For JWs and LDS

[TasteForTruth]

I also noted that according to Hyrum Smith, professors was a reference to ministers. Maybe we are back to square one.

If the "professors" spoken of did not include ministers, then maybe. I'm pretty sure that ministers were included.

It sounds as though as a boy Joseph Smith had already judged these people as merely pretended to have been converted.

Well, he didn't speak of their conversion as being pretended. He specifically called into question "the great love which the converts to these different faiths expressed at the time of their conversion," "the great zeal manifested by the respective clergy," and "the seemingly good feelings of both the priests and the converts." And he stated, "it was seen" that these things were "seemingly" "more pretended than real" in connection with the "confusion and bad feeling [that] ensued" after they each joined their several churches. It was certainly a judgment on his part, but only based on his observation of actual conduct.

I don't think that verses 22-23 were talking about creeds, but about reactions of people when Joseph Smith told them about his vision and about God declaring that all of the churches were wrong and corrupt.

The question I was addressing wasn't about creeds, but about what constituted "corrupt" in JS-H 1:19. I have never suggested that the creeds made them corrupt. It seems reasonable that the behavior Joseph describes in his contemporaries (should it be proven to have actually occurred) would likely be included in what constituted "corrupt professors of religion."

How did they persecute him when he told them this? By not believing him? By ridiculing him? Did he explain this in any of the other first vision accounts?

I don't recall if he goes into any greater detail about the persecutions in other First Vision accounts. Probably not. And I know of no detailed catalog of the persecutions he claims befell him when he was a teenager, either made by his hand or by that of others. Fragments of such "persecution" exist. So if a lack of evidence is the hinge upon which the truthfulness or validity of his claims of persecution swings, I suppose it would be easy to outright dismiss his testimony as false. Conversely, there appears to be no shortage of persons who would, themselves, bear witness to the "fact" that Joseph didn't have "the fear of God before [his] eyes, but [was] moved and instigated by the devil," and that "no credit can be given to any one member of the Smith family." source

I understand that we approach Joseph's testimony from different perspectives—one from the perspective that it is trustworthy, and one (seemingly) from the perspective that it is on trial and must be proven true. I don't know that I can do the latter. All I can do is share my opinion, which, in relation to the statement we are examining, has already been seen to be subject to amendment.

Perhaps they were united in rejecting his account that they were all wrong, corrupt, and that they worshipped God with their lips, but not with their hearts?

Well, the account wasn't written until over decade after the events. So I doubt that—if there were actually any persecution perpetrated against him during his teen years—it would have arisen from his making those statements. If their conduct constituted nothing more than a united rejection—and not persecution—it is more likely that they were rejecting the divine origin of the Book of Mormon (and other such revelations) than his claims of their collective corruption as Christians, which assertion was actually addressed to him, not made by him (provided we believe him in the first place).

Ok. Thanks for sharing your view.

I hope so. Never a shortage of "view" here (meaning, from me).

 

[skylark1]

If the "professors" spoken of did not include ministers, then maybe. I'm pretty sure that ministers were included.

Do you have a link to where I can read Hyrum Smith's talk from which you quoted in Conference Report, Oct. 1916?

Well, he didn't speak of their conversion as being pretended. He specifically called into question "the great love which the converts to these different faiths expressed at the time of their conversion," "the great zeal manifested by the respective clergy," and "the seemingly good feelings of both the priests and the converts." And he stated, "it was seen" that these things were "seemingly" "more pretended than real" in connection with the "confusion and bad feeling [that] ensued" after they each joined their several churches. It was certainly a judgment on his part, but only based on his observation of actual conduct.

Yes, we have his views, opinions, and judgments.

The question I was addressing wasn't about creeds, but about what constituted "corrupt" in JS-H 1:19.

You wrote:

"This would seem to agree with the previous quotation, which suggests that while the people appeared anxious to come to know God, they were subject to a spirit of contention when others didn't agree with their creed."​

That is why I mentioned creeds in response.

I have never suggested that the creeds made them corrupt.

I understand that.

Well, the account wasn't written until over decade after the events. So I doubt that—if there were actually any persecution perpetrated against him during his teen years—it would have arisen from his making those statements. If their conduct constituted nothing more than a united rejection—and not persecution—it is more likely that they were rejecting the divine origin of the Book of Mormon (and other such revelations) than his claims of their collective corruption as Christians, which assertion was actually addressed to him, not made by him (provided we believe him in the first place).

In JS-H 1:22-23, Joseh explained that it was the telling of the story of the vision that led to his being persecuted by these men. Telling it would include the statements about Christianity.

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.”​

Perhaps what he called persecution was a rejection of these claims.

 

[TasteForTruth]

Do you have a link to where I can read Hyrum Smith's talk from which you quoted in Conference Report, Oct. 1916?

Try this.

...Actually, that doesn't appear to be it. That's April. Still trying to find October....

Yes, we have his views, opinions, and judgments.

I see. Do you believe that he was not persecuted as he said, but rather opposed or rejected only?

You wrote:

"This would seem to agree with the previous quotation, which suggests that while the people appeared anxious to come to know God, they were subject to a spirit of contention when others didn't agree with their creed."​

That is why I mentioned creeds in response.

I see. But if you look back, the "creed" comments of mine which you quoted—those were my comments about JS-H 1:6, not about 22-23. The following were my comments in relation to verses 22-23, which you quoted after you had already responded directly to my comments on verse 6:

Christianity is not a religion of persecution but of peacemaking and long-suffering. If Christians were united in bitter persecution and reviling against a teenage boy on account of his supposed visions, I'd say that they were most certainly corrupt. I would not expect to see Christians of sound heart and spirit engaging in this kind of behavior. Does that make them vile? I wouldn't say so.

I made no mention of creeds in relation to JS-H 1:22-23, but your comment implied that I did. Hence, my response.

I understand that.

In JS-H 1:22-23, Joseh explained that it was the telling of the story of the vision that led to his being persecuted by these men. Telling it would include the statements about Christianity.

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.”​

Perhaps what he called persecution was a rejection of these claims.

Perhaps he branded their rejection as persecution, yes. Or, perhaps, he was persecuted as he claimed.

 

[skylark1]

Try this.

...Actually, that doesn't appear to be it. That's April. Still trying to find October....

Thanks for trying!

I see. Do you believe that he was not persecuted as he said, but rather opposed or rejected only?

I don't know. It seems like if he was persecuted then that there would be some sort of record of it by someone else. There weren't any details given of what he meant by being persecuted.

I see. But if you look back, the "creed" comments of mine which you quoted—those were my comments about JS-H 1:6, not about 22-23. The following were my comments in relation to verses 22-23, which you quoted after you had already responded directly to my comments on verse 6:
I made no mention of creeds in relation to JS-H 1:22-23, but your comment implied that I did. Hence, my response.

I replied to the following when I mentioned creeds:

TasteForTruth: This would seem to agree with the previous quotation, which suggests that while the people appeared anxious to come to know God, they were subject to a spirit of contention when others didn't agree with their creed. And this to such an extent that Joseph wondered whether the "good feelings" of these religionists were really authentic to begin with. He also wrote:

I soon found, however, that my telling the story had excited a great deal of prejudice against me among professors of religion, and was the cause of great persecution, which continued to increase; and though I was an obscure boy, only between fourteen and fifteen years of age, and my circumstances in life such as to make a boy of no consequence in the world, yet men of high standing would take notice sufficient to excite the public mind against me, and create a bitter persecution; and this was common among all the sects—all united to persecute me. It caused me serious reflection then, and often has since, how very strange it was that an obscure boy, of a little over fourteen years of age, and one, too, who was doomed to the necessity of obtaining a scanty maintenance by his daily labor, should be thought a character of sufficient importance to attract the attention of the great ones of the most popular sects of the day, and in a manner to create in them a spirit of the most bitter persecution and reviling. But strange or not, so it was, and it was often the cause of great sorrow to myself. (v 22-23)​

Skylark: I don't think that verses 22-23 were talking about creeds, but about reactions of people when Joseph Smith told them about his vision and about God declaring that all of the churches were wrong and corrupt. How did they persecute him when he told them this? By not believing him? By ridiculing him? Did he explain this in any of the other first vision accounts?​

Maybe I am not cut out for discussions where each part of what someone writes is taken apart and dissected.

I'm sorry for any misunderstandings or what you preceive as misrrepresentations of your words. They were not intentional.

Perhaps he branded their rejection as persecution, yes. Or, perhaps, he was persecuted as he claimed.

Perhaps.

 

[TasteForTruth]

Thanks for trying!

It is available on gospelink.com, but you have to have a subscription. Otherwise, I could not locate a copy online. Needless to say, the remainder of the talk is by no means flattering toward the broader Christian religion.

I don't know. It seems like if he was persecuted then that there would be some sort of record of it by someone else.

Maybe. If anyone would have been expected to write it down, it would have been Joseph. That he didn't do so to our satisfaction shouldn't, by default, invalidate his claims. At least I don't believe so.

I replied to the following when I mentioned creeds:

TasteForTruth: This would seem to agree with the previous quotation, which suggests that while the people appeared anxious to come to know God, they were subject to a spirit of contention when others didn't agree with their creed. And this to such an extent that Joseph wondered whether the "good feelings" of these religionists were really authentic to begin with. He also wrote:

I soon found, however, that my telling the story had excited a great deal of prejudice against me among professors of religion, and was the cause of great persecution, which continued to increase; and though I was an obscure boy, only between fourteen and fifteen years of age, and my circumstances in life such as to make a boy of no consequence in the world, yet men of high standing would take notice sufficient to excite the public mind against me, and create a bitter persecution; and this was common among all the sects—all united to persecute me. It caused me serious reflection then, and often has since, how very strange it was that an obscure boy, of a little over fourteen years of age, and one, too, who was doomed to the necessity of obtaining a scanty maintenance by his daily labor, should be thought a character of sufficient importance to attract the attention of the great ones of the most popular sects of the day, and in a manner to create in them a spirit of the most bitter persecution and reviling. But strange or not, so it was, and it was often the cause of great sorrow to myself. (v 22-23)​

Skylark: I don't think that verses 22-23 were talking about creeds, but about reactions of people when Joseph Smith told them about his vision and about God declaring that all of the churches were wrong and corrupt. How did they persecute him when he told them this? By not believing him? By ridiculing him? Did he explain this in any of the other first vision accounts?​

Maybe I am not cut out for discussions where each part of what someone writes is taken apart and dissected.

If a misunderstanding occurs, it does not make one incapable of such engagement. I think it was just a misunderstanding. Just one paragraph break before "He also wrote" would have more clearly separated the points I was making in relation to each verse, and might have averted the whole thing. So is it a case of you being a poor responder, me being a poor poster, or neither? I'm for neither.

I'm sorry for any misunderstandings or what you preceive as misrrepresentations of your words. They were not intentional.

Thank you. No worries on this end.

Perhaps.

Yes, lots of "perhapses" in history.

 

[strangertoo]

God defines His 'creed' of Love , the absolute Truth from Love , in spirit baptism... there is no point in contention, one is never going to win an argument with God ...
so simply do what He says, stop sinning and obey Jesus in Love, no more sin abusing others , and God promises [Jer 31:31-34] as Jesus promises [John 16:13] to teach you EVERYTHING ... so much easier and quicker than this nonsense here about religion of sinners who by definition are servants of Satan still ...

1 John 3:6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him
...
1 John 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; ...

1 John 5:18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

see, the bible itself still says it explicitly, you cannot know God or Jesus until you stop sinning, so why try ????

surely it is better to stop sinning and choose to love folks, not abuse them with sin , and so be baptised of the spirit and PROVE to YOURSELF that Jesus was right [John 16:13] ... no more doubt, absolute Truth from God Himself direct as in the REAL new covenant [Heb 8:10-11]