For JWs and LDS

[skylark1]

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.

I just want for it to be clear to anyone reading this that it wasn't me that accused you of being a sockpuppet. I still stand by my conviction that you were and are not.

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

Alright. However, I take no delight in this view. I just think that it makes sense that the phrase would mean what it was commonly used to mean at that time.

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.

I think that I thought that professors meant professors of the faith from the first time that I read the report of the First Vision. One reason is that the phrase "profession of faith" was something that I was very familiar with in the church that I attended while growing up. Also I hadn't ever heard of ministers being collectively called professors. The church that I grow up in was a Christian Church that had it's roots in the Stone-Campbell Restoration movement. This movement took place at approximately the same time as the founding of Mormonism. I read a book that detailed the history of that movement 5-10 years ago, and noticed that the phrase professors of faith or professing Christians was used frequently. Perhaps even something about professing creeds was mentioned - it has been awhile since I read it, but I do know that they took a dim view of creeds. The final reason is that reading some works of Charles Finney, a minister who was a contempory of Joseph Smith, I noticed that he often referred to professing Christians; sometimes to indicate those who professed Christ with their mouth, but not with their actions. See Lectures to Professing Christians.

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?

That is fine. I hope that what I wrote above answered your question.

 

[TasteForTruth]

I just want for it to be clear to anyone reading this that it wasn't me that accused you of being a sockpuppet. I still stand by my conviction that you were and are not.

Yes, I know it was not you. Those who felt that way made their accusations clear in-forum, so there was no doubt. You were polite from the get-go.

Alright. However, I take no delight in this view.

Who does? I do not believe that the statement was intended to delight anyone.

I just think that it makes sense that the phrase would mean what it was commonly used to mean at that time.

I am in agreement.

I think that I thought that professors meant professors of the faith from the first time that I read the report of the First Vision. One reason is that the phrase "profession of faith" was something that I was very familiar with in the church that I attended while growing up. Also I hadn't ever heard of ministers being collectively called professors. The church that I grow up in was a Christian Church that had it's roots in the Stone-Campbell Restoration movement. This movement took place at approximately the same time as the founding of Mormonism. I read a book that detailed the history of that movement 5-10 years ago, and noticed that the phrase professors of faith or professing Christians was used frequently. Perhaps even something about professing creeds was mentioned - it has been awhile since I read it, but I do know that they took a dim view of creeds. The final reason is that reading some works of Charles Finney, a minister who was a contempory of Joseph Smith, I noticed that he often referred to professing Christians; sometimes to indicate those who professed Christ with their mouth, but not with their actions. See Lectures to Professing Christians.

That is fine. I hope that what I wrote above answered your question.

After re-reading your post, I don't think that my question has been answered yet. What I understand you to have just said was the reason for your understanding why you believed "professors" referred to a larger body of Christians, and that the label "professor of religion" was often used when speaking of those who were Christians by declaration, but not by deed. But my question was about the specific statement we've been discussing. And in spite of how Charles Finney, or any other contemporary may have used the phrase "professors of religion," I continue to wonder what, specifically, you see in this particular phrase...

"...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."
​

...which leads you to conclude that the Savior was telling Joseph that the cause for the professors' corruption was their creeds. I don't think you've illuminated that point yet. I think it would make sense to clarify this before we go any further, if that's agreeable. And if I've misunderstood what you said in your last post, please help me see there what I missed.

 

[skylark1]

Re-reading your previous response... making sure I didn't misunderstand you... will put back my original response if I conclude that I didn't misunderstand.

I think that I must have missed your original response.

 

[TasteForTruth]

I think that I must have missed your original response.

It is back, with some contextual amendments.

 

[skylark1]

After re-reading your post, I don't think that my question has been answered yet. What I understand you to have just said was the reason for your understanding why you believed "professors" referred to a larger body of Christians, and that the label "professor of religion" was often used when speaking of those who were Christians by declaration, but not by deed. But my question was about the specific statement we've been discussing. And in spite of how Charles Finney, or any other contemporary may have used the phrase "professors of religion," I continue to wonder what, specifically, you see in this particular phrase...

"...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."
​

...which leads you to conclude that the Savior was telling Joseph that the cause for the professors' corruption was their creeds. I don't think you've illuminated that point yet. I think it would make sense to clarify this before we go any further, if that's agreeable. And if I've misunderstood what you said in your last post, please help me see there what I missed.

I'm sorry, I am guilty of not reading your post thoroughly enough. I misunderstood what you were asking.

Here is the statement in question:

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.”​

I must have read it as the creeds teaching doctrines and commandments of men. Creeds do teach doctrine. I think that it is because of reading of creeds being called doctrines of men by those who are against them. It isn't just LDS who say this. Here is a link to a goggle search of "creeds, 'doctrines of men.'" creeds "doctrines of men" - Google Search

It is possible that I also might also still be thinking of the comment from earlier in this thread of false doctrine leading to sinful behavior.

Did that answer your question?

 

[TasteForTruth]

I'm sorry, I am guilty of not reading your post thoroughly enough. I misunderstood what you were asking.

Here is the statement in question:

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.”​

I must have read it as the creeds teaching doctrines and commandments of men. Creeds do teach doctrine. I think that it is because of reading of creeds being called doctrines of men by those who are against them. It isn't just LDS who say this. Here is a link to a goggle search of "creeds, 'doctrines of men.'" creeds "doctrines of men" - Google Search

It is possible that I also might also still be thinking of the comment from earlier in this thread of false doctrine leading to sinful behavior.

Did that answer your question?

Sort of. Maybe. Actually, it might have confused me more than anything. I mean, this whole time I've been saying that "creeds" referred to a broader body of material—doctrines, teachings, traditions, etc. And I've agreed to confine the definition to "formal" creeds only, such as the Nicene Creed, which are purely statements of faith. But your latest post seems to be in line with what I was saying earlier, and what I've always believed—that it was the broader system of beliefs under condemnation, and not merely those summaries of faith which were and are so common in Christianity.

That said, I am actively pursuing a course of thought which may or may not lead me to conclude that the meaning of that phrase should very likely be confined to the "formal" creeds. I don't know when I'll have reached a satisfactory point for sharing what comes of it, but I'm letting you know that I'm looking into it. I've already changed my mind about one aspect of that revelation. Maybe another is in the works...

At any rate, are you saying that these extraneous thoughts about false doctrines and such were that which was leading you to conclude that the creeds themselves were responsible for the professors' hearts being far from God, as far as the Savior's statement is concerned? I just want to be sure I've understood you.

 

[A New Dawn]

Let me just interject what I thought about that statement when I was RLDS, regarding the relationship of creeds and hearts being far from God.

I believed it referred to those who went no further than reciting creeds. That there was no relationship with God being developed and the creeds were recited much the way some recite the Pledge of Allegiance today (without any thought as to the meanings behind the words). I believe that the same thing goes on today, people who are Christian in name only, who live on borrowed testimonies, who don't have a relationship with God, etc. The difference between me and Joseph Smith, I believe, is the matter of degree. It has always been my impression from his statement that he believed that that state extended to all of Christianity rather than persons inside of Christianity who do suffer from a lack of relationship with God.

It was easy for me to judge that people were just reciting something that they didn't put any thought into, and, IMO, it went so far as to include memorized prayers. I really, even to this day, have a problem with creeds and recited prayers. When I break down the creed into it's tenets, I can agree with each one of them, but to recite creeds is just foreign to me.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Let me just interject what I thought about that statement when I was RLDS, regarding the relationship of creeds and hearts being far from God.

I believed it referred to those who went no further than reciting creeds. That there was no relationship with God being developed and the creeds were recited much the way some recite the Pledge of Allegiance today (without any thought as to the meanings behind the words). I believe that the same thing goes on today, people who are Christian in name only, who live on borrowed testimonies, who don't have a relationship with God, etc. The difference between me and Joseph Smith, I believe, is the matter of degree. It has always been my impression from his statement that he believed that that state extended to all of Christianity rather than persons inside of Christianity who do suffer from a lack of relationship with God.

It was easy for me to judge that people were just reciting something that they didn't put any thought into, and, IMO, it went so far as to include memorized prayers. I really, even to this day, have a problem with creeds and recited prayers. When I break down the creed into it's tenets, I can agree with each one of them, but to recite creeds is just foreign to me.

I was raised in a church that routinely recites creeds every Sunday as part of their service. For most it seems to be a routine with little or no actual meaning. When I became a Christian I found a church that does not do that and I do not miss reciting them, or prayers, for the sake of reciting them. I can agree with the tenets and, like you, find reciting the creeds to a quite alien to my own mindset.

 

[skylark1]

Sort of. Maybe. Actually, it might have confused me more than anything. I mean, this whole time I've been saying that "creeds" referred to a broader body of material—doctrines, teachings, traditions, etc. And I've agreed to confine the definition to "formal" creeds only, such as the Nicene Creed, which are purely statements of faith. But your latest post seems to be in line with what I was saying earlier, and what I've always believed—that it was the broader system of beliefs under condemnation, and not merely those summaries of faith which were and are so common in Christianity.

That said, I am actively pursuing a course of thought which may or may not lead me to conclude that the meaning of that phrase should very likely be confined to the "formal" creeds. I don't know when I'll have reached a satisfactory point for sharing what comes of it, but I'm letting you know that I'm looking into it. I've already changed my mind about one aspect of that revelation. Maybe another is in the works...

At any rate, are you saying that these extraneous thoughts about false doctrines and such were that which was leading you to conclude that the creeds themselves were responsible for the professors' hearts being far from God, as far as the Savior's statement is concerned? I just want to be sure I've understood you.

I think that I didn't express myself very well in my previous post. I'd like to explain the following:

"I must have read it as the creeds teaching doctrines and commandments of men. Creeds do teach doctrine. I think that it is because of reading of creeds being called doctrines of men by those who are against them."​

Here is how the definiton of creed and doctrine:

doctrine - A belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group.

creed - A formal statement of Christian beliefs, esp. the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene Creed.​

So a creed is a formal set of Christian beliefs or doctrines, and creeds do teach doctrines, but it is expressived as a summery in a concise formal manner.

While the Nicene Creed is statement of faith, it also contains a set of doctrines. For example, that Jesus was born of a virgin is a doctrine. That Jesus will judge all is a doctrine. It takes faith to believe them, but they do express doctrines, i.e. beliefs of the church.

Because Joseph Smith used both the terms creeds and doctrines in JS-H 1, I think that it was a reference to both formal creeds, as well as beliefs and practices not contained in the creeds.

 

[skylark1]

Let me just interject what I thought about that statement when I was RLDS, regarding the relationship of creeds and hearts being far from God.

I believed it referred to those who went no further than reciting creeds. That there was no relationship with God being developed and the creeds were recited much the way some recite the Pledge of Allegiance today (without any thought as to the meanings behind the words). I believe that the same thing goes on today, people who are Christian in name only, who live on borrowed testimonies, who don't have a relationship with God, etc. The difference between me and Joseph Smith, I believe, is the matter of degree. It has always been my impression from his statement that he believed that that state extended to all of Christianity rather than persons inside of Christianity who do suffer from a lack of relationship with God.

It was easy for me to judge that people were just reciting something that they didn't put any thought into, and, IMO, it went so far as to include memorized prayers. I really, even to this day, have a problem with creeds and recited prayers. When I break down the creed into it's tenets, I can agree with each one of them, but to recite creeds is just foreign to me.

That would go along with the idea of people drawing near with their lips, but their hearts being far from God.

 

[TasteForTruth]

I think that I didn't express myself very well in my previous post. I'd like to explain the following:

"I must have read it as the creeds teaching doctrines and commandments of men. Creeds do teach doctrine. I think that it is because of reading of creeds being called doctrines of men by those who are against them."​

Here is how the definiton of creed and doctrine:

doctrine - A belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group.

creed - A formal statement of Christian beliefs, esp. the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene Creed.​

So a creed is a formal set of Christian beliefs or doctrines, and creeds do teach doctrines, but it is expressived as a summery in a concise formal manner.

While the Nicene Creed is statement of faith, it also contains a set of doctrines. For example, that Jesus was born of a virgin is a doctrine. That Jesus will judge all is a doctrine. It takes faith to believe them, but they do express doctrines, i.e. beliefs of the church.

Because Joseph Smith used both the terms creeds and doctrines in JS-H 1, I think that it was a reference to both formal creeds, as well as beliefs and practices not contained in the creeds.

I see. Let me go back with this and plug it in...

 

[TasteForTruth]

I'm sorry, I am guilty of not reading your post thoroughly enough. I misunderstood what you were asking.

Here is the statement in question:

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.”​

I must have read it as the creeds teaching doctrines and commandments of men. Creeds do teach doctrine. I think that it is because of reading of creeds being called doctrines of men by those who are against them. It isn't just LDS who say this. Here is a link to a goggle search of "creeds, 'doctrines of men.'" creeds "doctrines of men" - Google Search

It is possible that I also might also still be thinking of the comment from earlier in this thread of false doctrine leading to sinful behavior.

Did that answer your question?

OK, I took your latest clarification, and still need more clarification. Sorry.

Could you confirm via two yes/no responses that it is your belief that:

• when the Savior said that the creeds were an abomination, it was the formal creeds only He spoke of?
  • Yes, it was only the formal creeds he spoke of.
  • No, <please enter clarification>
• when the Savior spoke of their doctrines, He was no longer speaking of the formal creeds, but the larger body of doctrines of the various churches?
  • Yes, He was no longer speaking of the formal creeds, but of the larger body of doctrines.
  • No, <please enter clarification>

And if I've made a mess of it, sorry. Really trying to see where you're coming from.

 

[skylark1]

OK, I took your latest clarification, and still need more clarification. Sorry.

Could you confirm via two yes/no responses that it is your belief that:

• when the Savior said that the creeds were an abomination, it was the formal creeds only He spoke of?
  • Yes, it was only the formal creeds he spoke of.
  • No, <please enter clarification>
• when the Savior spoke of their doctrines, He was no longer speaking of the formal creeds, but the larger body of doctrines of the various churches?
  • Yes, He was no longer speaking of the formal creeds, but of the larger body of doctrines.
  • No, <please enter clarification>

And if I've made a mess of it, sorry. Really trying to see where you're coming from.

It is my view that when creeds were mentioned in the First Vision, that they were in reference to formal creeds.

It is my view that when doctrines were mentioned, that that it was a reference to the larger body of doctrines of Christian churches.

I hope that was clear enough.

 

[TasteForTruth]

It is my view that when creeds were mentioned in the First Vision, that they were in reference to formal creeds.

It is my view that when doctrines were mentioned, that that it was a reference to the larger body of doctrines of Christian churches.

I hope that was clear enough.

LOL, yes, it was! I wasn't trying to be difficult. We had just gone back and forth so many times between the two terms that I wanted to be sure that I wasn't misunderstanding again.

It's late, so I'll post a reply tomorrow.

 

[TasteForTruth]

It is my view that when creeds were mentioned in the First Vision, that they were in reference to formal creeds.

It is my view that when doctrines were mentioned, that that it was a reference to the larger body of doctrines of Christian churches.

I hope that was clear enough.

OK... so getting back into things...

I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: "they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof."
​

Assuming that the "creeds" are formal creeds (Nicene, etc.), and seeing that the "professors" are all Christians who profess Christianity, and assuming that the "doctrines" are inclusive of doctrines beyond those in the formal creeds, and assuming that the corruption spoken of is akin to the corruption of the Pharisees, to whom the Savior also quoted Isaiah's words, my conclusion is that which I stated before: that espousing a formal creed which was flawed would not, in and of itself, make a person's heart "far from God." You seemed to share this belief:

...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.

I am inclined to believe that we both agree that believing in the formal creeds does not, in and of itself, result in one's heart being far from God, as were the hearts of the Phairsees. Do you also believe that we are in agreement?

 

[skylark1]

OK... so getting back into things...

I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: "they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof."
​

Assuming that the "creeds" are formal creeds (Nicene, etc.), and seeing that the "professors" are all Christians who profess Christianity, and assuming that the "doctrines" are inclusive of doctrines beyond those in the formal creeds, and assuming that the corruption spoken of is akin to the corruption of the Pharisees, to whom the Savior also quoted Isaiah's words, my conclusion is that which I stated before: that espousing a formal creed which was flawed would not, in and of itself, make a person's heart "far from God." You seemed to share this belief:


I am inclined to believe that we both agree that believing in the formal creeds does not, in and of itself, result in one's heart being far from God, as were the hearts of the Phairsees. Do you also believe that we are in agreement?

I don't think that we are in agreement that those who professed creeds were corrupt like the Pharisees.

We are in agreement that believing in a formal creed in and of itself does not result in one's heart being far from God. So why do you think that it is said in JS-H that their hearts were far from God?

 

[TasteForTruth]

I don't think that we are in agreement that those who professed creeds were corrupt like the Pharisees.

Ah. OK. So when Christ says that the "professors of religion" are corrupt, what do you believe is being said? What is the nature of their corruption?

We are in agreement that believing in a formal creed in and of itself does not result in one's heart being far from God. So why do you think that it is said in JS-H that their hearts were far from God?

I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: "they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof."
​

The two bold lines above I see as related. It seems to me that their hearts would be far from God because they were corrupt. As such they, like the Pharisees, to some degree would have been hardhearted and antagonistic toward God and man in spite of their profession of religion. From what you wrote above, it appears that we do not agree as to the nature of their corruption (that of the professors of religion).

 

[skylark1]

Ah. OK. So when Christ says that the "professors of religion" are corrupt, what do you believe is being said? What is the nature of their corruption?

I don't know what the nature of the corruption is supposed to be in the text of JS-H 1:19.

I've heard LDS claim that it meant different things.

The two bold lines above I see as related. It seems to me that their hearts would be far from God because they were corrupt. As such they, like the Pharisees, to some degree would have been hardhearted and antagonistic toward God and man in spite of their profession of religion. From what you wrote above, it appears that we do not agree as to the nature of their corruption (that of the professors of religion).

I'm not clear as to what you think that nature of the corruption of those who profess creeds was/is. Are you saying that you believe that it had nothing to do with creeds, but that they were corrupt because their hearts were hardened? If so, what do you think caused their hearts to be hardened?

 

[TasteForTruth]

I don't know what the nature of the corruption is supposed to be in the text of JS-H 1:19.

I've heard LDS claim that it meant different things.

I see. Well, I do not know that the Church has an official position on what the nature of the corruption was. This would explain why LDS members would have varying opinions about it.

The Church does apparently agree with this statement, which offers potential insight into what was meant:

D&C 33:4. &#8220;All Having Corrupt Minds&#8221;
Elder Hyrum M. Smith defined the special use of the term corrupt in this passage: &#8220;Let me explain, when I use the term &#8216;corrupt&#8217; with reference to these ministers of the gospel, that I use it in the same sense that I believe the Lord used it when he made that declaration to Joseph Smith, the Prophet, in answer to the Prophet&#8217;s prayer. He did not mean, nor do I mean, that the ministers of religion are personally unvirtuous or impure. I believe as a class they, perhaps, in personal purity, stand a little above the average order of men. When I use the term &#8216;corrupt&#8217; I mean, as I believe the Lord meant, that they have turned away from the truth . . . and have turned to that which is false. A false doctrine is a corrupt doctrine; a false religion is a corrupt religion; a false teacher is a corrupt teacher. Any man who teaches a false doctrine, who believes in and practices and teaches a false religion is a corrupt professor, because he teaches that which is impure and not true.&#8221; (In Conference Report, Oct. 1916, p. 43.) source
​

If this interpretation is correct, then the corruption spoken of is not so much that of vile and gross sinners, but to a general corruption of perspective.

This is what Joseph described in his own history, which seems to go further:

For, notwithstanding the great love which the converts to these different faiths expressed at the time of their conversion, and the great zeal manifested by the respective clergy, who were active in getting up and promoting this extraordinary scene of religious feeling, in order to have everybody converted, as they were pleased to call it, let them join what sect they pleased; yet when the converts began to file off, some to one party and some to another, it was seen that the seemingly good feelings of both the priests and the converts were more pretended than real; for a scene of great confusion and bad feeling ensued&#8212;priest contending against priest, and convert against convert; so that all their good feelings one for another, if they ever had any, were entirely lost in a strife of words and a contest about opinions. (JS-H 1:6)
​

This would seem to agree with the following 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&#8212;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)
​

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'm not clear as to what you think that nature of the corruption of those who profess creeds was/is. Are you saying that you believe that it had nothing to do with creeds, but that they were corrupt because their hearts were hardened?

As I mentioned before, I do not believe that the profession of the formal creeds was the reason for their corruption. And I feel to agree with the implications of the descriptions I posted above, which indicate that the professors to which Christ referred exhibited a hardhearted nature... antagonistic and unforgiving. Whether or not any of them were adulterers, murderers and such, who can say, and what does it matter in this context? I believe they were possessed of a Pharisaical spirit or attitude sufficiently to provoke the Savior to call them corrupt, with hearts far from him.

If so, what do you think caused their hearts to be hardened?

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I believe that doing and/or desiring to do things that are inconsistent with the Gospel and Spirit of Christ will cause a person's heart to become hardened and, therefore, far from God. I do not believe that merely believing a formal creed will cause this. And more to the historical point, I believe that persecuting and reviling against others causes one's heart to be far from God, and is an indication that it already is, to such an extent, corrupt.

In hindsight, it is fair to say that my definition goes beyond the more-or-less benign one suggested in the first quote above. Either way, I believe with the Savior's statement that all religions in Joseph's day were false, and that the professors of those religions were, to some extent, corrupt. And I continue to believe that Christ was speaking "collectively, not individually," and that many Christians in Joseph's time were pure in heart.

 

[skylark1]

I see. Well, I do not know that the Church has an official position on what the nature of the corruption was. This would explain why LDS members would have varying opinions about it.

The Church does apparently agree with this statement, which offers potential insight into what was meant:

D&C 33:4. &#8220;All Having Corrupt Minds&#8221;
Elder Hyrum M. Smith defined the special use of the term corrupt in this passage: &#8220;Let me explain, when I use the term &#8216;corrupt&#8217; with reference to these ministers of the gospel, that I use it in the same sense that I believe the Lord used it when he made that declaration to Joseph Smith, the Prophet, in answer to the Prophet&#8217;s prayer. He did not mean, nor do I mean, that the ministers of religion are personally unvirtuous or impure. I believe as a class they, perhaps, in personal purity, stand a little above the average order of men. When I use the term &#8216;corrupt&#8217; I mean, as I believe the Lord meant, that they have turned away from the truth . . . and have turned to that which is false. A false doctrine is a corrupt doctrine; a false religion is a corrupt religion; a false teacher is a corrupt teacher. Any man who teaches a false doctrine, who believes in and practices and teaches a false religion is a corrupt professor, because he teaches that which is impure and not true.&#8221; (In Conference Report, Oct. 1916, p. 43.) source
​

If this interpretation is correct, then the corruption spoken of is not so much that of vile and gross sinners, but to a general corruption of perspective.

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

This is what Joseph described in his own history, which seems to go further:

For, notwithstanding the great love which the converts to these different faiths expressed at the time of their conversion, and the great zeal manifested by the respective clergy, who were active in getting up and promoting this extraordinary scene of religious feeling, in order to have everybody converted, as they were pleased to call it, let them join what sect they pleased; yet when the converts began to file off, some to one party and some to another, it was seen that the seemingly good feelings of both the priests and the converts were more pretended than real; for a scene of great confusion and bad feeling ensued&#8212;priest contending against priest, and convert against convert; so that all their good feelings one for another, if they ever had any, were entirely lost in a strife of words and a contest about opinions. (JS-H 1:6)
​

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

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&#8212;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)
​

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?

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.

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?

As I mentioned before, I do not believe that the profession of the formal creeds was the reason for their corruption. And I feel to agree with the implications of the descriptions I posted above, which indicate that the professors to which Christ referred exhibited a hardhearted nature... antagonistic and unforgiving. Whether or not any of them were adulterers, murderers and such, who can say, and what does it matter in this context? I believe they were possessed of a Pharisaical spirit or attitude sufficiently to provoke the Savior to call them corrupt, with hearts far from him.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I believe that doing and/or desiring to do things that are inconsistent with the Gospel and Spirit of Christ will cause a person's heart to become hardened and, therefore, far from God. I do not believe that merely believing a formal creed will cause this. And more to the historical point, I believe that persecuting and reviling against others causes one's heart to be far from God, and is an indication that it already is, to such an extent, corrupt.

Ok. Thanks for sharing your view.

In hindsight, it is fair to say that my definition goes beyond the more-or-less benign one suggested in the first quote above. Either way, I believe with the Savior's statement that all religions in Joseph's day were false, and that the professors of those religions were, to some extent, corrupt. And I continue to believe that Christ was speaking "collectively, not individually," and that many Christians in Joseph's time were pure in heart.

Ok.