For JWs and LDS

[TasteForTruth]

Yes, I think that the creeds being spoken of in JS- 1:9 were formal creeds, such as the Nicene Creed, but not limited to the Nicene Creed. If the usage of creeds in this context was intended to mean doctrine, then it wouldn't have been necessary to use the words creeds and doctrines.

There was a restoration movement at that time to return to beliefs strictly found in the Bible, that looked upon creeds as written by men and something to be avoided. They were especially looked down on by those in this movement when they were used as tests of faith; required for baptism or admittance to membership in a church. Perhaps this was on Joseph's mind when he inquired of God which church was true.

Well, I don't believe it is wise to analyze what Christ said on the basis of what Joseph may or may not have been thinking. It does make sense, though, for Him to use terms familiar to Joseph, and "creed" certainly was. If Joseph understood the term as you do, then it is possible that the broader definition I use is not consistent with the context. But I have always understood that it incorporated more than just the simple creeds.

And I don't personally believe it is fruitful to speculate as to whether or not Christ's usage of this word or that was unnecessary. I believe that emphasis by repetition is a common scriptural occurrence. In fact, in His very censure of the Pharisees, Christ repeats his point—that they were hypocrites—using different words. He could have just said that they were hypocrites and left it at that, but He went on to illustrate it in a few ways. "Drawing nigh unto me with their mouths," and "honoring me with their lips" is essentially saying the same thing. The repetition drives home the point, I believe.

I'm perfectly willing to proceed using the narrower definition, if that is agreeable. But I don't believe it is inappropriate to understand Christ's use of "creeds" in the broader context—that of systems of belief...their doctrines and teachings. You pointed out that some LDS leaders seem to use the narrower definition. I don't disagree. But they also use the broader definition. For example, here the First Presidency uses the term to refer to entire religious groups:

The Lord says ‘When the wicked rule, the people mourn.’ Wise men, good men, patriotic men are to be found in all communities, in all political parties, among all creeds. None but such men should be chosen.
​

And here Elder Bruce R. McConkie refers to a belief in traditional Christianity that is part of the broader system of belief, and not the simple creeds:

Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained that “there is no such thing as original sin as such is defined in the creeds of Christendom. Such a concept denies the efficacy of the atonement. Our revelation says: ‘Every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning’—meaning that spirits started out in a state of purity and innocence in preexistence—‘and God having redeemed man from the fall, men became again, in their infant state, innocent before God’
​

And Elder Mark E. Peterson used the term in reference to specific doctrines about Adam and Eve taught by teachers of religion:

“Adam, the first man, is a controversial figure in the minds of many people. So is Eve, his wife. Together, they probably are the most misunderstood couple who ever lived on the earth.
​

“This is hardly to be wondered at, though. Misconceptions and far-out theories have been bombarding the public concerning our first parents for centuries past. Probably the most to blame are teachers of religion themselves. Not knowing the facts about Adam and Eve, they have foisted their own private notions and uninspired creeds upon the people, with the result that a mass of confusion has mounted year after year.” ( Adam: Who Is He? p. 1.)

​

 

[skylark1]

Well, I don't believe it is wise to analyze what Christ said on the basis of what Joseph may or may not have been thinking. It does make sense, though, for Him to use terms familiar to Joseph, and "creed" certainly was. If Joseph understood the term as you do, then it is possible that the broader definition I use is not consistent with the context. But I have always understood that it incorporated more than just the simple creeds.

And I don't personally believe it is fruitful to speculate as to whether or not Christ's usage of this word or that was unnecessary. I believe that emphasis by repetition is a common scriptural occurrence. In fact, in His very censure of the Pharisees, Christ repeats his point—that they were hypocrites—using different words. He could have just said that they were hypocrites and left it at that, but He went on to illustrate it in a few ways. "Drawing nigh unto me with their mouths," and "honoring me with their lips" is essentially saying the same thing. The repetition drives home the point, I believe.

I'm perfectly willing to proceed using the narrower definition, if that is agreeable. But I don't believe it is inappropriate to understand Christ's use of "creeds" in the broader context—that of systems of belief...their doctrines and teachings. You pointed out that some LDS leaders seem to use the narrower definition. I don't disagree. But they also use the broader definition. For example, here the First Presidency uses the term to refer to entire religious groups:

<quotations omitted for brevity>

I agree that the term creed can be used in a broader sense, and that LDS leaders have sometimes used it in a broader sense. I know that there have been other LDS who have posted here who appeared to believe that in JS-H 1:9 it was used to speak of formal creeds. But rather than argue about which is correct, I like your idea of just using the narrower definition for the purpose of this discussion.

So with that definition in mind, here is what you wrote again:

If a person is rigidly adhering to a creed and subordinating the Spirit to it, I think that would have some effect in the person. That was the context of my statement.
Well, in that particular case they were justifying their greed by invoking their their creed—by calling their property "corban." That same instance was recorded in Mark, but it gave more detail:
And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. (Mark 7:9-13)

So they used their uninspired rabbinical tradition (the creed, in this instance) to justify a violation of God's law, suppressing the Spirit, which inspires us to care for each other. So the tradition itself, which had a form of godliness (it's good to sacrifice for, or dedicate material goods to, the support of God's work), denied the power thereof.

But you don't think that this has any application to Christian creeds? Not, mind you, speaking narrowly of the Nicene Creed (for example), but of entire Christian systems of belief—anything that a group believes and teaches is a creed. (at least that's how I understand the term)​

Before answering your question, I wanted to ask you if your question is still relevant if we are defining creed as a formal summery of beliefs?

Thanks.

.

 

[TasteForTruth]

I agree that the term creed can be used in a broader sense, and that LDS leaders have sometimes used it in a broader sense. I know that there have been other LDS who have posted here who appeared to believe that in JS-H 1:9 it was used to speak of formal creeds. But rather than argue about which is correct, I like your idea of just using the narrower definition for the purpose of this discussion.

So with that definition in mind, here is what you wrote again:

<omitted>

But you don't think that this has any application to Christian creeds?
<omitted>
​

Before answering your question, I wanted to ask you if your question is still relevant if we are defining creed as a formal summery of beliefs?

Thanks.

Well the main point needs to be resurrected, not this question. Because this question was spawned from a discussion of the main point (or maybe a main tangential point... I lose track)....

But don't you also that that it was often the Pharisees rigid adherence to laws, while neglecting the spirit of the law that Jesus was criticizing?

Absolutely. Rigid adherence to creeds over the Spirit, and to traditions over revelation... those are no different, in my mind. I believe Christ condemns them all.

So we're confining this statement to formal creeds, such as the Nicene Creed. And the question is whether or not I want to keep my statement as it is, or amend it, or abandon it.

The statement itself I believe still stands, although the narrower definition of "creeds" significantly reduces the circumstances under which I believe it applies. Simply having and adhering to a creed... I do not believe that God finds that offensive, even if the creed itself is flawed (whether or not the creed itself offends God is another matter). For God determines the conditions into which we are thrust in mortality, and so much of what we all initially believe is heavily influenced by the environment in which we grow, to say nothing of the quantity and completeness, or not, of truth to which we actually have access during that time. But if a person resists the Spirit of the Lord in favor of his accepted creed—which was the context of my statement—I do believe he is going to offend God.

 

[strangertoo]

the new covenant , specifically better that the old covenant creed, has NO CREED whatever ... it is unconditional... why not read it ?

Jer 31:31-34 repeated Hebrews 8:8-12

God simply PUTS His Truth within all the few who are His in this world, and the Truth overwhelms men with Love of all , so they become like Jesus, without further sin, saints, forgiven past sins because God requires them to run His kingdom later for the masses who all are destroyed in this earth [Matt 7:13] but are saved later [by their spirits in resurrection from hell to do works after death frees them from sin - Rom 6:7, Rev 20:13]

so those saved by grace have no creed, never did have... God teaches them all directly Himself [Heb 8:10-11, John 16:13]

there is no need for any separate creed ... God is His own authority and teaching of all who follow Jesus...

John 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

1 Thessalonians 4:9 But as touching brotherly love ye need not that I write unto you: for ye yourselves are taught of God to love one another.

Take a look at what divides men ... creeds ... take a look where they come from ... sinners ... now work out logically how many could be true ... at MOST one, , possibly NONE ... clearly God's method of teaching Himself everyone who is His is better that the way of creeds developed by Satan for sinners because he knew how impatient men are, how reluctant to stop sinning so God can teach them...

all saints come to God as little children ready to LEARN, not waving diverse doctrines of sinners in His face and telling God what they believe before He tells them His Truth... clearly most men will not be told by God and clearly it is the same most men who are destroyed -Matt 7:13 ...some folks take a long time to learn that God alone is the authority of Truth...

seek spirit baptism in humble prayer for His Truth... don't waste your life on beliefs you accept from men, sinners, before baptism of the spirit ...it is lethal indeed to follow a creed , even feels dead... death is the only way back from it - Rom 6:7

 

[skylark1]

Well the main point needs to be resurrected, not this question. Because this question was spawned from a discussion of the main point (or maybe a main tangential point... I lose track)....



So we're confining this statement to formal creeds, such as the Nicene Creed. And the question is whether or not I want to keep my statement as it is, or amend it, or abandon it.

The statement itself I believe still stands, although the narrower definition of "creeds" significantly reduces the circumstances under which I believe it applies. Simply having and adhering to a creed... I do not believe that God finds that offensive, even if the creed itself is flawed (whether or not the creed itself offends God is another matter). For God determines the conditions into which we are thrust in mortality, and so much of what we all initially believe is heavily influenced by the environment in which we grow, to say nothing of the quantity and completeness, or not, of truth to which we actually have access during that time. But if a person resists the Spirit of the Lord in favor of his accepted creed—which was the context of my statement—I do believe he is going to offend God.

So in the following passage from JS-History, do you think that God did not consider the creeds of various denominations/sects to be abomination in his sight, but only resisting the Spirit in favor of one's accepted creed to be an abomination in his sight?

18 My object in going to ainquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.

19 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 ccorrupt; 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.”
​

What do you think would constitute a person resisting the Spirit of the Lord in favor of his accepted creed, and how would that result in one behaving like the Pharisees (especially the example that we already discusssed in Matthew 15)?

 

[TasteForTruth]

So in the following passage from JS-History, do you think that God did not consider the creeds of various denominations/sects to be abomination in his sight, but only resisting the Spirit in favor of one's accepted creed to be an abomination in his sight?

18 My object in going to ainquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.

19 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 ccorrupt; 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.”​

No, I believe that Christ meant that the creeds (now narrowly defined) were an abomination in his sight. I alluded to that in my last post:

Simply having and adhering to a creed... I do not believe that God finds that offensive, even if the creed itself is flawed (whether or not the creed itself offends God is another matter).
​

I understand Christ to have accomplished three purposes in the quote above:

1. He gave Joseph a direct answer to his question, "Which church should I join."
   • None of them.
2. He enumerated the reasons why Joseph "must join none" of them.
   • They were all wrong
   • Their creeds were an abomination in His sight
3. He cast light on the condition of many of those professing to be His disciples:
   • those professors were corrupt
   • those professors drew near to Him with their lips, but their hearts were far from Him
   • they teach the commandments of men
   • their commandments have a form of godliness but deny the power of godliness

All of this, in my view, is to establish firmly in Joseph's mind that God is to be his Source of truth, and not man or his creeds.

What do you think would constitute a person resisting the Spirit of the Lord in favor of his accepted creed, and how would that result in one behaving like the Pharisees (especially the example that we already discusssed in Matthew 15)?

Well, as I said in my last post, the potential applications of the Pharisee principle are seriously limited when we narrow the view to formal creeds, IMO. As pretty much just summary statements of core beliefs, there may not be anything in them (depending on the creed) which could be used to justify the kind of behavior that the Pharisees were known for. True, an individual can take any belief—even a belief grounded in truth—and push it until it consumes him and he becomes injurious to his fellows. But using the Nicene Creed as an example...

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
​

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.
​

Who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.
​

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.
​

And I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
​

...what is there which would, in and of itself, make a man into an adulterer or covetous or murderous? Nothing at all. And yet, from my perspective, it remains an abomination to God, because it contains man-made doctrines which destroy man's understanding of the very nature of God. And, I believe, it is the first principle of the Gospel to understand who and what God is. If that is lost, our identity and destiny is seriously diminished. If I were God and you all were my children, that would be among the most abominable things I could imagine—my children losing their understanding of me, and of their true identity and potential! For what we become is an outgrowth of what we believe we are, and what the object of our existence is.

But back on track... if a person believes a false creed and God attempts to correct his course, but the person refuses and instead clings to the creed... regardless of the creed, I believe that will offend God.

 

[strangertoo]

if a person believes a false creed and God attempts to correct his course, but the person refuses and instead clings to the creed... regardless of the creed, I believe that will offend God.

The script was gong well until you introduced the strange notion of offending God ...

God only judges who has become Loving, who still needs more persuading that He is RIGHT and sinners WRONG [for sin is unloving abuse, not Love commanded by God]

death frees a man from sin [Rom 6:7] ,so only the few saints who never die need grace, none who waste their life sinning ...

so consider why God has all men destroyed [Matt 7:13] except a few tens of thousands of saints [Jude 1:14, Matt 7:14]

and then resurrects all the many sinners from hell [Rev 20:13] ... why would he bother if they were already condemned as sinners bizarrely claim ...

Jesus tells us that the MANY are saved LATER Rev 7:9-10 and indeed we know few are saved now [Matt 7:14] and the many destroyed... so is it not obvious that there is a second chance to Love for ALL sinners of this earth ?

... freed from sin by death, not grace, they are judged by WORKS after death Rev 20:13 and countless many saved [Rev 7:9-10] so clearly all are not saved at once... again it is only sinners who claim all are saved at once ... why would anyone believe in sinners in place of scripture ? :-

1 John 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil;

we know that the whole world will believe in Satan , Jesus says so -Rev 13:3-4 ... only tens of thousands of saints escape that fate . about two thousand alive at any one time then... so NOT a mass religion , NOT a recognised creed ...

but God just pursues convincing folks to listen to first Him in spirit baptism of all men [Joel 2:28]to know His Truth [Jon 16:13] after death frees them from sin [Rom 6:7] , then later those who still won't listen get freed from sin by a second death for sin in the kingdom and have to learn the hard way that sin suits NO-ONE , poetic justice at alst for teh wicked , God has taken away their easy prey, the wicked make each other miserable sinning against one another in the final baptism of fire in the lake of fire :-

Psalms 10:2 The wicked in his pride doth persecute the poor: let them be taken in the devices that they have imagined.

Psalms 37:7 Rest in the LORD, and wait patiently for him: fret not thyself because of him who prospereth in his way, because of the man who bringeth wicked devices to pass.

God then has a Plan, utterly foolproof ... covering every trick of Satan to get men to sin... God has to save everyone to prove He is RIGHT else He is NOT the God of all men, not the God of Love... but you see, God cannot fail because He knows how to fight evil with good , every single trick, every evil sin... PROVEN to not be good for anyone... but not all at once, it takes a long time...

thus I think you chose the wrong word, God cannot be offended ...

and equally no-one contends with God for ever as some claim :-

Isaiah 57:16 For I will not contend for ever, neither will I be always wroth: for the spirit should fail before me, and the souls which I have made.

 

[skylark1]

No, I believe that Christ meant that the creeds (now narrowly defined) were an abomination in his sight. I alluded to that in my last post:

Simply having and adhering to a creed... I do not believe that God finds that offensive, even if the creed itself is flawed (whether or not the creed itself offends God is another matter).
​

I understand Christ to have accomplished three purposes in the quote above:

1. He gave Joseph a direct answer to his question, "Which church should I join."
   • None of them.
2. He enumerated the reasons why Joseph "must join none" of them.
   • They were all wrong
   • Their creeds were an abomination in His sight
3. He cast light on the condition of many of those professing to be His disciples:
   • those professors were corrupt
   • those professors drew near to Him with their lips, but their hearts were far from Him
   • they teach the commandments of men
   • their commandments have a form of godliness but deny the power of godliness

All of this, in my view, is to establish firmly in Joseph's mind that God is to be his Source of truth, and not man or his creeds.

Well, as I said in my last post, the potential applications of the Pharisee principle are seriously limited when we narrow the view to formal creeds, IMO. As pretty much just summary statements of core beliefs, there may not be anything in them (depending on the creed) which could be used to justify the kind of behavior that the Pharisees were known for. True, an individual can take any belief—even a belief grounded in truth—and push it until it consumes him and he becomes injurious to his fellows. But using the Nicene Creed as an example...

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
​

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.
​

Who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.
​

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.
​

And I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
​

...what is there which would, in and of itself, make a man into an adulterer or covetous or murderous? Nothing at all. And yet, from my perspective, it remains an abomination to God, because it contains man-made doctrines which destroy man's understanding of the very nature of God. And, I believe, it is the first principle of the Gospel to understand who and what God is. If that is lost, our identity and destiny is seriously diminished. If I were God and you all were my children, that would be among the most abominable things I could imagine—my children losing their understanding of me, and of their true identity and potential! For what we become is an outgrowth of what we believe we are, and what the object of our existence is.

But back on track... if a person believes a false creed and God attempts to correct his course, but the person refuses and instead clings to the creed... regardless of the creed, I believe that will offend God.

Thank you for explaining, especially the portions that I highlighted. Because in your earlier post, I had assumed that by creed you meant a formal summery of beliefs, I was at a loss as to how that would result in those who believe in a creed acting as the Pharisees had acted.

Do you think that believing in a creed which contains some false beliefs results in one's heart being far from God?

 

[TasteForTruth]

Thank you for explaining, especially the portions that I highlighted. Because in your earlier post, I had assumed that by creed you meant a formal summery of beliefs, I was at a loss as to how that would result in those who believe in a creed acting as the Pharisees had acted.

Do you think that believing in a creed which contains some false beliefs results in one's heart being far from God?

In and of itself? No way!

 

[Rescued One]

29 And after these plain and precious things were taken away it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles; and after it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles, yea, even across the many waters which thou hast seen with the Gentiles which have gone forth out of captivity, thou seest—because of the many plain and precious things which have been taken out of the book, which were plain unto the understanding of the children of men, according to the plainness which is in the Lamb of God—because of these things which are taken away out of the gospel of the Lamb, an exceedingly great many do stumble, yea, insomuch that Satan hath great power over them. 1 Nephi 13:29 (bold mine)


There is an overwhelming lack of understanding in the world in relation to these principles of salvation and exaltation given to prepare mankind for a place in the kingdom of God, and this lack causes many to stumble. There is no excuse on the part of members of the Church, for they have received the necessary revelation directly from the heavens in this Dispensation of the Fulness of Times. The great mission of the Son of God has been revealed in the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants more clearly than any other place. Many passages that have been misunderstood, and therefore mistranslated in the Bible, are clarified in these sacred volumes.
(Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 5 vols. [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1957-1966], 4:.)
LDS Social Network Forums - View Single Post - 2 Nephi 9 (bold mine)

1 Nephi 13
40 And the angel spake unto me, saying: These last records, which thou hast seen among the Gentiles, shall establish the truth of the first, which are of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, and shall make known the plain and precious things which have been taken away from them; and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the world; and that all men must come unto him, or they cannot be saved.

41 And they must come according to the words which shall be established by the mouth of the Lamb; and the words of the Lamb shall be made known in the records of thy seed, as well as in the records of the twelve apostles of the Lamb; wherefore they both shall be established in one; for there is one God and one Shepherd over all the earth.
(bold mine)

Only in the gospel can we find the knowledge, the tools, and the power to combat the devil's program of defeat and enslavement...

In 1 Nephi 13:28-35 Nephi stated that the Gentiles would stumble because the Bible had been altered and thus lacking "many plain and precious parts."
A stumbling block in the last days would be the lack of knowledge and spiritual understanding because of the imperfect Bible - the only scriptural record they ever possessed.
Thus we see how Satan has worked through the ages to deceive men.
Thus we see the great necessity for a second witness of Christ, the Book of Mormon.
ACCORDING TO NEPHI, WHAT WILL BE THE SPIRITUAL CONDITION OF THE GENTILES IN THE LAST DAYS?
Lifted up in the pride of their eyes (v20).
Stumble spiritually because of the "stumbling block" (v20).
Preach for religious doctrine their own ideas gained through their own wisdom and learning (v20).
Preach for financial gain (v20).
Deny the miracles and power of God (v20).
Be filled with envy, malice, and strife (v21).
Support secret combinations from the devil (v22).
This is the first real reference to secret combinations in the Book of Mormon.
As we are aware, this becomes an important part of the Book of Mormon story.
Book of Mormon - Lesson 10


1 Nephi 13
Neither will the Lord God suffer that the Gentiles shall forever remain in that awful state of blindness, which thou beholdest they are in, because of the plain and most precious parts of the gospel of the Lamb which have been kept back by that abominable church, whose formation thou hast seen.
1 Nephi 13 

 

[strangertoo]

29 And after these plain and precious things were taken away it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles; and after it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles, yea, even across the many waters which thou hast seen with the Gentiles which have gone forth out of captivity, thou seest—because of the many plain and precious things which have been taken out of the book, which were plain unto the understanding of the children of men, according to the plainness which is in the Lamb of God—because of these things which are taken away out of the gospel of the Lamb, an exceedingly great many do stumble, yea, insomuch that Satan hath great power over them. 1 Nephi 13:29 (bold mine)


There is an overwhelming lack of understanding in the world in relation to these principles of salvation and exaltation given to prepare mankind for a place in the kingdom of God, and this lack causes many to stumble. There is no excuse on the part of members of the Church, for they have received the necessary revelation directly from the heavens in this Dispensation of the Fulness of Times. The great mission of the Son of God has been revealed in the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants more clearly than any other place. Many passages that have been misunderstood, and therefore mistranslated in the Bible, are clarified in these sacred volumes.
(Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 5 vols. [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1957-1966], 4:.)
LDS Social Network Forums - View Single Post - 2 Nephi 9 (bold mine)

1 Nephi 13
40 And the angel spake unto me, saying: These last records, which thou hast seen among the Gentiles, shall establish the truth of the first, which are of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, and shall make known the plain and precious things which have been taken away from them; and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the world; and that all men must come unto him, or they cannot be saved.

41 And they must come according to the words which shall be established by the mouth of the Lamb; and the words of the Lamb shall be made known in the records of thy seed, as well as in the records of the twelve apostles of the Lamb; wherefore they both shall be established in one; for there is one God and one Shepherd over all the earth.
(bold mine)

Only in the gospel can we find the knowledge, the tools, and the power to combat the devil's program of defeat and enslavement...

In 1 Nephi 13:28-35 Nephi stated that the Gentiles would stumble because the Bible had been altered and thus lacking "many plain and precious parts."
A stumbling block in the last days would be the lack of knowledge and spiritual understanding because of the imperfect Bible - the only scriptural record they ever possessed.
Thus we see how Satan has worked through the ages to deceive men.
Thus we see the great necessity for a second witness of Christ, the Book of Mormon.
ACCORDING TO NEPHI, WHAT WILL BE THE SPIRITUAL CONDITION OF THE GENTILES IN THE LAST DAYS?
Lifted up in the pride of their eyes (v20).
Stumble spiritually because of the "stumbling block" (v20).
Preach for religious doctrine their own ideas gained through their own wisdom and learning (v20).
Preach for financial gain (v20).
Deny the miracles and power of God (v20).
Be filled with envy, malice, and strife (v21).
Support secret combinations from the devil (v22).
This is the first real reference to secret combinations in the Book of Mormon.
As we are aware, this becomes an important part of the Book of Mormon story.
Book of Mormon - Lesson 10


1 Nephi 13
Neither will the Lord God suffer that the Gentiles shall forever remain in that awful state of blindness, which thou beholdest they are in, because of the plain and most precious parts of the gospel of the Lamb which have been kept back by that abominable church, whose formation thou hast seen.
1 Nephi 13Â[bless and do not curse]

Whilst the 'orthodox' churches teach a different story of Satan in preparation for the son of perdition to rule the earth and all religion -Rev 13:3-4, even the corrupted mistranslated 'bible' says nothing different than this ... the gentiles are indeed later saved by the work of Love of the few saints of the still-divided nations of Israel in this earth...

it is NOT for men to re-write the mistranslated edited words of saints in the modern mockeries of the scripture called 'bibles' , but for men to finally HUMBLE themselves and learn the Truth DIRECT from God [as indeed the mangled scriptures of saints and prophets still say - Heb 8:10-11, Jer 31:34, John 16:13]

Jesus STILL heads ALL his saints himself, chided the disciples for thinking one of them would lead in his place... so and founder of any religion is going against Jesus as head of all who are God's people...

it is as simple as that ,the spirit of antichrsit is to replace Jesus as the head of his people... thus we have not just the pope [Vicarius Filii Dei , in place of the son of God !!! adding to 666 in Latin declaring himself in place of Jesus when Jesus says no-one takes his place...], but countless many 'founders' of diverse taechings ... how many could be of God, not Satan? ... logically at MOST one, possibly none... check with the saints of God or the spirit of God in spirt baptism of those who stop sinning to listen to god about Love, not abuse in sin... the answer is NONE ... easily proven from scripture of saints... only some two thousand alive today are saints , it is NOT a mass religion, Jesus never meant it to be yet, God requires only a FEW to be priests and kings in the kingdom come, not billions of mock christians still disobeying Jesus , failing to Love because they are in love with sin, abuse of others... so the prayers of the many are unanswered because they have no intention of Loving in this life , they never are baptised of the spirit because they lsiten to Satan and sin, not to God and Love... it is that simple, and sin is that unbiquitous in this world , even religion has been modified to accept sinners when all who follow Jesus were and are saints, stop sinning once for all because it is ABUSE of others and oneself...
for this Truth I am sad beyond words or consolation in this life, but it must be as written by saints... one can see why, most of man-unkind is not ready to change to Loving one another yet, but God requires those few that are ready to run the kingdom under Jesus where countlessmany will be later saved [Rev 7:9-10] who are destroyed now [Matt 7:13] to free them from sin [Rom 6:7]

so indeed very few need to be saved by grace as almost all men are freed from sin by death... but one can only PROVE Love [baptism of 'fire'] in LIFE , so death is not the answer to sin for the few saved now to rule and minister to the many in their later salvation by WORKS after death before judgement day after all are freed from hell [Rev 20:13]

 

[Clearly]

I moved this post the the "mormonism" thread

clearly
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

 

[TasteForTruth]

OK... moving my response.

 

[skylark1]

Thank you for explaining, especially the portions that I highlighted. Because in your earlier post, I had assumed that by creed you meant a formal summery of beliefs, I was at a loss as to how that would result in those who believe in a creed acting as the Pharisees had acted.

Do you think that believing in a creed which contains some false beliefs results in one's heart being far from God?

In and of itself? No way!

What do you think does result in one's heart being far from God? In this passage from JS-History 1, it sounds like it is saying that it is the creeds and doctrines that lead to one's heart being far from God.

and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all ccorrupt; 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 gpower thereof.”​

 

[Clearly]

[FONT=&quot]post one of two[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Taste for truth[/FONT][FONT=&quot] :[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]It was Budge, the Great Egyptologist who first pointed out the principle that Egypt (who had many divine beings the translators called &#8220;Gods&#8221; &#8211; it was the best word we had at the time) was essentially monotheism for most of its history since they had a LORD GOD who was always over all other beings that were called &#8220;gods&#8221;. He directed others and had no director himself. This distinction is important since it seems to be the distinction that the LDS make (if I am correct - Please, correct me if I am in error). This concept underlies the ancient Judao-Christian texts that speak so often about &#8220;Gods&#8221; and the &#8220;Godlike&#8221; and yet still remain essentially monotheistic in their context.

For example, in the Jewish-Christian Apocalypse of Abraham, when Abraham discovers the true God, he hears the voice of God : Quote: [/FONT][FONT=&quot]&#8220;Abraham, Abraham!&#8221; And I said, &#8220;Here I am.&#8221; And he said, &#8220;You are searching for the God of gods, the creator, in the understanding of your heart. I am he. (Apoc of Abr 8:1-4 [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
This principle and language is virtually woven into the language of the Dead Sea Scrolls. For examples : Quote:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]&#8220;You are chief of the gods and king of the Glorious, Lord of every spirit and Ruler of every creature. Apart from you nothing is done, nor is there any knowing without your will. There is no one beside you and no one approaches you in strength. No one can compare to your glory[/FONT][FONT=&quot].&#8221; (THANKSGIVING PSALMS - 1QH, 1Q35, 4Q 427&#8211;432) [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Quote:[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]&#8220;You have humbled the gods from the foundation&#8221; THANKSGIVING PSALMS - 1QH, 1Q35, 4Q 427&#8211;432 [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Quote:[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]&#8220;He will send eternal support to the company of his redeemed by the power of the majestic angel of the authority of Michael&#8230;to exalt the authority of Michael among the Gods and the dominion of Israel among all flesh. THE WAR SCROLL 1QM, 4Q491-496 ) [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Such texts speak of men as the &#8220;righteous ones among the gods of&#8230;in the holy habitation.&#8221; (THE WAR SCROLL 1QM, 4Q491-496)

The Henotheism of early Judao-Christianity involved the tradition where many divine beings existed that were like the Lord God despite never equaling the LORD God, who was over all other beings. It is in such a context that the writer of Exodus is able to exclaim : &#8220;Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods? who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders? Ex 15:11". The doctrinal language that reflects this belief of God as a &#8220;LORD among the gods&#8221; is woven throughout much of the early literature. This is an important historical context underlying early Judao-Christian thought which allows ancient texts and principles to make wonderful sense. If I could quote from other Christian and Jewish texts the point becomes more obvious.

For example : Quote:[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]&#8220;.... he will magnify the God of all the divine beings who are appointed for righteousness seven times with seven worlds of wondrous exaltation.&#8221; (4Q403 frag ` Col.1) [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Quote:[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]&#8220;Praise the most high God, you who are exalted among all the wise divine beings. Let those who are holy among the godlike sanctify the glorious King, He who sanctifies by His holiness each of His holy ones. You princes of praise among all the godlike, praise the God of majestic praise. Surely the glory of His kingdom resides in praiseworthy splendor; therein are held the praises of all the godlike&#8230;Lift his exaltation on high, you godlike among the exalted divine beings -His glorious divinity above all the highest heavens. Surely He is the utterly divine over all the exalted princes, King of kings over all the eternal councils.&#8221; (SONGS OF THE SABBATH SACRIFICE, 4Q400-407, 11Q17, Masada Fragment) [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Quote:[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]&#8220;&#8230;, you godlike beings of utter holiness; rejoice in his divine kingdom. For He has established utter holiness among the eternally holy, that they might become for Him priests of the inner sanctum in His royal temple, ministers of the Presence in His glorious innermost chamber. In the congregation of all the wise godlike beings, and in the councils of all the divine spirits, He has engraven his precepts to govern all spiritual works and his glorious laws for all the wise divine beings, that sage congregation honored by God, those who draw near to knowledge&#8230;.eternal, and from the font of holiness to the temple of utter holiness&#8230;priests who draw near, ministers of the Presence of the utterly holy King&#8230;His glory. Precept by precept they shall grow strong, to be seven eternal councils; for He established them for Himself to be the most holy of those who minister in the Holy of Holies&#8230;They shall become mighty thereby in accordance with the council&#8230;the Holy of Holies, priests of &#8230;these are the princes of &#8230;who take their stand in the temples of the king&#8230; (4Q400-407, 11Q17, Masada Fragment) [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
&#8220;The song for the second Sabbath, contains a similar description of Godlike beings worshiping the &#8220;King of the godlike beings&#8221;, that is, the Lord God. : priestly angels and compare the poor quality of human worship in comparison of that of the angels&#8221 &#8211; [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Quote:[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]&#8220;wonderfully to praise Your glory among the wise divine beings, extolling Your kingdom among the utterly holy. They are honored in all the camps of the godlike beings and feared by those who direct human affairs, wondrous beyond other divine beings and humans alike&#8230;.They sing wonderful psalms according to their insights throughout the highest heaven, and declare the surpassing glory of the King of the godlike beings in the stations of their habitation&#8230;. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Quote:[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]&#8220;the king of the godlike beings&#8230;when they come with the godlike beings of &#8230;together for all of their assemblies&#8230;their might for all the powerful warriors&#8230;for all the rebellious councils.&#8221; (THE SONGS OF THE SABBATH SACRIFICE, 4Q400-407, 11Q17, Masada Fragment) [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
It is apparent from these doctrines that, though multiple beings are "like God" (i.e. &#8220;God- like&#8221; or "divine"), they are never equals to the Lord God and are always subordinate[/FONT][FONT=&quot] to him; all of them are at HIS command and none of them have the level of knowledge that he has. If I am correct, the modern LDS view parallels this ancient view?

For example : Quote:[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]&#8220;Surely the weapons of warfare belong to the God of divine beings&#8230;the armies of heaven and the wonder of all the divine spirits shall run at His command&#8230; But the victory shall belong to the God of divine beings. To the King of the wise godlike beings belong all matters of knowledge; indeed the God of knowledge causes all that happens forever. ..None of the divine beings understand what he has designed. (THE SONGS OF THE SABBATH SACRIFICE, 4Q400-407, 11Q17, Masada Fragment ) [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Paul reminds us of this same principle of subordinance : "For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. (Corinthians 8:5-6). Whether there are many Gods or not, the position of LORD God, the Father of all, is singular. Regarding the &#8220;wise divine beings&#8221; it is said that &#8220;They neither run from the &#8216;Way nor reverence any thing not a part of it; they consider themselves neither too exalted for his realm nor too humble for his commissions." (THE SONGS OF THE SABBATH SACRIFICE, 4Q400-407, 11Q17, Masada Fragment). Despite their divinity bestowed upon them and the wisdom they have gained, they are still all subject to the Lord God.

Still, they are honored to the extent that they are Godlike in morals and knowledge and dishonored to the extent that they are like Lucifer. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Quote:[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]&#8220; Bless the God of the godlike beings, you who inhabit the highest heaven&#8230;knowledge of the eternal godlike beings&#8220; (THE SONGS OF THE SABBATH SACRIFICE, 4Q400-407, 11Q17, Masada Fragment) [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Remember, these were orthodox teachings to the ancients who wrote and used such texts (though the moderns have abandoned such teachings). If the Copper Scroll discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls is authentic, it placed these texts in the very mainstream of Judaic doctrines and underlie the ancient temple orthodoxy.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]post two of two follows
[/FONT]

 

[Clearly]

[FONT=&quot]post two of two
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The divine &#8220;God-like&#8221; beings were not all simply arch-angels, but according to these ancient doctrines, some of them were the spirits of men. The discourse on the Soul of Man in the Haggadah describes the circumstances of placing the pre-existent spirit of man (or woman) into the embryo (according to their doctrinal understanding). When the spirit is told to enter the sperm or embryo the spirit is reluctant (perhaps scared to continue...) And the pre-mortal spirit then asks : Quote:[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]&#8220;Why do you now desire to have me enter this impure sperm, I who am holy and pure, and a part of your glory?&#8221; God consoles her : &#8220;The world which I shall cause you to enter is better than the world in which you have lived hitherto, and when I created you, it was only for this purpose.&#8221; ( The Haggadah -The Soul of Man)

W[/FONT][FONT=&quot]hen the soul finally enters against her will (wisdom and souls are expressed as female anciently), &#8220;the angel carries her back to the womb of the mother.&#8221; where her body is nurtured. However, the pre-birth spirit is shown many things which prepare her for her life. Quote:[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]&#8220;In the morning an angel carries her to Paradise, and shows her the righteous, who sit there in their glory, with crowns upon their heads. The angel then says to the soul, &#8220;Do you know who these are?&#8221; She replies in the negative, and the angel goes on: &#8220;These whom you behold here were formed, like you, in the womb of their mother. When they came into the world, they observed God&#8217;s Torah and his commandments. Therefore they became the partakers of this bliss which you see them enjoy..... [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]&#8220; These righteous, glorified individuals with crowns were MEN AND WOMEN who had lived and died PREVIOUSLY.


It is important to note that the spirit is shown those who were, like her, introduced from a pre-mortal sphere into mortality and who were to learn to live gain moral knowledge, learn to live moral law and good lives and then, if successful, returned to live in bliss, having gained knowledge and characteristics they did not have when they left. THESE men and women became &#8220;pious ones&#8221; who return to God more like him (more God-like) than when they left. Each soul is given the same promise that they are able to become worthy to become one of the "pious ones" themselves.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Quote:[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]&#8220; .... &#8220;These whom you behold here were formed, like you, in the womb of their mother. When they came into the world, they observed God&#8217;s Torah and his commandments. Therefore they became the partakers of this bliss which you see them enjoy. Know, also, you will one day depart from the world below, and if you will observe God&#8217;s Torah, then will you be found worthy of sitting with these pious ones. But if not, you will be doomed to the other place.&#8221; (The Haggadah - The Soul of Man) [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Thus, if they are successful, they take their place with other pious and Godlike ones. Quote:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]&#8220;At their wondrous stations are spirits, clothed with embroidery, a sort of woven handiwork, engraven with splendid figures. In the midst of what looks like glorious scarlet and colors of utter holy spiritual light, the spirits take up their holy stand in the presence of the King &#8211; splendidly colored spirits surrounded by the appearance of whiteness. This latter glorious spiritual substance is like golden handiwork, shimmering in the light.&#8221; (THE SONGS OF THE SABBATH SACRIFICE, 4Q400-407, 11Q17, Masada Fragment) [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]It is by this process within mortality that &#8220;He brings some of the sons of the world near, to be reckoned with him in the council of the gods as a holy congregation, stationed for eternal life and in the lot with His holy ones...&#8221; (THE AGES OF THE WORLD 4Q180-181). The ancient doctrine was that man was not destined to simply surround god as cattle, singing praises, but to achieve to a celestial knowledge and character. This is what the psalm-writer also testifies : [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Quote:[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]&#8220;That bodies, covered with worms of the dead, might rise up from the dust to an eternal council; from a perverse spirit to your understanding. That he might take his position before you with the eternal hosts and spirits of truth to be renewed with all that shall be and to rejoice together with those who know.&#8221; (THANKSGIVING PSALMS - 1QH, 1Q35, 4Q 427&#8211;432) [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

The thoroughly Christian Abbaton history uses language specific to this context. Jesus tells the apostles : [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Quote:[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]&#8220;He put breath into him in this way; He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life three times, saying, &#8220;Live! Live! Live! According to the type of My Divinity.&#8221; And the man lived straightway, and became a living soul, according to the image and likeness of God. And when Adam had risen up he cast himself down before [My] father, saying, &#8220;My Lord and my God! Thou hast made me to come into being [from a state in which] I did not exist.&#8221; (Abbaton) [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Adam was not given God&#8217;s divinity, but his TYPE of divinity. Adam doesn&#8217;t ever expect to become THE God, but rather if he obeys the torah, then he becomes God-Like. In this manner, it was taught that man was &#8220;created from the dust for the eternal council&#8230;- and for man, you have allotted an eternal destiny with the spirits of knowledge&#8230;&#8221; (THANKSGIVING PSALMS - 1QH, 1Q35, 4Q 427&#8211;432)

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This doctrinal context underlies early texts.For example, in the early christian text, Testament of Adam, Eve tells her children : Quote:[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]&#8220;He spoke to me about this in Paradise after I picked some of the fruit in which death was hiding: &#8216;Adam, Adam do not fear. You wanted to be a god; I will make you a god, not right now, but after a space of many years. I am consigning you to death, and the maggot and the worm will eat your body.&#8217;3...But after a short time there will be mercy on you because you were created in my image, and I will not leave you to waste away in Sheol. For your sake I will be born of the Virgin Mary. For your sake I will taste death and enter the house of the dead....4'And after three days, while I am in the tomb, I will raise up the body I received from you. And I will set you at the right hand of my divinity, and I will make you a god just like you wanted. And I will receive favor from God, and I will restore to you and to your posterity that which is the justice of heaven.&#8221; (TESTAMENT OF ADAM 3:2-4) [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]This context changes the meaning of Jesus&#8217; answer to his detractors when he says &#8220; Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?&#8221; (Jn 10:34) [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In the DDS DISCOURSE ON THE EXODUS AND CONQUEST 4q374 , the ancient Jewish writer refers to Moses as &#8220;a godover the mighty&#8221; by saying &#8220;He planted His chosen in a land desirable above all others, in &#8230;He made him as a god over the mighty; as a compass for pharaoh&#8221;. The description of Moses as a God, did not make him THE God, but, for the ancient commentarist, it was NOT an inappropriate doctrinal statement. It may have been the most descriptive and most applicable term to use.

This concept of learning to learn moral characteristics which will allow men to become more like god confers upon mortality the purpose of education and testing. This is (I think) why Ignatius tells the Ephesians : &#8220;I speak to you as my fellow students. For I need to be trained by you in faith, instruction, endurance, and patience.&#8221; Ig-eph 3:1. He knows he will become more like God through a process of Imitation. Thus he taught the saints of ephesus : &#8220;Ye are imitators of God, once you took on new life&#8221; I-eph 1:1

This was the same theme the angels proclaimed in the Rechabite ascension text : [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Quote:[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]&#8220;To us the holy angels of God announce (both) the incarnation of the Word of God, who (is) from the holy virgin, the mother of God, and all those things which (he) provides and perfects and endures for the sake of the salvation of mortals.....9f Have regard to us in your hidden thoughts, be imitators of our way of life, pursue peace, cherish the love (that is) unchangeable, and love purity and holiness. (HISTORY OF THE RECHABITES 12:9a and 9f) [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Among religious HISTORIANS of these period texts, the LDS theology is very popular since there are so many close parallels to early Judao-christian traditions. The fact that &#8220;restorationists&#8221; (I do not mean any negativity by applying this term to the LDS &#8211; I simply mean any Christianity that is attempting to return to the earliest theological traditions regarding foundational and salvational theological traditions&#8230 are attempting to return to early theological foundations is very, very exciting historically.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I hope I did not come across as a critic but rather as a historian is quite impressed with the theology that underlies what are usually, petty and superficial "glances" as LDS theology. (In this age of "sound bites, no one wants to really "study" anymore.).

I am always intrigued by how provincial and changing certain religious discussions are depending upon the context where they arise. What you tend to experience is the rejection of religionists who have little knowledge of Judao-christianity of the earliest periods. However, you probably do not understand how extremely popular LDS theological themes are among the historians of the early Judao-christian periods. While &#8220;unorthodox&#8221; here, such religious history is quite &#8220;orthodox&#8221; in those historical discussions and periods.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
From the time that I discovered the parallels between the ancient Judao-christian theology and texts and that of LDS theology, it was an exciting discovery since it allows for a modern working model of how such ancient principles affect a living group that believes in them. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
There are multiple historical parallels to the ancient texts; the ancient traditions and LDS theology that are quite impressive. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]For examples related to the pre-creation time period alone : I am impressed historically, with the LDS concept of a &#8220;PLAN&#8221; that came to exist; to the LDS return to the early concept of chaotic matter being organized into objects within the universe as opposed to the ex-nihilo creation adopted by many of the later Judao-Christianities. I am impressed with the return to a historical context of this plan involving pre-creation spirits that were to be &#8220;fashioned&#8221; into more useful moral beings, having the capability of choice and progression. If God desires to prepare the spirits of mankind to live in a social heaven in eternal harmony and joy, then it makes sense that he must teach mankind to understand and master the laws upon which such a society can be created and maintained eternally. I am impressed with the return to a context where mortality IS that mechanism and where spirits who choose to live higher moral laws, over evil are rewarded and progress according to those choices whereas those who refuse to live moral laws, and choose evil, are not rewarded the same as those who chose to live moral law.

I never knew anything about LDS theology until a phenomenal colleague-scholar joined the LDS church and described their motives for their choice. It was this colleague who introduced me to some of these very basic historical parallels. However, even with accurate descriptions of LDS theology (as opposed to the very poor stuff available from internet forums&#8230 since it is not my native theology, I can never be quite sure that I understand it in the same context as the LDS do, but I am very impressed with some of the pre-creation traditions you have.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]clearly[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]eitseitzzl[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

 

[TasteForTruth]

What do you think does result in one's heart being far from God?

Doing things (anything) which leads him away from God, even if he doesn't believe that what he is doing leads him away from God. And the estrangement is compounded when one desires (or develops a desire) to do such things.

In this passage from JS-History 1, it sounds like it is saying that it is the creeds and doctrines that lead to one's heart being far from God.

and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all ccorrupt; 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 gpower thereof.”​

The question was "which of the sects was right, and which should I join." The answer was "none of them... they are all wrong... their creeds are an abomination... those professors are all corrupt." I don't see a cause/effect relationship being communicated in relation to the creeds and the professors. Simply the facts as they were. And nothing in Joseph's written history about the events immediately following the first vision indicates that he felt that all Christians were corrupt/hypocrites because of the creeds, as one would expect to see had that been the conclusion he'd drawn.

In fact, based on his own words, the "professors" being referred to in the first vision were most likely only those who administered the churches. For that is who he refers to immediately afterward in his history. First he relates and account with one minister and then follows up with this:

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.
​

Are not these "men of high standing" those to whom he refers when he says that prejudice was excited "among professors of religion"? It is one continuous thought he expresses, and I cannot justify concluding that they are different groups. Are not these, then, the same to whom Christ referred in the first vision when he said "those professors of religion"? I always understood that they were, and still view this more narrow definition as the correct one, in spite of recent (during my time on CF) concessions (here, here) to using a broader meaning of the phrase.

 

[Criada]

Mod Hat On

​

This thread has been cleaned.
Please stop making it personal, and rememeber the rule:

&#9679; Do not state or imply that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christian.
Mod Hat Off​

 

[skylark1]

Doing things (anything) which leads him away from God, even if he doesn't believe that what he is doing leads him away from God. And the estrangement is compounded when one desires (or develops a desire) to do such things.

The question was "which of the sects was right, and which should I join." The answer was "none of them... they are all wrong... their creeds are an abomination... those professors are all corrupt." I don't see a cause/effect relationship being communicated in relation to the creeds and the professors. Simply the facts as they were. And nothing in Joseph's written history about the events immediately following the first vision indicates that he felt that all Christians were corrupt/hypocrites because of the creeds, as one would expect to see had that been the conclusion he'd drawn.

In fact, based on his own words, the "professors" being referred to in the first vision were most likely only those who administered the churches. For that is who he refers to immediately afterward in his history. First he relates and account with one minister and then follows up with this:

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.
​

Are not these "men of high standing" those to whom he refers when he says that prejudice was excited "among professors of religion"? It is one continuous thought he expresses, and I cannot justify concluding that they are different groups. Are not these, then, the same to whom Christ referred in the first vision when he said "those professors of religion"? I always understood that they were, and still view this more narrow definition as the correct one, in spite of recent (during my time on CF) concessions (here, here) to using a broader meaning of the phrase.

I was trying to find those old threads. It is too bad that I couldn't find the first one. My problem with accepting your explanation is that I don't know of any other place where ministers were commonly referred to as "professors of religion." Do you know of any other place where Christian ninisters are commonly referred to as professors? I can find usage from that time where there was talk of false professors being those who were gave lip service to being a Christian, but were not doers of the word.

For many Christian denominations acceptance of one into membership includes a profession or faith. I think that is what led to at one time the term professors of faith being a common term to mean those who professed belief in Christ.

I know that we have been through this before, and don't mean to harp on it. I just don't see it the same way that you do.


I looked in History of the Church (LDS) to see how the term was used there, as I thought that it might give a clue to the meaning in JS History - 1:19. I think that some of the uses of the rerm professors could be read either way, if one reads it with a preconception. However, while writing about the LDS teaching of the apostasy there are a few uses of the term professing or profession. (It seems like a small step from that to refer to a professing Christian as a professor of Christianity.) Here are a few.

It is not necessary to pursue the subject much further. It will be sufficient to say that during the fourth century, by following the policy of suppression inaugurated by this first Christian emperor, Christianity was changed from a persecuted to a persecuting religion. Without restraint from the ecclesiastical authorities, the Christian emperors issued edicts against the pagan religion, proscribed its followers, destroyed its temples, and confiscated its property to the uses of the rival religion. Even Neander, speaking of this revolution, and constrained as he is to say all that he can for the honor of the Christian Church, is compelled to admit that "the relation of things had become reversed. As in former times the observance of the pagan ceremonies, the religion of the state, had appeared in the light of a civil duty, and the profession of Christianity in that of a crime against the state; so now it was the case, not indeed that the outward profession of Christianity was commanded as a universal civil duty, for against this the spirit of Christianity too earnestly remonstrated; but that the exercise of the pagan religion was made politically dangerous."


It remains to be shown that there was a steady increase of immorality among the professing Christians; a marked loss of spirituality; a rapid growth of pride and worldliness on the part of Christian bishops and other church leaders; and at last, an utter departure from the true and living God and Jesus Christ whom He had sent, and the establishment of a system in its place, as debasing to men as it was dishonorable to God.



As already stated, this creed of St. Athanasius is accepted as one of the symbols of the orthodox Christian faith. It is understood that these two creeds teach that God is incorporeal, that is to say, an immaterial being. The Catholic church says; "There is but one God, the creator of heaven and earth, the supreme incorporeal, uncreated being who exists of Himself and is infinite in all his attributes." While the Church of England teaches in her articles of faith "that there is but one living and true God everlasting, without body, parts, or passions, of infinite power, wisdom and goodness." This view of God as an incorporeal, immaterial, bodiless, partless, passionless being is now and has been from the days of the great apostasy from God and Christ, in the second and third centuries, the doctrine of Deity generally accepted by apostate Christendom. The simple doctrine of the Christian Godhead, set forth in the New Testament is corrupted by the meaningless jargon of these creeds, and their explanations; and the learned who profess a belief in them are wandering in the darkness of the mysticisms of the old pagan philosophies.


The letter we received from you informed us that the opposition was great against you. Now, our beloved brethren, we verily believe that we also can rejoice that we are counted worthy to suffer shame for His name; for almost the whole country, consisting of Universalists, Atheists, Deists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, and other professed Christians, priests and people; with all the devils from the infernal pit are united, and foaming out their own shame [against us]. God forbid that I should bring a railing accusation against them, for vengeance belongeth to Him who is able to repay; and herein, brethren, we confide.



http://www.boap.org/LDS/History/History_of_the_Church/Vol_1​

Even though we agreed to limit the use of creeds in this thread for the sake of discussion to formal creeds, it is hard to not think that the comments that were made earlier about creeds as traditions or doctrines leading to acts that were sinful.

Maybe it would help if I rephrased my question as how do you think that a (formal) creed that contains false teachings would lead one to do things that lead away from God? Especially a creed such as the Nicene Creed or Apostle's Creed.


Thanks.

 

[TasteForTruth]

I was trying to find those old threads. It is too bad that I couldn't find the first one.

You first brought it to my attention here. But if I remember correctly, before we were able to have the discussion I was accused of being a sockpuppet account, got my nose bent out of shape, and left CF (for the first time). I believe it was via PM that we had that discussion. I don't believe it was in-forum.

My problem with accepting your explanation is that I don't know of any other place where ministers were commonly referred to as "professors of religion."

Ah... I see. It had not occurred to me that the usage of the term might have been exclusive in the general sense...

Do you know of any other place where Christian ministers are commonly referred to as professors?

I do not. To me it is not a common term outside of the context of the Restoration, and I claim no particular knowledge as per its general use in those times.

I can find usage from that time where there was talk of false professors being those who were gave lip service to being a Christian, but were not doers of the word.

For many Christian denominations acceptance of one into membership includes a profession or faith. I think that is what led to at one time the term professors of faith being a common term to mean those who professed belief in Christ.

I know that we have been through this before, and don't mean to harp on it. I just don't see it the same way that you do.

Believe me, I'm very open to the idea that the term referred exclusively to "professors of religion" in the general sense. And citing the reasons I've mentioned in other posts, in the end I feel that it makes no difference either way where the honest and pure in heart are concerned. For it is indefensible to conclude that Christ was calling such Christians "corrupt," in spite of the fact that such is the conclusion drawn by many mainstream Christians who find the phrase broad-sweeping and, therefore, offensive to them. I cannot accept that Christ was referring to ALL Christians as "corrupt," precisely because I do not believe that believing false creeds makes one's heart corrupt anymore than I believe that believing true creeds makes one's heart pure. Neither argument holds any water, not even for the Savior, who refers in later revelation to many outside the Restored Gospel as "pure in heart." (D&C 123:9-14)

I looked in History of the Church (LDS) to see how the term was used there, as I thought that it might give a clue to the meaning in JS History - 1:19. I think that some of the uses of the term professors could be read either way, if one reads it with a preconception. However, while writing about the LDS teaching of the apostasy there are a few uses of the term professing or profession. (It seems like a small step from that to refer to a professing Christian as a professor of Christianity.) Here are a few.

It is not necessary to pursue the subject much further. It will be sufficient to say that during the fourth century, by following the policy of suppression inaugurated by this first Christian emperor, Christianity was changed from a persecuted to a persecuting religion. Without restraint from the ecclesiastical authorities, the Christian emperors issued edicts against the pagan religion, proscribed its followers, destroyed its temples, and confiscated its property to the uses of the rival religion. Even Neander, speaking of this revolution, and constrained as he is to say all that he can for the honor of the Christian Church, is compelled to admit that "the relation of things had become reversed. As in former times the observance of the pagan ceremonies, the religion of the state, had appeared in the light of a civil duty, and the profession of Christianity in that of a crime against the state; so now it was the case, not indeed that the outward profession of Christianity was commanded as a universal civil duty, for against this the spirit of Christianity too earnestly remonstrated; but that the exercise of the pagan religion was made politically dangerous."


It remains to be shown that there was a steady increase of immorality among the professing Christians; a marked loss of spirituality; a rapid growth of pride and worldliness on the part of Christian bishops and other church leaders; and at last, an utter departure from the true and living God and Jesus Christ whom He had sent, and the establishment of a system in its place, as debasing to men as it was dishonorable to God.



As already stated, this creed of St. Athanasius is accepted as one of the symbols of the orthodox Christian faith. It is understood that these two creeds teach that God is incorporeal, that is to say, an immaterial being. The Catholic church says; "There is but one God, the creator of heaven and earth, the supreme incorporeal, uncreated being who exists of Himself and is infinite in all his attributes." While the Church of England teaches in her articles of faith "that there is but one living and true God everlasting, without body, parts, or passions, of infinite power, wisdom and goodness." This view of God as an incorporeal, immaterial, bodiless, partless, passionless being is now and has been from the days of the great apostasy from God and Christ, in the second and third centuries, the doctrine of Deity generally accepted by apostate Christendom. The simple doctrine of the Christian Godhead, set forth in the New Testament is corrupted by the meaningless jargon of these creeds, and their explanations; and the learned who profess a belief in them are wandering in the darkness of the mysticisms of the old pagan philosophies.


The letter we received from you informed us that the opposition was great against you. Now, our beloved brethren, we verily believe that we also can rejoice that we are counted worthy to suffer shame for His name; for almost the whole country, consisting of Universalists, Atheists, Deists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, and other professed Christians, priests and people; with all the devils from the infernal pit are united, and foaming out their own shame [against us]. God forbid that I should bring a railing accusation against them, for vengeance belongeth to Him who is able to repay; and herein, brethren, we confide.



http://www.boap.org/LDS/History/History_of_the_Church/Vol_1​

I am perfectly willing to amend my understanding of this phrase. It really does appear that it was used mainly, if not exclusively, to refer to those who professed belief in a particular religion or creed. Consider my mind changed!

Even though we agreed to limit the use of creeds in this thread for the sake of discussion to formal creeds, it is hard to not think that the comments that were made earlier about creeds as traditions or doctrines leading to acts that were sinful.

Well, it has been hard for me not to think that the term "professors of religion" didn't only refer to the "ministers of religion."

Seriously, though, it feels like I'm trying to disprove a position that is not mine in the first place. Perhaps it would help our discussion if I asked a clarifying question. Since you seem certain that Christ was saying that the creeds themselves were the very cause of their (the professors of religion) corruption (and I'm not dismissing the possibility), what leads you to conclude that? There must be some something in there which leads you to draw this conclusion, and for whatever reason, I can't see it.

Maybe it would help if I rephrased my question as how do you think that a (formal) creed that contains false teachings would lead one to do things that lead away from God? Especially a creed such as the Nicene Creed or Apostle's Creed.

Do you mind if we hold off on this point until you've had a chance to respond to the above clarifying question on the creedal cause/corrupt effect dynamic?