Joseph Smith's Consent Needed to Enter Heaven (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, p.282-91)

http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/sermons_talks_interviews/jofdvol7p282_291smithholdskeystoheaven.htm ^ | 1/22/03 | Brigham Young

[RnMomof7]

Brigham Young Sermon:
Joseph Smith's Consent Needed to Enter Heaven
(Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, p.282-91)

Quick Link

JOSEPH SMITH'S CONSENT NEEDED IN ORDER TO BE WITH GOD AND CHRIST IN HEAVEN

---

Brigham Young, October 9, 1859
Intelligence, Etc.
Remarks by President BRIGHAM YOUNG,
delivered in the Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, October 9, 1859.
Reported by G. D. Watt
Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, p.282-91

I shall address you this morning upon a subject that is more interesting to me than any other pertaining to the life of man. It is a subject of deep study and research, and has been from age to age among the reflecting and philosophical portions of the human family. The intelligence given to the children of men is the subject to which I allude, and upon which has been expended more intellectual labour and profound thought than upon any other that has ever attracted the attention of man.

The Psalmist has written, "What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man that thou visitest him? For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour." This passage is but one of many which refer to the organization of man as though it were a great mystery—something that could not be fully comprehended by the greatest minds while dwelling in earthly tabernaeles. It is a matter of vital interest to each of us, and yet it is often farthest from the thoughts of the greater portion of mankind. Instead of reflecting upon and searching for hidden things of the greatest value to them, they rather wish to learn how to secure their way through this world as easily and as comfortably as possible. The reflections what they are here for, who produced them, and where they are from, far too seldom enter their minds.

Many have written upon this great; subject, and there exists a great variety of reflections, views, and opinions which I have not time to dwell upon in detail. I will merely give you a few texts, or what you may term a text-book. Nor shall I now take time to minutely elaborate any particular point, but will present such views as shall come into my mind, trusting that I shall have your faith and prayers to be able to edify both Saint and sinner, believer and unbeliever.

If the inhabitants of the earth throughly understood their own being, their views, feelings, faith, and affections would be very different from what they now are. Many believe in predestination, while others of the Christian world oppose that doctrine and exclusively advocate free grace, free will, free offering, etc.; and each party of Christians has its pet theory or doctrine, upon which it builds its hopes of eternal salvation. Such a course is like five or six hundred men each selecting and running off with a piece of the machinery of a cotton mill, and declaring that he had the cotton mill entire. This comparison may be truly applied to the Christian. world as it now is with regard to the holy and divine principles which have been revealed pertaining to eternal life and salvation.

---

---283---

Many of you, no doubt, have concluded that the doctrine of election and reprobation is true, and you do so with propriety, for it is true; it is a scriptural, doctrine. Others do not believe this doctrine, affirming with all their faith, might, and skill that free grace and freewill are or ought to be the foundation of man's faith in his Creator. Very well. I can also say to them that free grace and freewill are scripturally true. The first-named doctrine is as true as the second, and the second as the first. Others, again, declare that mankind have no will, neither free nor restrained, in their actions; for instance, the Rationalists or Freethinkers, who deny the existence and divinity of the Gods that we believe in. But so far from their believing their own theory, Mr. Neil, of Boston, while in prison for having no religion, wrote an essay, in which he declared that "All is God."

I might enumerate many more instances, and say that they are all right so far as they go in truth. The doctrine of freewill and conditional salvation, the doctrine of free grace and unconditional salvation, the doctrine of foreordination and reprobation, and many more that I have not time enumerate, can all be fully and satisfactorily proved by the Scriptures, and are true.

On the other hand, many untrue doctrines are taught and believed such as there being infants, not a span long, weltering in the flames of hell, there to remain throughout the countless ages of eternity, and the doctrine of total depravity. Some have gone so far as to say that a man or woman who wishes to be saved in the kingdom of God—who wishes to be a servant or handmaid of the Almighty, must feel that deep contrition of heart, that sound repentance, and such a sense of his or her unworthiness and nothingness, and of the supremacy; glory, and exaltation of that Deity they believe in, as to exclaim before God and their brethren and sisters that they are willing to be damned. To me that is one of the heights of nonsense; for if a person is willing to be damned, he cares not to make the efforts necessary to secure salvation. All this confusion is in the world—party against party—communities against communities—individuals against individuals. One sets out with five truths and fifteen errors, making the articles of his faith twenty; another dissents from him, rejects those five truths, selects perhaps five more, and adds as many errors as did the former one, and then he comes out a flaming reformer. Men, in dissenting from one another, have too often exercised no better judgment than to deny and dissent from many truths because their ancestors cherished and believed them, which has produced numerous parties, sects, and articles of faith, when, in fact, taking them in mass, they have an immense amount of true principles.

It was the occupation of Jesus Christ and his Apostles to propagate the Gospel of salvation and the principles of eternal life to the world, and it is our duty and calling, as ministers of the same salvation and Gospel, to gather every item of truth and reject every error. Whether a truth be found with professed infidels, or with the Universalists, or the Church of Rome, or the Methodists, the Church of England, the Presbyterians, the Baptists, the Quakers, the Shakers, or any other of the various and numerous different sects and parties, all of whom have more or less truth, it is the business of the Elders of this Church (Jesus, their elder brother, being at their head,) to gather up all the truths in the world pertaining to life and salvation, to the Gospel we preach, to mechanism of every kind, to the sciences, and to philosophy, wherever it may be found in every

---

---284---

nation, kindred, tongue, and people, and bring it to Zion.

The people upon this earth have a great many errors, and they have also a great many truths. This statement is not only true of the nations termed civilized—those. who profess to worship the true God, but is equally applicable to pagans of all countries, for in their religious rights and ceremonies may be found a great many truths which we will also gather home to Zion. All truth is for the salvation of the children of men—for their benefit and learning—for their furtherance in the principles of divine knowledge; and divine knowledge is any matter of fact—truth; and all truth pertains to divinity.

When we view mankind collectively, or as nations, communities, neighbourhoods, and families, we are led to inquire into the object of our being here and situated as we find ourselves to be. Did we produce ourselves, and endow ourselves with that knowledge and intelligence we now possess? All are ready to acknowledge that we had nothing to do with the origin of our being—that we were produced by a superior Power, without either the knowledge or the exercise of the agency we now possess. We know that we are here. We know that we live, breathe, and walk upon the earth. We know this naturally, as the brute creation knows. We know that our food and drink come from the elements around us: by them we are nourished, cherished, refreshed, and sustained, with the addition of sleep. We live and breathe, and breathe and live. Who can define and point out the particularities of the wonderful organization of man?

It enters into the minds of but few that the air we inhale is the greatest source of our life. We derive more real nourishment to our mortal tabernacles from this element than from the solid food we receive into our stomachs. Our lungs expand and contract to sustain the life which God has given us. Of the component parts of this great fountain of vitality I have not time to treat; but this interesting information you may gather in part from numerous works on natural philosophy. I will, however, say that the air is full of life and vitality, and its volume fills immensity. The relative terms height, depth, length, and breadth do not apply to it. Could you pass with the velocity of the electric fluid over telegraphic wires, during the continuation of more years than you can comprehend, you would still be surrounded by it and in the bosom of eternity as much as you now are; and it is filled with the spirit of life which emanates from God.

Many have tried to penetrate to the First Cause of all things; but it would be as easy for an ant to number the grains of sand on the earth. It is not for man, with his limited intelligence, to grasp eternity in his comprehension. There is an eternity of life, from which we were composed by the wisdom and skill of superior Beings. It would be as easy for a gnat to trace the history of man back to his origin as for man to fathom the First Cause of all things, lift the veil of eternity, and reveal the mysteries that have been sought after by philosophers from the beginning. What, then, should be the calling and duty of the children of men? Instead of inquiring after the origin of the Gods—instead of trying to explore the depths of eternities that have been, that are, and that will be,—instead of endeavouring to discover the boundaries of boundless space, let them seek to know the object of their present existence, and how to apply, in the most profitable manner for their mutual good and salvation, the intelligence they possess. Let them seek to know and thoroughly understand

---

---285---

things within their reach, and to make themselves well acquainted with the object of their being here, by diligently seeking unto a superior Power for information, and by the careful study of the best books.

The life that is within us is a part of an eternity of life, and is organized spirit, which is clothed upon by tabernacles, thereby constituting our present being, which is designed for the attainment of further intelligence. The matter composing our bodies and spirits has been organized from the eternity of matter that fills immensity.

Were I to fully speak what I know and understand concerning myself and others, you might think me to be infringing. I shall therefore omit some things that I would otherwise say to you if the people were prepared to receive them.

Jesus Christ says, "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou has sent." We are not now in a capacity to know him in his fulness of glory. We know a few things that he has revealed concerning himself, but there are a great many which we do not know. When people have secured to themselves eternal life, they are where they can understand the true character of their Father and God, and the object of the creation, fall, and redemption of man after the creation of this world. These points have ever been subjects for speculation with all classes of believers, and are subjects of much interest, to those who entertain a deep anxiety to know how to secure to themselves eternal life. Our bodies are organized from the eternity of matter, from such matter as we breathe, and from such matter as is found in the vegetable and mineral kingdoms. This matter is organized into a world, with all its appendages, by whom? By the Almighty and women who are made in the image of God.

All this vast creation was produced from element in its unorganized state; the mountains, rivers, seas, valleys, plains, and the animal, vegetable, and mineral kingdoms beneath and around us, all speaking forth the wonderful works of the Great God. Shall I say that the seeds of vegetables were planted here by the Characters that framed and, built this world—that the seeds of every plant composing the vegetable kingdom were brought from another world? This would be news to many of you. Who brought them here? It matters little to us whether it was John, James, William, Adam, or Bartholomew who brought them; but it was some Being who had power to frame this earth with its seas, valleys, mountains, and rivers, and cause it to teem with vegetable and animal life.

Here let me state to all philosophers of every class upon the earth, When you tell me that father Adam was made as we make adobies from the earth, you tell me what I deem an idle tale. When you tell me that the beasts of the field were produced in that manner, you are speaking idle words devoid of meaning. There is no such thing in all the eternities where the Gods dwell. Mankind are here because they are the offspring of parents who were first brought here from another planet, and power was given them to propagate their species, and they were commanded to multiply and replenish the earth. The offspring of Adam and Eve are commanded to take the rude elements, and, by the knowledge God has given, to convert them into everything required for their life, health, adornment, wealth, comfort, and consolation. Have we the knowledge to do this? We have. Who gave us this knowledge? Our Father who made us; for he is the only wise God, and to

[CARepubGal]

But did he have Joseph's Sorting Hat?

[CARepubGal]

Good book and rather enlightening.

[Delphinium]

Have you read "Tell it all", or "Rocky Mountain Saints" by Fannie, and William Stenhouse? Both very good books, written in the 1800's. Sometimes hard to find.I had my local library order them for me.

[Wrigley]

He had to prioritize.

Proofreading was next on his list.

[restornu]

He said he NEVER PREACHED a sermon that may not be called scripture. Was he a liar?

If is you are trying to make his live talks into a liar! Neither you are I were there! BY did not review the written transcipt

1-If BY did not review the sermon and make any necessary corrections,

2- it had to be identifired as scripture!

READ AGAIN WHAT HE SAID!

President Young had two prerequisites for calling a sermon scripture. First, he needed to review the sermon and make any necessary corrections. Second, it had to be identified as scripture.

It should be noted that very few of the recorded sermons of Brigham Young were reviewed for correctness by the him. Even fewer sermons were announced as scripture. For the most part, President Young's sermons were given on an impromptu basis and hand recorded by third parties when he spoke. Since only Jesus Christ was perfect and infallible, it is not surprising that some of his sermons are erroneously transcribed. The fact that President Young required a statement to be reviewed and corrected before it is called scripture presupposes errors in some of the impromtu remarks that were recorded by third parties.

Occasionally, the critics make the argument that Brigham Young had plenty of opportunity to correct the Journal of Discourses for any errors. Therefore, they make the argument that it must be considered scripture by default. However, as noted above, President Young taught that for a statement to be considered scripture it must be positively identified as such. He did not say "assume it's scripture unless I say otherwise."

There is a lot a differents from PREACHING to what is actually being recoreded! or what the WRTIERS preceives.

BTW there were 11 different transcripters over those 20 years!

[restornu]

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel, which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an ANGEL from heaven, preach ANY OTHER GOSPEL unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.Galatians 1,6-9

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel

I would NOT call cir. 2000 AD, SO SOON REMOVED!

But I would concider 325 AD, SO SOON REMOVED, matter a fact as soon as the Lord and apostle were removed, the distorters of the word started right away trying to destory the Lord Word. There were many great battles fought over this which a lot of you try to DENY that the Lord would allow happen.

BUT it did happen!!!!

THERE IS FREEWILL ON THIS EARHT!

So if the oposition trys to destorys the Word of the Lord, that can happen and much of the Plain and Precious Truths were removed!!!

Today you have a half of loaf, or half the TRUTH!

(off to work soon)

[Jean Chauvin]

"I would still argue that the Mormons indeed do have some of the truth. And some of their beliefs are consistent even with Calvinism. (i.e. today's earlier reference to the Ten Commandments).

And, I will still argue that when a Mormon says something that is true, it is true. Truth is not relative, it does not change."

I wholeheartedly disagree:

2 Timothy 4
1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.
3 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;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

I find it interesting that you claim the Mormons are advocates of the 10 Commandments for the 1st and 7th commandment do not apply to the Mormons. They most assuredly do not as they most assuredly DO have "other gods" before the Lord! Their embracing of polygamy tells us that they command to "not commit adultry" does not apply to them either. No, the 10 Commandments are not for the Mormons -they know better.

Furthermore, I will stand with the apostle John as he says that people such as this have not the truth!

1 John 2
4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

2 Corinthians 6
14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

To the extent that non-believers such as the Mormons have similar conclusions on a given matter as do true Christians -it is not accurate to say that they "agree" or that they "have (some) truth". For the fact that pagans might have similar conclusions tells us nothing of how they came to those conclusions:

1 Corinthians 2
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

The Mormons DO NOT have the Spirit of God! If the Mormons are not taught by the Spirit -they DO NOT have the truth!

"For you guys, it's all about being right. Damn the consequences. "

2 Peter 2:2
And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.

1 Timothy 6
1 Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.
2 And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.
3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

2 John 1
7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
8 Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.
9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

Jean

[drstevej]

***How many times have articles in D&C been revised? At which revision / edition did these become Scripture?***

Want to take a shot at this one?

***I don't expect there to ever be a request for a sustaining vote for the truth that the earth goes around the sun. ***

How about life on the sun?

[restornu]

Yes interesting book alright many sell there souls for a mess of pottage:) We did that whole book here on the thread until I discovered how it was a way to make money with her new PR husband. Funny how husband & wife write stories to cover the thrills and bills:)

[Delphinium]

What book are you talking about? My husbands book was to reach the Mormons. He was at fundlementalist Mormon at the time. He was way more brainwashed then you are. He just had atleast one big thing about him that was different. A desire for truth. He spent every cent, and all his time searching for the truth. He believed the truth was with Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, and that it was people like you who had fallin away. He searched himself right out of Mormonism. He made no money off of it.It cost him much more than the 2000+ books he distributed It was written in the late 70's. Just this year fundlementalist Mormons have contacted him to buy it. He would never even give it away. We just keep it for reference. He did see,photocopy the Original manuscripts. He even leaves the misspelled words in.

Because you all ae ashamed of the sermons given by your founders, lets discuss the authenticity of the Book of Mormon?

I have to go away for a few days. I will try to address your answer to the Bible above. Its not easy because to me its unbelievable to see someone so brainwashed.

[Corin Stormhands]

[Argh, I had this all written and somebody tripped a breaker!]

Touche on the 1st and 7th

And, I certainly to NOT believe that the Mormons have the Spirit of God.

To the extent that non-believers such as the Mormons have similar conclusions on a given matter as do true Christians -it is not accurate to say that they "agree" or that they "have (some) truth". For the fact that pagans might have similar conclusions tells us nothing of how they came to those conclusions:

My point, Jean, as it has always been, is that the truth is constant. Truth is not relative. In other words, regardless of how one arives at the truth, it is still the truth.

The problem is that having some truth is more dangerous than having no truth at all.

Wasn't there some truth in the Lie of Eden? When the serpent deceived Eve he said "You shall not surely die."

Eve didn't die physically. She died spiritually. Isn't that the explanation for the concept of Total Depravity?

Over on the discussions of The Institutes (Chapter 3, I think) we've briefly talked about Calvin's statement that all men have some knowledge of God.

Just because some men have only a partial understanding of God, a warped understanding of God or even deny that God exists, God does not change. And neither does the truth.

[Jean Chauvin]

"My point, Jean, as it has always been, is that the truth is constant. Truth is not relative. In other words, regardless of how one arives at the truth, it is still the truth.

(snip)

Just because some men have only a partial understanding of God, a warped understanding of God or even deny that God exists, God does not change. And neither does the truth."

I have no problem with this. However, this does not give us any legitimacy if we were to enlist the aid of non-believers when arguing for or against a particular Christian doctrine (this being my entire point).

We don't go and say, "See, even the Mormon's can see that Calvinism is wrong".

Because the Mormon's, even if they have come to the correct conclusion, did not get there the same way -being taught the truth by the Holy Spirit and the truth is not in them!

The opinion of the Mormon's or any other false belief system is completely irrelevant when discussing the truth of Christian doctrine.

Jean

[Corin Stormhands]

Because the Mormon's, even if they have come to the correct conclusion, did not get there the same way -being taught the truth by the Holy Spirit and the truth is not in them!

I would still argue that you are making truth relative. But I would agree with you that the truth is not in them. However, they do have some true concepts.

The opinion of the Mormon's or any other false belief system is completely irrelevant when discussing the truth of Christian doctrine.

Thank you! That underscores my original point of the absurdity of saying Joseph Smith was a Methodist. He did not remain a Methodist. The Methodists (as well as the Wesleyan/Arminians) do not claim him.

And you further endorse my point by saying that while the Mormons have arrived at some true conclusions, they are not taught by the Holy Spirit.

So the argument of similarities between Arminianism and Mormonism is also invalid.

You do good work.

[Elsie]

I would NOT call cir. 2000 AD, SO SOON REMOVED!

---

Well, how about THESE dates then?

 

 5th century -- Two Buddhist sects - Zen & Amidism

 622 Islam

 936 Zoroastrianism

1833 Millerites

1844 Bahai

1859 Origin of Species               (evolution)

1872 Jehovah's Witnesses

1879 Christian Scientist

1933 Secular Humanism

1950 Scientology

1959 Branch Davidians               (This sounds VERY familiar!)

1961 UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST

 

Are all of THESE guys on the right path?

[Revelation 911]

The opinion of the Mormon's or any other false belief system is completely irrelevant when discussing the truth of Christian doctrine.

(translation) So even though they will attempt to explain thier theology, I will discount whatever explanation spews forth and proceed to eviscerate them with the broadsword of the Institutes merely for entertainment purposes.

Corin - I get the sneaking suspicion these folks like to pull wings off flies too LOL

[Jean Chauvin]

"I would still argue that you are making truth relative. But I would agree with you that the truth is not in them. However, they do have some true concepts. "

No. For example, let's say I were to enlist the aid of Mormon's for the political goal of erradicating abortion. I would still claim that the common conclusion I share with a Mormon regarding abortion doesn't lead me to the conclusion that Mormons have part of the "truth" in a theological sense. They have not the Holy Spirit, therefore they do not have the truth. Nevertheless, the fact that abortion is an abomination to the one true God is absolute.

However, if I were to attempt to convince liberal "christians" of the fact that abortion is an abomination to the one true God, it would be completely irrelevant if I were to argue that abortion is obviously wrong for "even the Mormon's agree" that it is wrong.

The fact that Mormon's have stumbled upon the correct conclusion that abortion is wrong does not mean "they have the truth". Neither does this change the fact that the commands of God and the truths of Christian doctrine are, indeed, absolute.

"Thank you! That underscores my original point of the absurdity of saying Joseph Smith was a Methodist. He did not remain a Methodist. The Methodists (as well as the Wesleyan/Arminians) do not claim him."

I fully expected this response, Corin.

However, you are guilty of a common logical error.

To argue that a non-believers position of a particular CHRISTIAN (absolute) doctrine or "truth" is irrelvant IN NO WAY necessitates that the untrue doctrine which a believer holds is dangerous and can easily lead one astray.

Isn't it true that a FALSE DOCTRINE can aide in leading to deeper theological error?

1 Corinthians 5
4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

I will exlain it differently.

I am attempting to show that the opinions of a NON BELIEVER have no relevance when attempting to assertain the ABSOLUTE TRUTH of a particular Christian doctrine.

[NON BELIEVER'S OPINION] ---> not relevant ---> [DISCUSSION OF ABSOLUTE TRUTH]

In agreement with my point , you are attempting to show that it is NOT PROPER to argue that the opinions of a NON BELIEVER which are in agreement to the opinions of a believer have no relevance in attempting to demonstrate that these COMMON OPINIONS might be the CAUSE or the NON-BELIEVER'S heresy -or at least that they can be a partial help on the way to the NON-BELIEVER'S heresy.

[NON BELIEVER'S OPINIONS (which are also shared with SOME believers] ---> not relevant ---> [NON-BELIEVER'S HERESY]

These are two completely different ideas! It simply DOES NOT FOLLOW to conclude that since the opinions of a non-believer have no relevance when attempting to ASSERTAIN THE TRUTH of a PARTICULAR DOCTRINE then one cannot likewise show that the opinions which a NON BELIEVER shares with SOME believers might just have bearing on swaying some towards heresy.

This is wholly relevant.

IF a particular doctrine is wrong, then it is totally relevant to note that many particular heresies also hold dearly to the very same particular doctrine.

While I would agree that it is NOT logical to automatically conclude that this COMMON DOCTRINE is ~NECESSARILY~ the CAUSE of the heresy (there ~could~ be other causes), it is just as wrong to RULE OUT that it ~MIGHT~ be the CAUSE.

This is why Rev911 attempted long ago to link Charles Taze Russell and Mary Baker Eddy to Calvinism. He attempted to demonstrate this because he believed that the errors he saw in Calvinism was either a cause or a help in bringing them to their grave theological errors.

THIS IS NOT THE SAME THING as attempting to enlist the aid of NON BELIEVER'S to demonstrate that a particular doctrine in question is wrong.

We never "called" rev on this issue because of his logic. We "called" rev on this issue because of his PRESUMPTIONS.

For it is COMPLETELY INCORRECT to link Calvinism with Russell's Jehovah's Witnesses theology and Eddy's Christian Science theology. It is wrong to even ATTEMPT to link Calvinism with these heresies BECAUSE it simply IS NOT TRUE that either of these individuals WERE CALVINISTS when they made up their heretical doctrines.

In fact, both of these individuals REJECTED the particular Calvinist doctrines in question BEFORE they fabricated their heretical theologies.

In fact, Charles Taze Russell REJECTED his covenanter (Scottish Presbyterian) roots and moved into unbelief. He was then persuaded by and became a member of the Seventh Day Adventist (ARMINIAN) movement. It was his fascination with the SDA's theology which led him to bring about his own heretical doctrines. Note that he sumarily REJECTED his calvinism in total BEFORE he ever brought out his JW theology.

In fact, Mary Baker Eddy ALSO REJECTED her Calvinist upbringing. From the Mary Baker Eddy Library we read from their on-line biography of Ms. Eddy, we read the following:

...Raised in a deeply religious Congregational [Calvinist] home, she rebelled against the Calvinist doctrine of predestination at an early age, and regularly turned to the Bible and prayer for hope and inspiration...

THIS is why we rejected Rev's attempts. His PRESUMPTIONS were wrong.

On the other hand, the Mormon Thomas G. Alexander, who is a professor at BYU, wrote an article in the Mormon "Sunstone" magazine in which he PROUDLY identified the roots of Mormon theology as Arminian:

The doctrines of God and man revealed in these sources were not greatly different from those of some of the religious denominations of the time. Marvin Hill has argued that the Mormon doctrine of man in New York contained elements of both Calvinism and Arminianism, though tending toward the latter. The following evidence shows that it was much closer to the moderate Arminian position, particularly in rejecting the Calvinist emphasis on absolute and unconditional predestination, limited atonement, total depravity, and absolute perseverance of the elect...

We read from another Mormon of the close association Mormonism has with Arminianism:

Some nineteenth-century deacons and elders and a few evangelical pastors struggled with grave temptations to doubt the truth and relevance of large portions of the book upon which they had been taught to stake their eternal destiny. True, the details of the histories recounted in the two sacred books were radically different. But they fit together wondrously. And their moral structure, the story they told of Jesus, their promise of salvation, and their description of humankind's last days were remarkably similar. Though the new scriptures had similarities with evangelical Arminianism, at the expense of the Calvinist views long dominant in colonial America, the same was true of the early nineteenth-century teachings of many Protestants, even Presbyterians, to say nothing of Methodists and Disciples of Christ. In the voice of two witnesses, the Bible and the Book of Mormon, Latter-day Saints declared the truth confirmed, just as the prophet Nephi1 had predicted (cf. 2 Ne. 29:8).
from Timothy L. Smith's on-line paper

Furthermore, it is misleading to simply say that Smith "did not remain a Methodist". Since he was all-to-happy to stay in the Methodist church, it was necessary for the Methodists to force him out.

It is NOT illogical to reason that the Arminianism of these three individuals AIDED in their manufacturing of their theological heresies.

Jean

[Corin Stormhands]

it was necessary for the Methodists to force him out.

Bonus points for the Methodists!

Nice spin Jean, as usual. But you're wasting your time.

Oh, that's right, it's for the "lurkers."

[Corin Stormhands]

And before you say I'm running away. Let me again restate that you are simply making truth relative.

Truth is truth. God is God. Nothing fallible man can do or say will change that.

As for the running away part, I'm getting ready to head out of town, so I don't have time for your reindeer games.

[xzins]

You realize, of course, that Joe Smith considers methodism just another of the deceived denominations of "quasi-christianity."

We kicked him out. He willingly left and then declared us heretic.

However, it's useless to discuss with you. Your intent is attack.

BTW, Sun Myung Moon was also Presbyterian. He kept the concept of destiny in his teachings.

Does that mean that calvin is responsible for moonism? Of course not. I'd never make such a ridiculous claim.

[Corin Stormhands]

However, it's useless to discuss with you. Your intent is attack.

See, another truth about the FRCalvinists, even from a heretic like you!