came to pass that I [Nephi] beheld my brethren, and they were disputing one with another concerning the things which my father had spoken unto them. … I spake unto my brethren, desiring to know of them the cause of their disputations. And they said: Behold, we cannot understand the words which our father hath spoken concerning the natural branches of the olive tree, and also concerning the Gentiles. And I said unto them: Have ye inquired of the Lord? And they said unto me: We have not; for the Lord maketh no such thing known unto us. (1 Nephi 15:2, 6–9)

The two approaches deal with discovering meaning in the vision. In the first potential response to the vision, Nephi goes to the source and asks to receive this vision for himself. Laman and Lemuel on the other hand take a more traditional approach and argue with each other over what the vision that their father had described meant. After the failure of the second approach, a third is offered, with Nephi (who has now seen the vision and can be considered its oracle) explaining it to his brothers. It is in his explanation that we see an admission of the unreliable narrator:

And they said unto me: What meaneth the river of water which our father saw? And I said unto them that the water which my father saw was filthiness; and so much was his mind swallowed up in other things that he beheld not the filthiness of the water. (1 Nephi 15:26–27)

True to the words of the Spirit, Nephi is shown the same thing that his father saw. But, as Nephi tells us with his pervasive language of looking and seeing, the vision is something that is experienced. Lehi missed some details of the vision that Nephi saw because he was paying attention elsewhere. Lehi then (apparently) could not answer Laman and Lemuel’s question about the river. What Nephi does not tell us explicitly is that while his mind was swallowed up looking at the river of filthy water, he inevitably missed some details that his father saw.

Seen in this way, this revelation by vision is a personal experience. Since we are all different people, our interactions will not conform to some universal standard — our individual experience of the vision will be different from everyone else’s. While we may have greater overlap with those who share our backgrounds and knowledge, the experience may be quite different when compared with those who don’t. The narrator can only provide us with the details that he is aware of. He cannot give us the details of his father’s vision that he missed. And he certainly cannot provide us with a reasonable telling of the vision as we might experience it.

The inclusion of this narrative of the vision within Nephi’s book, along with an interpretation, isn’t an invitation to stop. In fact, in following Nephi’s explanation, if we stop with his text, we have in fact become no better than Laman or Lemuel asking Nephi for meaning (or, since we really cannot ask a text anything, we are left to dispute one with another as to its meaning). Even if we look to authoritative sources for interpretations (including the interpretation provided by Nephi himself), we are left with something that is best used only if the “Lord maketh no such thing known unto us.”

The underlying message is that only in receiving the vision for ourselves can we approach the revelation of God. Only in our experience can we find greater understanding (even while we recognize that our own vision may be different and potentially even contradictory to what others have seen). Nephi cannot give us the vision; he can only reflect on its meaning and interpret it for us.

What is the tension that we see? Nephi is both providing us with a text that is true, based on his experiences — the things which he saw and heard — and yet at the same time, at least from a postmodernist perspective, Nephi is undermining the authority and the value of his experience as truth: namely, he cannot present us with his vision and he cannot give us his experience. What he does give us is woefully incomplete and potentially misunderstood and misinterpreted by those who do not seek the revelation for themselves (either by pursuing the vision as Nephi did or by reading with the Spirit as Nephi later explains).

It isn't just that scripture isn't a good substitute for the revelation given by the modern prophet - its also that the revelation given by a modern prophet isn't a good substitute for personal revelation. A prophet's job isn't to provide you with your personal testimony or to provide you with that personal guidance that you need to move you from where you are to where you need to be. A prophet's job is to provide guidance for the Church as a whole - which may be more applicable to some than to others. My own comments aren't meant to demean the scriptures or to lessen their value - it is simply to point out that they represent something of a stepping stone. If we rely only on the revelation as found in the scriptures, or even the revelation delivered by the leaders of the Church, our own experience of the gospel will never be what it needs to be and our own testimonies will never be what they need to be.

Edited May 31, 2023 by Benjamin McGuire

[CV75]

1 hour ago, marineland said:

I'm into lesson 17 of the manual (Religion 275).  I did not have any queries for lessons 15 and 16.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/12557_eng.pdf?lang=eng

Page 79 - students will be reminded that as they study and abide by the words of prophets, 
they can receive power to overcome Satan, navigate their way through mortality, and
eventually obtain eternal life.

"We owe [a great] debt to those who faithfully recorded and preserved the word through the 
ages, often with painstaking labor and sacrifice—Moses, Isaiah, Abraham, John, Paul, Nephi, 
Mormon, Joseph Smith, and many others. What did they know about the importance of scriptures 
that we also need to know?" ("The Blessing of Scripture," Ensign or Liahona, May 2010, 32).

I can admire this sentiment but I see a derogatory statement of past scriptures by Joseph 
Smith and Brigham Young in one of their past talks.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-16?lang=eng

"Brother Joseph turned to Brother Brigham Young and said, 'Brother Brigham, I want you to take 
the stand and tell us your views with regard to the [living] oracles and the written word of 
God.' Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; he took the Book 
of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down 
before him, and he said: 'There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God 
from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day. And now, said he, 'when compared with the 
living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct 
to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and 
generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books.' That was 
the course he pursued. When he was through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation: 'Brother 
Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth.' "

Is the Book of Mormon really nothing to present day Latter-day Saints even when they have a
living prophet?  Personally, I put great importance and faith in the ancient scriptures. They still
convey the word of God directly to me.

How about you?

Brigham Young was making a comparison ("when compared...") supported by Jospeh Smith, which Elder Woodruff used to emphasize his instruction on the topic at hand (not confining ourselves in the standard works). The second half of the talk teaches that living oracles are more important because they hold the keys, in this case the restored keys, which are preeminent to both scripture and the living oracles themselves. These enlighten in more ways than the scriptures and the Holy Spirit do in their absence, because they touch upon more than our spiritual intellect, but upon matters such as those restored in the Kirtland, Ohio Temple, April 3, 1836, which bind heaven and earth together on a physical plane as well.

Edited May 31, 2023 by CV75

[Rain]

1 hour ago, marineland said:

I'm into lesson 17 of the manual (Religion 275).  I did not have any queries for lessons 15 and 16.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/12557_eng.pdf?lang=eng

Page 79 - students will be reminded that as they study and abide by the words of prophets, 
they can receive power to overcome Satan, navigate their way through mortality, and
eventually obtain eternal life.

"We owe [a great] debt to those who faithfully recorded and preserved the word through the 
ages, often with painstaking labor and sacrifice—Moses, Isaiah, Abraham, John, Paul, Nephi, 
Mormon, Joseph Smith, and many others. What did they know about the importance of scriptures 
that we also need to know?" ("The Blessing of Scripture," Ensign or Liahona, May 2010, 32).

I can admire this sentiment but I see a derogatory statement of past scriptures by Joseph 
Smith and Brigham Young in one of their past talks.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-16?lang=eng

"Brother Joseph turned to Brother Brigham Young and said, 'Brother Brigham, I want you to take 
the stand and tell us your views with regard to the [living] oracles and the written word of 
God.' Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; he took the Book 
of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down 
before him, and he said: 'There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God 
from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day. And now, said he, 'when compared with the 
living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct 
to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and 
generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books.' That was 
the course he pursued. When he was through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation: 'Brother 
Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth.' "

Is the Book of Mormon really nothing to present day Latter-day Saints even when they have a
living prophet?

He didn't say they are worth nothing.  He is doing a comparison. It's like if you have your food storage or don't smoke or teach your primary class these are all good things, but they don't compare to having charity for others - reading scriptures is great and should be read, but  without living prophets you miss a lot.

1 hour ago, marineland said:

 Personally, I put great importance and faith in the ancient scriptures. They still
convey the word of God directly to me.

How about you?

 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, marineland said:

can admire this sentiment but I see a derogatory statement of past scriptures by Joseph 
Smith and Brigham Young in one of their past talks.

Why is it derogatory?  If all they had available were scriptures, what they called the written word of God—surely those words show the scriptures were seen as sacred treasures, then those scriptures would have held the place of most importance.  It is only in comparison to God’s living word, scriptures should be set aside for a time in order to give attention to what God wants you to hear today.

If Christ was present and talking to you, would you turn to read scriptures instead or would you eagerly listen to every word he spoke, setting aside the scriptures for that time because you had Christ telling you what he wanted you to hear.  Of course, when Christ was not present you would then turn to scriptures to seek God, they are of great value to open our hearts and minds to the voice of the Lord, what is shared by his prophets or even more important, what is shared by his Spirit directly to us.

Edited May 31, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

is simply to point out that they represent something of a stepping stone

I like the term “stepping stone” for scriptures.  It is very apt on many levels.

[blackstrap]

I've read the current scriptures several times ( humble brag ) What I have learned is that if one wants to build testimony and spirituality, read the scriptures. However reading the scriptures is also a way to get confused and break down ones testimony. Scriptures, particularly the OT, can be a stepping stone and a stumbling block. 

Reading with the Spirit is important.  

[InCognitus]

7 hours ago, marineland said:

I can admire this sentiment but I see a derogatory statement of past scriptures by Joseph 
Smith and Brigham Young in one of their past talks.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-16?lang=eng

I agree with what Calm said about this....  And I've said it to you before as well.   What Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were saying wasn't derogatory at all against scripture, but it was emphasizing what would be of the most importance to a person at any given point in time.

For example, what would be more important to you if you lived in Jeremiah's day?  Would you bunker down and interpret the law (the prior scriptures given to you) according to your own way and tradition, like most of the rest of the Jews at that time, and think that Jeremiah was off his rocker in what he was saying about the impending invasion by Babylon?   Which would really be the most important for you at that time, the scriptures you have in hand, or listening to the living prophet?

What if you lived at the time of Peter and Paul?  Would reading the scriptures be the most important, or do you think it would be most important to listen to the living apostles and prophets teaching you about Christ?

If you lived in those times and dismissed the living apostles and prophets of your day and relied on the scriptures alone to "convey the word of God directly to [you]", do you think you would have been prepared for the things the prophets and apostles were teaching about in those time periods without giving them any heed?  Or even now, how do you know the scriptures are going to tell you everything you need to know to prepare for every event that comes along?

What the living apostles and prophets are teaching us is of the most importance to us in our day, for the church is built upon the foundation of living apostles and prophets, with Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone.  And the scriptures, the word of God, is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.  Obviously both are important, but what is of immediate importance is what God says to direct his church now. 

Edited May 31, 2023 by InCognitus

[Pyreaux]

2 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I agree with what Calm said about this....  And I've said it to you before as well.   What Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were saying wasn't derogatory at all against scripture, but it was emphasizing what would be of the most importance to a person at any given point in time.

For example, what would be more important to you if you lived in Jeremiah's day?  Would you bunker down and interpret the law (the prior scriptures given to you) according to your own way and tradition, like most of the rest of the Jews at that time, and think that Jeremiah was off his rocker in what he was saying about the impending invasion by Babylon?   Which would really be the most important for you at that time, the scriptures you have in hand, or listening to the living prophet?

What if you lived at the time of Peter and Paul?  Would reading the scriptures be the most important, or do you think it would be most important to listen to the living apostles and prophets teaching you about Christ?

If you lived in those times and dismissed the living apostles and prophets of your day and relied on the scriptures alone to "convey the word of God directly to [you]", do you think you would have been prepared for the things the prophets and apostles were teaching about in those time periods without giving them any heed?  Or even now, how do you know the scriptures are going to tell you everything you need to know to prepare for every event that comes along?

What the living apostles and prophets are teaching us is of the most importance to us in our day, for the church is built upon the foundation of living apostles and prophets, with Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone.  And the scriptures, the word of God, is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.  Obviously both are important, but what is of immediate importance is what God says to direct his church now. 

"My people do not know the requirements of the LORD. How can you say, ‘We are wise [divinely inspired], and the Law of the LORD is with us,’ [scriptures] when in fact the lying pen of the scribes has produced a deception? [Altering Mosaic scriptures and claiming them as revelation] The wise will be put to shame; they will be dismayed and trapped. Since they have rejected the word of the LORD [the davar of the Lord, is specifically revelations as uttered by prophets], what wisdom do they really have? (Jeremiah 8:8-9)

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord." (Luke 13:37-39)

 

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

"My people do not know the requirements of the LORD. How can you say, ‘We are wise [divinely inspired], and the Law of the LORD is with us,’ [scriptures] when in fact the lying pen of the scribes has produced a deception? [Altering Mosaic scriptures and claiming them as revelation] The wise will be put to shame; they will be dismayed and trapped. Since they have rejected the word of the LORD [the davar of the Lord, is specifically revelations as uttered by prophets], what wisdom do they really have? (Jeremiah 8:8-9)

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord." (Luke 13:37-39)

And it's not even over yet!

Jesus speaking:  "Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city" (Matthew 23:34)

[marineland]

On 5/31/2023 at 5:46 PM, InCognitus said:

Obviously both are important, but what is of immediate importance is what God says to direct his church now. 

Do you believe non-LDS churches are described in 1 Nephi 14:10?

"And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God,
and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God
belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth".

[Tacenda]

40 minutes ago, marineland said:

Do you believe non-LDS churches are described in 1 Nephi 14:10?

"And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God,
and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God
belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth".

This one is preeettty thorny. 

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, marineland said:

Do you believe non-LDS churches are described in 1 Nephi 14:10?

"And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God,
and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God
belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth".

The prophet is not only the prophet for the restored Church, but also for the world.  So, what is of immediate importance is what God says to direct his church now, and that is for everyone. 

As for 1 Nephi 14:10, I just quoted that earlier this week here.  The "two churches" in that verse have to do with the person's attitude and allegiance, not with denominational affiliation.  That is made clear later, by Nephi, in 2 Nephi 10:16:  "Wherefore, he that fighteth against Zion, both Jew and Gentile, both bond and free, both male and female, shall perish; for they are they who are the whore of all the earth; for they who are not for me are against me, saith our God."

Now to answer your question, yes, non-LDS churches ARE described in 1 Nephi 14:10, but which side they are on is not based on denominational affiliation, it is what is in the individual's heart and mind, determined by their attitude and allegiance.  So there may be some individuals from non-LDS churches that are part of the church of the Lamb of God, and some that belong to the church of the devil.  The same may be said for members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  God knows our hearts and our minds and our attitude and allegiance. 

Edited June 3, 2023 by InCognitus

[InCognitus]

14 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

This one is preeettty thorny. 

Why?

[Pyreaux]

14 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Why?

Scriptures can some times be a Rorschach test. I think the many American Saints in the 1800s presumed the Church of the Devil referred to the Catholic Church. Since in popular American Protestant belief was the Revelation of John (so by extension Nephi's Apocalypse) the Catholic Church was the Government of the Beast and the Pope was the Anti-Christ. As anti-Catholic sentiment faded, so did their candidacy for being the Big Bad as the Catholics no longer fit the bill. The description that the John and Nephi gives of the Beast, the Great & Abominable Church of the Devil as an organization lead by the devil is more of an over-the-top wicked sort. Its members work wickedness and abomination, the numbers contained in the Church of the Devil are many, organized and worldwide, having great dominion over the earth and every nation and people. It seems like an ethereal force that infiltrates most everything. The Church of the Lamb is the LDS Church as an organized and visible "hub", authorized for gathering, instructing, organizing, and empowering all who, by their belief, desires and intentions, are already part of the full Church of the Lamb. The Invisible Church of the Lamb. If you must belong to one or the other, and you believe in God or at least are not actively trying to lead people to abominations or fight Zion, then what will your placement be?

Edited June 4, 2023 by Pyreaux

[Tacenda]

8 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Scriptures can some times be a Rorschach test. I think the many American Saints in the 1800s presumed the Church of the Devil referred to the Catholic Church. Since in popular American Protestant belief was the Revelation of John (so by extension Nephi's Apocalypse) the Catholic Church was the Government of the Beast and the Pope was the Anti-Christ. As anti-Catholic sentiment faded, so did their candidacy for being the Big Bad as the Catholics no longer fit the bill. The description that the John and Nephi gives of the Beast, the Great & Abominable Church of the Devil as an organization lead by the devil is more of an over-the-top wicked sort. Its members work wickedness and abomination, the numbers contained in the Church of the Devil are many, organized and worldwide, having great dominion over the earth and every nation and people. It seems like an ethereal force that infiltrates most everything. The Church of the Lamb is the LDS Church as an organized and visible "hub", authorized for gathering, instructing, organizing, and empowering all who, by their belief, desires and intentions, are already part of the full Church of the Lamb. The Invisible Church of the Lamb. If you must belong to one or the other, and you believe in God or at least are not actively trying to lead people to abominations or fight Zion, then what will your placement be?

Thanks for answering for me.  I wasn't up to the task.

[mfbukowski]

On 5/31/2023 at 9:53 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Here is something I wrote a few years ago:

It isn't just that scripture isn't a good substitute for the revelation given by the modern prophet - its also that the revelation given by a modern prophet isn't a good substitute for personal revelation. A prophet's job isn't to provide you with your personal testimony or to provide you with that personal guidance that you need to move you from where you are to where you need to be. A prophet's job is to provide guidance for the Church as a whole - which may be more applicable to some than to others. My own comments aren't meant to demean the scriptures or to lessen their value - it is simply to point out that they represent something of a stepping stone. If we rely only on the revelation as found in the scriptures, or even the revelation delivered by the leaders of the Church, our own experience of the gospel will never be what it needs to be and our own testimonies will never be what they need to be.

Yes!

I use the old stuff to get me thinking, but it is personal experience that is philosophically justifiable as "reality" per postmodernism and supported by Alma 32.

We call that "testimony".

Without a postmodern perspective no "testimony", or private experience can be justified philosophically as "true". 

Direct experience IS " my truth".

We need to learn that- to criticize postmodernism is to criticize the whole notion of "testimony".

The statement in church "I know the church is true" actually is a postmodern way of speaking and thinking and being.

We LDS need to create an alliance with postmodernism instead of condemning it.  

[marineland]

On 6/3/2023 at 1:12 PM, InCognitus said:

Now to answer your question, yes, non-LDS churches ARE described in 1 Nephi 14:10, but which side they are on is not based on denominational affiliation, it is what is in the individual's heart and mind, determined by their attitude and allegiance.   So there may be some individuals from non-LDS churches that are part of the church of the Lamb of God,

Even though all their creeds, which they believe in their heart and then act on, are abominable?

Edited June 5, 2023 by marineland

[InCognitus]

1 minute ago, marineland said:

Even though all their creeds, which they believe and act on, are abominable?

You are still missing the point.  It depends on the individual and what's in their heart and whether or not they fight against Zion.  Their denominations and creeds may (or may not) lead them off in the wrong direction, but that's not how they are judged on this point.

In a revelation given in June of 1829 (before the restored church was organized) the Lord talks about the building up of his church and says:

"Contend against no church, save it be the church of the devil."  (Doctrine and Covenants 18:20)

It would be absurd to read 1 Nephi 14:10 to be saying that all other churches are the church of the devil, or otherwise why didn't the Lord just say "contend against all churches because they are all the church of the devil"? 

[marineland]

11 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

You are still missing the point.  It depends on the individual and what's in their heart and whether or not they fight against Zion.  Their denominations and creeds may (or may not) lead them off in the wrong direction, but that's not how they are judged on this point.

In a revelation given in June of 1829 (before the restored church was organized) the Lord talks about the building up of his church and says:

"Contend against no church, save it be the church of the devil."  (Doctrine and Covenants 18:20)

It would be absurd to read 1 Nephi 14:10 to be saying that all other churches are the church of the devil, or otherwise why didn't the Lord just say "contend against all churches because they are all the church of the devil"? 

I can't see how believing and acting on abominable creeds would not lead people in the wrong direction. 
Correct thinking leads to correct behavior.  Do you believe otherwise?

D&C 115:4 says "For thus shall my church be called in the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of \
Latter-day Saints".  This sounds like the exterior name of an actual church and not something reflective of
one's heart and allegiance.  My church does not have that external name by the way even though you say
members of it also belong to the church of the Lamb.

As for contention, I think it is biblically prudent to contend for the faith.  This is done, as 2 Timothy 4:2 says:
"... preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete
patience and teaching".  This should be done in all churches so as to purge the evil that may exist therein.

[Pyreaux]

20 hours ago, marineland said:

I can't see how believing and acting on abominable creeds would not lead people in the wrong direction. 
Correct thinking leads to correct behavior.  Do you believe otherwise?

D&C 115:4 says "For thus shall my church be called in the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of \
Latter-day Saints".  This sounds like the exterior name of an actual church and not something reflective of
one's heart and allegiance.  My church does not have that external name by the way even though you say
members of it also belong to the church of the Lamb.

As for contention, I think it is biblically prudent to contend for the faith.  This is done, as 2 Timothy 4:2 says:
"... preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete
patience and teaching".  This should be done in all churches so as to purge the evil that may exist therein.

Church = Assembly = a group of people gathered together in for a common purpose. There only two main groups, but there are multiple groups within groups, and members of groups that cross over into other groups. The Association Fallacy says its a logical error to assume that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another. As sets of different groups, the LDS Church set A can be within Lamb Church set B, but the Non-LDS Churches of set C can be within set B, and some can be within Devil Church set D. It is also possible that a part of set A is not part of set B and that a part of set C is not a part of set D, refuting the interpretation that "all As are Bs" or "all Cs are Ds". For example, the Bible calls the two Churches of B and D the Wheat and the Tares and both are within sets A and C under the group it calls the Field which is the Whole World. Do you believe that parable?

Edited June 6, 2023 by Pyreaux

[InCognitus]

4 hours ago, marineland said:

I can't see how believing and acting on abominable creeds would not lead people in the wrong direction. 

Where in the parable of the sheep and the goats did Jesus ask if either the sheep or the goats believed in correct doctrine?  Where in Acts chapter 8 did Phillip ask the Ethiopian eunuch if he would denounce all false beliefs before he could be saved?

According to Joseph Smith, the bad part about the creeds was that they were restrictive and drew lines that prevented a person from moving on to further truth.  On October 15, 1843 he said:

“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’; which I cannot subscribe to.”  (History, 1838–1856, volume E-1 [1 July 1843–30 April 1844])

4 hours ago, marineland said:

Correct thinking leads to correct behavior. 

People who believe false creeds and have false doctrines about God may still have their heart set on doing the things that God wants them to do.  But false teachings can cause people to deny God by their behavior (like the goats in the parable of the sheep and the goats).  It really depends on the individual and their heart.  How many people do you know that follow a creed to the exclusion of anything else said in the Bible?

5 hours ago, marineland said:

D&C 115:4 says "For thus shall my church be called in the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of \
Latter-day Saints".  This sounds like the exterior name of an actual church and not something reflective of
one's heart and allegiance.  My church does not have that external name by the way even though you say
members of it also belong to the church of the Lamb.

In March of 1829, a revelation was given where the Lord says "this is the beginning of the rising up and coming forth of my church out of the wilderness" (Doctrine and Covenants Section 5:14).

In April 1829, a month before the Aaronic priesthood was restored and a year before the restored church was organized, the Lord gave the following revelation to Joseph Smith:

"And now, behold, according to their faith in their prayers will I bring this part of my gospel to the knowledge of my people. Behold, I do not bring it to destroy that which they have received, but to build it up.   And for this cause have I said: If this generation harden not their hearts, I will establish my church among them.  Now I do not say this to destroy my church, but I say this to build up my church;  Therefore, whosoever belongeth to my church need not fear, for such shall inherit the kingdom of heaven.  But it is they who do not fear me, neither keep my commandments but build up churches unto themselves to get gain, yea, and all those that do wickedly and build up the kingdom of the devil—yea, verily, verily, I say unto you, that it is they that I will disturb, and cause to tremble and shake to the center."   (Doctrine and Covenants 10:52–56)

Here the Lord says he will "establish my church among them", and he says "I do not say this to destroy my church but I say this to build up my church".  

Remember, this was a year before the restored church was organized.  So which church is Christ talking about when he says "I do not say this to destroy my church"?

The organization of Christ's church came later on, and even later a name was given to the church that would contain the ordinances of salvation for all men, both the living and the dead.  Greater blessings are available to those who are willing to make the covenants necessary to receive them.

If you want to believe that you belong to the church of the devil, then that's on you (although I don't know why you would want to do that).  But I don't believe any church denomination fits that description, and neither does the restored church teach that it does.  Whether you choose to fight against Zion or not is what makes the difference.

6 hours ago, marineland said:

As for contention, I think it is biblically prudent to contend for the faith. 

The command to "contend against no church, save it be the church of the devil" has to do with the teaching approach, just as Paul told Timothy in the same epistle you quoted:

"But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.  And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;  And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will."  (2 Timothy 2:23–26)  

6 hours ago, marineland said:

This is done, as 2 Timothy 4:2 says:
"... preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete
patience and teaching".  This should be done in all churches so as to purge the evil that may exist therein.

But as was noted above, this was to be done in meekness and gentleness and with patience and love to preserve sound doctrine in the church (which of course they eventually didn't endure in sound doctrine):   "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;  And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."  (2 Timothy 4:2–4)

[marineland]

On 6/6/2023 at 12:25 AM, InCognitus said:

Where in the parable of the sheep and the goats did Jesus ask if either the sheep or the goats believed in correct doctrine?  Where in Acts chapter 8 did Phillip ask the Ethiopian eunuch if he would denounce all false beliefs before he could be saved?

According to Joseph Smith, the bad part about the creeds was that they were restrictive and drew lines that prevented a person from moving on to further truth.  On October 15, 1843 he said:

“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’; which I cannot subscribe to.”  (History, 1838–1856, volume E-1 [1 July 1843–30 April 1844])

The person speaking to Joseph in the first vision account said all their creeds are an abomination, not parts
of all of them.
 

On 6/6/2023 at 12:25 AM, InCognitus said:

People who believe false creeds and have false doctrines about God may still have their heart set on doing the things that God wants them to do.  But false teachings can cause people to deny God by their behavior (like the goats in the parable of the sheep and the goats).  It really depends on the individual and their heart.  How many people do you know that follow a creed to the exclusion of anything else said in the Bible?

I don't know anyone who follows one creed to the exclusion of anything else in the Bible.

As for the sheep, they inherit eternal life.  The goats are damned.
 

On 6/6/2023 at 12:25 AM, InCognitus said:

The organization of Christ's church came later on, and even later a name was given to the church that would contain the ordinances of salvation for all men, both the living and the dead. 

That would mean the the church of the Lamb of God has a specific name. Since my church does not
have that name, I would assume I am not a member in the church of the Lamb because we do not
perform ordinances for the dead.

[marineland]

On 6/5/2023 at 7:51 PM, Pyreaux said:

Church = Assembly = a group of people gathered together in for a common purpose. There only two main groups, but there are multiple groups within groups, and members of groups that cross over into other groups.

According to JSH 1:5, the 3 main groups in Joseph's time where Methodist, Presbyterian, and Baptist.

Verse 19 says "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".

Forum user InCognitus provided a quote from Joseph Smith:

According to Joseph Smith, the bad part about the creeds was that they were restrictive and drew lines
that prevented a person from moving on to further truth.  On October 15, 1843 he said: “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’; which
I cannot subscribe to.”  (History, 1838–1856, volume E-1 [1 July 1843–30 April 1844])

The person who appeared to Joseph Smith in the first vision did not qualify the creeds as some parts
are good while other parts are bad.

As Joseph Smith was commanded not to join any of them, would this 'Jesus' also advise everyone else
not to join these 3 churches and their sub-groups?
 

On 6/5/2023 at 7:51 PM, Pyreaux said:

The Association Fallacy says its a logical error to assume that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another. As sets of different groups, the LDS Church set A can be within Lamb Church set B, but the Non-LDS Churches of set C can be within set B, and some can be within Devil Church set D. It is also possible that a part of set A is not part of set B and that a part of set C is not a part of set D, refuting the interpretation that "all As are Bs" or "all Cs are Ds". For example, the Bible calls the two Churches of B and D the Wheat and the Tares and both are within sets A and C under the group it calls the Field which is the Whole World. Do you believe that parable?

Kind of believe it.  But I don't view the tares as members in the body of Christ.

[InCognitus]

10 hours ago, marineland said:

The person speaking to Joseph in the first vision account said all their creeds are an abomination, not parts
of all of them.

You said that already. But either you don't see that it's a fallacy to take an attribute of the whole or a class and assume that it must also necessarily be true of each part or member of the whole or class, or you know this already but you are trolling and trying to get a reaction from people.

So just because Jesus said that all their creeds are an abomination one should not assume that all the individual parts (or bits) of the creed are an abomination.  It may simply be that making the individual parts into the creed itself is the abomination (they are restrictive and prevent further acceptance of truth, as Joseph Smith said), or that one or more false portions of the creed cause the whole to be an abomination. And clearly Joseph Smith certainly did not understand what Jesus said the way you are twisting it.

Earlier you said:

On 6/5/2023 at 3:32 PM, marineland said:

I can't see how believing and acting on abominable creeds would not lead people in the wrong direction. 
Correct thinking leads to correct behavior.

Now you said:

10 hours ago, marineland said:

I don't know anyone who follows one creed to the exclusion of anything else in the Bible.

So it seems you agree that people don't always believe or "act" upon abominable creeds, even though their church may teach those creeds.  This is why individual people within every denomination may be included in the church of the Lamb of God, or why some may individually be part of the church of the devil.

10 hours ago, marineland said:

As for the sheep, they inherit eternal life.  The goats are damned.

Where in the parable of the sheep and the goats did Jesus ask if either the sheep or the goats believed in correct doctrine?  And what was it that was different for the sheep who received eternal life compared to the goats that were damned?

10 hours ago, marineland said:

That would mean the the church of the Lamb of God has a specific name.

Or, it just means that the church of the Lamb of God has a group within it having that name, and it is set up for the building up of Zion and the gathering of the house of Israel for all other groups in the last days.

10 hours ago, marineland said:

Since my church does not
have that name, I would assume I am not a member in the church of the Lamb because we do not
perform ordinances for the dead.

I'm not going to try to talk you out of your belief that you are in the church of the devil.  If that's what you want to believe, then so be it.  But the Book of Mormon and church doctrines don't classify non-Latter-day Saint Christian denominations that way.  

10 hours ago, marineland said:

Forum user InCognitus provided a quote from Joseph Smith:

According to Joseph Smith, the bad part about the creeds was that they were restrictive and drew lines
that prevented a person from moving on to further truth.  On October 15, 1843 he said: “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’; which
I cannot subscribe to.”  (History, 1838–1856, volume E-1 [1 July 1843–30 April 1844])

The person who appeared to Joseph Smith in the first vision did not qualify the creeds as some parts
are good while other parts are bad.

This was covered above.  You are putting forth the logical fallacy that the corruption of the whole cannot occur if some individual parts are good while other parts are bad, or even if the way the individual parts are put together is bad.  For example, you could take a perfectly good Lego set and put the individual pieces together to make something obscene or vulgar.  The composition as a whole may be an abomination, but if you take it apart and look at the individual pieces they may be good.  And this is obviously the case with the creeds, because Joseph Smith explained what was bad about the creeds, even though each of them have some truth.

Joseph Smith also said something similar about other denominations, and he said we should treasure up the truth found in them: 

"Have the Presbyterians any truth? Yes. Have the Baptists, Methodists, etc., any truth? Yes. They all have a little truth mixed with error. We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true 'Mormons.'" (History, 1838–1856, volume E-1 [1 July 1843–30 April 1844])

10 hours ago, marineland said:

As Joseph Smith was commanded not to join any of them, would this 'Jesus' also advise everyone else
not to join these 3 churches and their sub-groups?

It depends on who is asking and at what period of time.  The Lord uses people where they can do the most good for his purposes.  For Joseph Smith it was that he was called to restore the church of Jesus Christ in the latter days.