I will not be held accountable for what God says that offends you.
>>Any missionary visit is going to try to encompass the First Vision, right?
No, My first discussion usually dealt with “This is God, here is why you should be interested in him…”
>>[Joseph Smith] concluded that (a) mankind has "apostatized" from the faith;
Are you a Catholic? If not you already believe this apostasy has happened. If so, you are used to others telling you “the church messed up long ago…“
>>(b) There was "no society or denomination that built upon the gospel
Isn’t this why all religions are started? I mean if you thought the “True” church was out there, you’d go join instead of starting one, right?
>>(c) the "world of mankind" consisted of "abominations"
Doesn’t it?
>>d) they "didn't adorn their profession of a holy walk
I am not sure exactly what this means, but I agree it’s not complementary.
>>Me: "My. How perceptive of this backwoods 12 to 15 yo to have his inner
>>thoughts confirmed by this God in a direct visitation."
Men of God are often perceptive. But actually this type of conversation was common as there was a revival spiritual movement going on in the area that spanned almost a decade from what I’ve read. If you have a collection of minister, preachers and whatever trying to tear down each other’s religion (Like some on this forum are wont to do) quite often when both sides are firing away one on the outside will decide that they are both wrong, which is why I try not make comments about anyone’s religion directly.
Your posts here especially # 462 remind me of Liberals who run around looking for things to be offended by.
Unless I am mistaken, your religion states that I am going to hell. (Hand basket optional)
I am not offended, why are you offended if mine says the same thing?
What about all the other religions out there that say we are both going to enjoy warm weather for the eternities?
Are you offended by them?
For some reason you are unreasonably offended by Mormons.
Is it because you were once one?
Why did you leave the church?
Did somebody step on your toes? (Metaphorical or physical)
Did you have a fight with your bishop?
These were rhetorical questions.
Please honestly answer this one.
Why is it that those who leave the church can’t leave it alone?
Big difference between a total apostasy and high numbers of believers who have apostacized from the faith in history. So, no. I've never believed in a total apostasy. Like Elijah, who thought he was alone before God showed him the remnant, God has always retained a remnant.
This might be true of new religions. It's not true of newly developing sects of classic faiths.
Take a look, for example, at the development of the fast-food industry in the 1950s. It's not so much that McDonalds started serving up something new. Hamburgers and fries were a part of all kinds of diners and restaurants.
But restaurants were more, "y'all come" and weren't as customer-friendly as "outreach" enterprises like McDonald's. Take a look @ the Missionary & Alliance Protestant denomination. By its very title, you can see that at least one of the new "emphasis" in its beginnings was not that the church had apostacized, but rather A.B. Simpson was calling the church back to its missionary roots. [Simpson also thought the church needed to focus more on the fact that God was a healing God].
In many new denominations through the years, it hasn't always been that churches were doing something improper; sometimes, it was that the weightiness of something was being overlooked.
I mean, how often does that even occur with parents? My parents neglected teaching me some vital things. I, in turn, have tried to incorporate those things to my children. But how many things have I neglected? Denominations are like the many children of God or the tribes of Israel. They are somewhat distinct; they each emphasize the main aspects of who God is while also each stressing some part of who God is that is less emphasized in another church body. But that is what diversity-in-unity is all about. And if you don't have a diversity-in-unity God, then no wonder your founder threw out the baby with the bathwater...he didn't want that diversity...
Well, go ahead and say it, then. Don't just beat around the bush, and let your founder say it for you. Embrace it as your own.
I want you, and any other LDS poster, to put it in plain words. Spell out exactly what Joseph was saying, so that no one will misunderstand. Let me spell it out, and then all you have to write is, "Yes, I agree with this post."
According to Joseph Smith: All Baptist creeds are an abomination to God. All Presbyterian creeds are an abomination to God. All Methodist creeds are an abomination to God. All Missionary & Alliance creeds are an abomination to God. All charismatic and pentecostal creeds (including Assemblies of God) are an abomination to God. All Nazarene creeds are an abomination to God. All Lutheran creeds are an abomination to God. All Catholic creeds are an abomination to God. All Episcopalian creeds are an abomination to God. All Quaker and Friends' creeds are an abomination to God. All Congregational creeds are an abomination to God. All Reformed creeds are an abomination to God. All other Protestant creeds in other streams are an abomination to God. Spelled out, these are Joseph's words. Do you believe them?
I can see you must have had a wonder meeting yesterday!:)
Men of God are often perceptive. But actually this type of conversation was common as there was a revival spiritual movement going on in the area that spanned almost a decade from what I’ve read.
Well, my point is two-fold:
(1) My unmentioned point is that many LDS writers like to portray Joseph Smith as this unenlightened backwoods bumpkin of very young age, who had neither the insight or education to construct what he did. They somehow like to portray it as "well this HAS to mean some divine imprint" in his life.
All you have to do is to read what Joseph himself said about these visions and you realize these were strong issues he was dealing with for four years during a formative time of his life...I mean, the way he frames it, these were deep thoughts he supposedly weighed between the ages of 12 & 15. So, it's not like he was this "soft coin" that was all ready to be stamped with just any revelational image. No, far from it, by his own admission, he had come to multiple theological conclusions in a "pre-visited" time of his life.
And that was my other (2) point: That he had already formed these conclusions minus any direct revelation. He had already sized up the authentic nature of people's faith lifes as non-existent [he slammed the Christians around him; whether they deserved it or not is another question]. Likewise, he had concluded the beliefs of mankind were abominations; and that there was no true gospel foundation--they had "apostatized [sic]" to use his language.
Listen, if I was to interview you and ask you, "what are the 4 or 5 most prominent religious & faith issues that are of concern to you and have been prominent in your mind these last 4 years?" ...and then if I was to say to you, "Somebody has told me that God has granted a visitation w/you in the next room." And you then proceeded into that room and you came out and told me that the main points God made were exactly the same points you made to me prior to going in the room, then I would question the reality of whether that was truly God who visited you.
God doesn't reveal Himself simply to confirm the 4-point conclusions of a 15-year-old teen-especially when it contradicts what His own Son promised ("the gates of hell will not prevail against the church."...LDS believe the prevail doctrine, and make liars out of Jesus). God has His own agenda beyond the religious wonderings of a 15 yo teen.
I did not bring up this part of the discussion in a pro-active way. I've brought it up as a reaction to YOUR claim that others' aim is to (a) shake up your faith, which you say is despicable; and (b) no one should denigrate another's faith.
My point was not to cry, "Offense!" Offense!" My point was to say, "How can you say what you said when your very founder would never even have gotten off the ground had he not tried to shake up the faiths of others and denigrate them?"
My point was a reactive one: You can't have it both ways. You can't say it's okay for J.Smith to have said what he said, but it's not okay for any contemporary. All I was calling for was consistency.
I will not be held accountable for what God says that offends you.
... or, presumably, ... by what Joseph Smith said that God said.
Because, the truth is ... there is absolutely no other witness ... to confirm that what Joseph Smith said ... was true.
Even Jesus didn't expect His hearers to believe what He said ... without additional witness.John 5:31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.
32 There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.
33 Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth.
34 But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved.
35 He was a burning and a shining light: and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light.
36 But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.
37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
38 And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.
39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
41 I receive not honour from men.
42 But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.
43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
44 How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?
45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
This is a very good question. Listen, if someone says to me, "C, you're hell-bound." I'm not offended [at least not the first time it's uttered!]. If someone says to me, "C, the creed the Holy Spirit inspired and then protected these generations is abominable," ya better believe that not only provokes me, but it provokes the very Spirit who inspired and sustained them.
Slander me all you want. Jesus even said to blaspheme Him, and it could be forgiven. Now blaspheming the Holy Spirit has prompted multiple theological discussions that I'm not meaning to lead into a tangent here, but even the remote possibility that somebody could be militating versus the Holy Spirit's very breath (the literal meaning of inspiration) is tredding on very dangerous grounds.
Either the Holy Spirit can protect what He has inspired, or He can't. And to say that He can't or that He failed for almost two centuries is a form of slander against Him which should prompt repentance on the part of anyone who has engaged in such a broadside against Him!
Well, first of all, how many of these "other religions" are going door to door saying all of our creeds are abominable and our professors corrupt?
Who would provoke you more? Somebody who occasionally writes a letter to the editor defaming you, or somebody who mounts a multi-media campaign (Web, TV, print ads) and then sends massive # of folks world-wide to defame your reputation?
We're not just talking about a lot of religions saying the same thing against the Christian church. We're also talking about the zealousness and intensity in which somebody is spreading that message.
And you can't get around what the bottom-line message is. To have a restoration message carries zero weight until you convince folks that the original is a crumbled mass awaiting destruction.
If the original is still the real deal in relatively good shape, then nobody's going to buy into your restoration message. They go in hand in hand. Every pro-restoration message is a claim that Satan prevailed against the Church.
So, tell me, just how many other religions go around and proclaim in the mass media & door to door that Satan completely prevailed against the Church?
I was offended once by a certain LDS Institute Director, but I could also speak well of another LDS Institute Director. So, no, alas, no LDS person or persons is/are to "blame" for my salvation.
Why can't I leave LDS alone? I'd like to say that I'd make a bargain--you call all the LDS missionaries home, and then I'd consider staying home. But that would not be true.
Lost sheep are not simply the prodigals who roam away. Lost sheep include the "faithful" brother who stayed home and was slighted that his repenting brother received the full attention of the Father.
Paul's custom when he entered a new city was to visit the religious folks first (the synagogues). And make no mistake. It was not an academic enterprise: "I speak the truth in Christ--I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit--I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel." (Rom 9:1-4).