If you reject the LDS message...

[SoftSpoken]

I am surprised to learn that LDS are encouraged to curse anyone.

But are you equally surprised that the Lord instructed his apostles to bear witness against people by shaking off the dust of their feet as they departed their homes or towns, which witness would result in their condemnation?

At any rate, the latter-day instruction was and is for called, set apart elders, not for the general membership. We are not encouraged to curse people. And even in regards to the "ordinance" of dusting off one's feet, we (the elders) are instructed to do so only as the spirit dictates. I don't know how many thousands of doors I must have knocked on in Madrid while I was there, and I was never inspired to invoke this solemn ordinance.

I came across the following in Wikipedia.

In July 1830, Joseph Smith, Jr., founder of the Latter Day Saint Movement, dictated his first revelation referencing the practice, said to be the words of Jesus directed to Smith and Oliver Cowdery, directing them as follows:

"And in whatsoever place ye shall enter, and they receive you not, in my name ye shall leave a cursing instead of a blessing, by casting off the dust of your feet against them as a testimony, and cleansing your feet by the wayside." (Phelps 1833, p. 57)*
​

In 1831, a revelation clarified that when leaving a cursing upon a person in this way, the shaking of dust and washing of feet should be performed "not in their presence, lest thou provoke them, but in secret." (Phelps 1833, p. 144).

On January 25, 1832, one of Smith's revelations directed several missionaries to use the practice, and indicated that when performed against a house, the missionaries:

"shall be filled with joy and gladness and know this, that in the day of judgment you shall be judges of that house, and condemn them, and it shall be more tolerable for the heathen in the day of judgment, than for that house." (Smith et al. 1835, p. 222).**
​

After referring again to the practice in an August 29, 1832 revelation (Smith et al. 1835, p. 206), Smith gave his final revelation on the subject on September 22-23, 1832. This revelation, directed to those ordained to the newly established high priesthood, indicating that when a person does not receive a traveling high priest, or give them food, clothing, or money, they should

"go away from him alone by yourselves, and cleanse your feet, even with water, pure water, whether in heat or in cold, and bear testimony of it unto your Father, and return not again unto that man. And in whatsoever village or city ye enter, do likewise." (Smith et al. 1835, p. 93).***
​

I didn't see scriptural references noted as such, so I am including what these quotes can be found in LDS scripture.

* This is D&C 24:14
** This is D&C 75:21
*** This is D&C 84:92-93


IN D&C 75 it states:

20 And in whatsoever house ye enter, and they receive you not, ye shall depart speedily from that house, and shake off the dust of your feet as a testimony against them.
21 And you shall be filled with joy and gladness; and know this, that in the day of judgment you shall be judges of that house, and condemn them;
22 And it shall be more tolerable for the heathen in the day of judgment, than for that house; therefore, gird up your loins and be faithful, and ye shall overcome all things, and be lifted up at the last day. Even so. Amen.
​

Why would "sealing" these people up to judgement or cursing them cause misionaries to be filled with joy? I would think that they would instead be filled with sorrow for them.

I don't believe they will feel joy in witnessing against people. I never felt joy in having my testimony rejected, nor did the thought of standing as a witness against anyone produce any kind of satisfaction. To represent the Lord was a dreadful responsibility. At the same time, though, I did feel joy and gladness knowing that I was doing the right thing in God's sight—that I was faithful to Him. And I imagine that I will feel greater joy after this life when I am judged for so doing. I understand that sentence fragment to be a reminder, in the midst of unpleasant but solemn duty, that joy will also be experienced in the faithful carrying out of duty, not because duty brings judgment upon others.

 

[Rescued One]

Doctrine and Covenants 103

22 Therefore let my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., say unto the strength of my house, my young men and the middle aged—Gather yourselves together unto the land of Zion, upon the land which I have bought with money that has been consecrated unto me.
23 And let all the churches send up wise men with their moneys, and purchase lands even as I have commanded them.
24 And inasmuch as mine enemies come against you to drive you from my goodly land, which I have consecrated to be the land of Zion, even from your own lands after these testimonies, which ye have brought before me against them, ye shall curse them;
25 And whomsoever ye curse, I will curse, and ye shall avenge me of mine enemies.
26 And my presence shall be with you even in avenging me of mine enemies, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.

I don't think I need to comment on this.

 

[Moodshadow]

The others are the members of the LDS Church. And if that doesn't fit, then the Church, or its doctrines. I'm not sure it matters who or what is identified as the excluder (speaking of salvation), the claim has been made so many times in this sub-forum alone as to validate my comment as etched in stone. The LDS church is viewed by many who reject its teachings as eclusionary.

I for one will have to agree with you when you say that a person who either chooses not to join in the first place, or joins and then voluntarily leaves, has no right to whine about being excluded - by members or the church - because that person has made his/her own choice and is thus in fact effecting the exclusion. That's one of those things that would fall under the "DUH!" category. However, the attitude of some - certainly not all - members of the church toward former members leaves a lot to be desired, regardless of the reason for the "formerness," be it voluntary apostasy or excommunication or just plain inactivity. There are many - and yes, I mean MANY! - self-righteous people who seem to have the idea that if you are not 100% active LDS, you are not worthy of their time, thank you very much. This may be the reason some complain, I don't know. Frankly, though I've encountered some of these sancimonious types myself since my own apostasy, I don't miss them a bit and don't consider their "friendship" much of a loss. There are others - wonderful, salt-of-the-earth, precious people - whom I love and miss very much and who are still just as sweet to me as they were when we saw each other every Sunday. Either way, you'll not hear me complaining about feeling excluded, because I volunteered for it.

 

[SoftSpoken]

Doctrine and Covenants 103

22 Therefore let my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., say unto the strength of my house, my young men and the middle aged—Gather yourselves together unto the land of Zion, upon the land which I have bought with money that has been consecrated unto me.
23 And let all the churches send up wise men with their moneys, and purchase lands even as I have commanded them.
24 And inasmuch as mine enemies come against you to drive you from my goodly land, which I have consecrated to be the land of Zion, even from your own lands after these testimonies, which ye have brought before me against them, ye shall curse them;
25 And whomsoever ye curse, I will curse, and ye shall avenge me of mine enemies.
26 And my presence shall be with you even in avenging me of mine enemies, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.

I don't think I need to comment on this.

You ought to if you want people to know why you posted it.

 

[SoftSpoken]

I for one will have to agree with you when you say that a person who either chooses not to join in the first place, or joins and then voluntarily leaves, has no right to whine about being excluded - by members or the church - because that person has made his/her own choice and is thus in fact effecting the exclusion. That's one of those things that would fall under the "DUH!" category. However, the attitude of some - certainly not all - members of the church toward former members leaves a lot to be desired, regardless of the reason for the "formerness," be it voluntary apostasy or excommunication or just plain inactivity. There are many - and yes, I mean MANY! - self-righteous people who seem to have the idea that if you are not 100% active LDS, you are not worthy of their time, thank you very much.

Indeed there are. And that conduct is wrong.

This may be the reason some complain, I don't know. Frankly, though I've encountered some of these sancimonious types myself since my own apostasy, I don't miss them a bit and don't consider their "friendship" much of a loss. There are others - wonderful, salt-of-the-earth, precious people - whom I love and miss very much and who are still just as sweet to me as they were when we saw each other every Sunday. Either way, you'll not hear me complaining about feeling excluded, because I volunteered for it.

We may actually be talking about two things here. I was referring to exclusion as it pertains to savlation—that we (the Church, the members, whoever) supposedly exclude people from salvation—not to social exclusion.

I am glad though that you are treated well by at least some. I have had a few friends leave the Church. With one of them I was too judgmental. I have since apologized to him and repented. All are still my friends—as close as we were before, excluding some of our religious convictions, of course.

 

[skylark1]

But are you equally surprised that the Lord instructed his apostles to bear witness against people by shaking off the dust of their feet as they departed their homes or towns, which witness would result in their condemnation?

As I wrote in a previous post, I view this incident written in the Bible as a symbol absolving his disciples of responsibily for whatever judgment that these people will receive for rejecting Christ. I think that the symbolism is like Pilate symbolicly washing his hands after trying to set Jesus free. The condemnation that see is in rejecting Christ. I do not see the shaking off the dust from one's feet as being what causes anyone to be condemned.

At any rate, the latter-day instruction was and is for called, set apart elders, not for the general membership. We are not encouraged to curse people. And even in regards to the "ordinance" of dusting off one's feet, we (the elders) are instructed to do so only as the spirit dictates. I don't know how many thousands of doors I must have knocked on in Madrid while I was there, and I was never inspired to invoke this solemn ordinance.

Well, I am glad that you were not inspired to curse anyone!

I don't believe they will feel joy in witnessing against people. I never felt joy in having my testimony rejected, nor did the thought of standing as a witness against anyone produce any kind of satisfaction. To represent the Lord was a dreadful responsibility. At the same time, though, I did feel joy and gladness knowing that I was doing the right thing in God's sight—that I was faithful to Him. And I imagine that I will feel greater joy after this life when I am judged for so doing. I understand that sentence fragment to be a reminder, in the midst of unpleasant but solemn duty, that joy will also be experienced in the faithful carrying out of duty, not because duty brings judgment upon others.

I still cannot imagine feeling joy at the "duty" of cursing anyone. Something is just wrong with that.

 

[SoftSpoken]

As I wrote in a previous post, I view this incident written in the Bible as a symbol absolving his disciples of responsibily for whatever judgment that these people will receive for rejecting Christ. I think that the symbolism is like Pilate symbolicly washing his hands after trying to set Jesus free. The condemnation that see is in rejecting Christ. I do not see the shaking off the dust from one's feet as being what causes anyone to be condemned.

Thanks again. Sorry to have been repetitive. Follow-up question: Do you think that failing to shake the dust of their feet would have prevented the absolution of the sins of the rejecters from the apostles?

Well, I am glad that you were not inspired to curse anyone!

I'm glad that I wasn't as well. But I would have done it had I been inspired to do so.

I still cannot imagine feeling joy at the "duty" of cursing anyone. Something is just wrong with that.

Again, I don't think that's what produces the joy. My duty in Spain was to serve the Lord. That was not always an easy or pleasant task. While I was never inspired to carry out the ordinance of which we're speaking, there were occasions on which I was undeniably moved upon by the Spirit to pronounce some very serious judgments verbally. Those occasions I have recorded in my journals; such was the impact they had upon my soul. Those were not joyful words to utter. They were not offensive, mind you, but I found in them no pleasantness. However, I am glad in my heart that I followed the dictates of the Spirit. That is what brings me joy now. I am glad now that I did not shrink from what the Lord required of me then. That is what I believe the verse means. No joy in the duty to curse, should one be called upon to do so. Joy in the fulfilmment of duty to God in general, regardless of what God actually requires of us in any particular instance.

 

[Moodshadow]

We may actually be talking about two things here. I was referring to exclusion as it pertains to savlation—that we (the Church, the members, whoever) supposedly exclude people from salvation—not to social exclusion.

Ah, sorry - I guess I misunderstood that part. But tell me this: If non-members or former members are in fact excluded, wouldn't it be, rather than the current members or even the church, but the doctrine that would be doing the excluding?

 

[skylark1]

Thanks again. Sorry to have been repetitive. Follow-up question: Do you think that failing to shake the dust of their feet would have prevented the absolution of the sins of the rejecters from the apostles?

No. I think that it was a symbol. I don't think that the symbol itself had any power, but it probably helped the disciples to have this experience as a way to firmly state and show that they had attempted to share the good news with this person or persons and that it had been rejected, and to move on.

 

[SoftSpoken]

It is a secret ordinance not discussed in Ward meetings. See your scriptures.

That is incorrect. "But in secret" means that you don't do it ON THEIR DOORSTEP. You depart... you leave... get out of their sight... away where they cannot see you... at the edge of town... near the library down the road... It doesn't matter where the ordinance is performed, so long as it is not done in front of those against whom the witness is being made. That is the entirety of what "secret" refers to there, and nothing more.

And if the ordiance in question is not discussed in Sacrament Meeting on any given Sunday it is because it pertains only to the priesthood, and there is little to no benefit to it being discussed in that setting. Sacrament Meeting is for the edification of the Saints and the building of faith in Christ. It is not for weekly review of every ordinance of the Church, or those things that do little to increase faith in Christ. You will not find this ordinance frequently spoken of in Church literature or manuals, or even in the published commentary of Church members. You are making of this ordinance more than the LDS Church or its members do.

Things that are published intentionally online cannot possibly be considered secret.

 

[SoftSpoken]

No. I think that it was a symbol. I don't think that the symbol itself had any power, but it probably helped the disciples to have this experience as a way to firmly state and show that they had attempted to share the good news with this person or persons and that it had been rejected, and to move on.

Thanks for sharing your point of view. I understand how you see it, and can also understand why you feel that way.

Have I been able to accomplish the same? Hope so.

 

[SoftSpoken]

Ah, sorry - I guess I misunderstood that part. But tell me this: If non-members or former members are in fact excluded, wouldn't it be, rather than the current members or even the church, but the doctrine that would be doing the excluding?

I do not believe so, any more than I believe the Catholic or Protestant doctrines exclude those who choose not to accept them. Men bind themselves to what they will. They unbind themselves from what they will. They are 100% free to do so. Satan and his hosts likely used that same argument against God, pointing out that not all His children would be saved in His plan, and that this was somehow an unfair playing of favorites.

 

[Rescued One]

Sacrament Meeting is for the edification of the Saints and the building of faith in Christ. It is not for weekly review of every ordinance of the Church, or those things that do little to increase faith in Christ. You will not find this ordinance frequently spoken of in Church literature or manuals, or even in the published commentary of Church members.

I know this. I think you should have told mormonheretic.

If you believe that Mormons believe this passage from D&C that you have quoted, have you ever heard it quoted in ANY LDS church meeting that you have attended? If so, was it presented with the same interpretation that you are putting forth here?

You are making of this ordinance more than the LDS Church or its members do.

I was only sharing information when I started the thread. How could I know that LDS would make more of it than I initially did? I never realized there were so many verses on the topic in the Doctrine and Covenants; I never got around to memorizing them.

Things that are published intentionally online cannot possibly be considered secret.

I did not mean that it was that secret. But how many non-LDS decide to read all of the Doctrine and Covenants even if they are online? And why did the topic receive such a reaction from your fellow LDS? Why did people want to know my motive for posting it?

 

[SoftSpoken]

I know this. I think you should have told mormonheretic.

With all due respect, you didn't know it, or you'd have commented about it correctly. That doesn't matter though, because you know it now.

I was only sharing information when I started the thread. How could I know that LDS would make more of it than I initially did? I never realized there were so many verses on the topic in the Doctrine and Covenants; I never got around to memorizing them.

Again, with all due respect, your original comment and question doe not come across as a mere sharing of information. I know that misunderstanding are easily had here, but I'm incline to believe this thread has gone the direction it was crafted to go.

I did not mean that it was that secret. But how many non-LDS decide to read all of the Doctrine and Covenants even if they are online?

You make it sound as though knowledge of this ordinance is some critical key to Mormonism, or that it is a "must-know" before a person should consider conversion. Well, I'm not one to say that it should be that important to you personally, but I think the LDS viewpoint as to what it means and its relative importance should carry a great deal of weight.

And why did the topic receive such a reaction from your fellow LDS? Why did people want to know my motive for posting it?

It is my observation that you have built a reputation for yourself of intentionally misrepresenting the LDS faith. Whether or not that is true has no bearing on how threads turn out. If we LDS are all wrong in concluding in any given thread that you're out to make us look bad, show us that your'e not. A simple addition to a comment can make a world of difference. Like this:

"Those who reject the LDS message here on earth seem to be in a lot of trouble. That's how these verses read to me. What is the LDS perspective?"
​

At any rate, If you look at the first comments in this thread (LDS or otherwise), they were very moderate and right on-topic. And let's be honest... the topic itself is a firestorm waiting to happen, unless carefully controlled the whole way through on the part of us all. As far as I can tell, what triggered the bomb was the failure of a poster to respond to this follow-up question directly (which follow-up question followed a direct response to the OP):

"Are you saying that unbelievers will not be in a lot of trouble?"
​

Instead of responding directly to the question, the response was this:

"Are you saying that non-LDS are unbelievers?"
​

Had the person who had been asked the clarifying question responded directly to that question, instead of leaving it unanswered, it is possible that the thread would have stayed moderate, at least for a little longer. Ironically, it was you (Phoebe) who did not respond to the question (mormonheretic's) with a direct answer.

And to compound it, you then made an assumption, concluding that the former poster (mormonheretic) meant something that he never said, but was a self-made answer to your own question:

"It was mormonheretic, and not you, who saw no difference between non-LDS and non-believers:"
​

Then you submit to the LDS members yet another question, not related to the topic at all, answering it for them at the same time:

"Do you or do you not believe that Doctrine and Covenants are revelations from Jesus Christ? If you do believe this, then for you Christ has already revealed the matter and you are in agreement with it."
​

To which mormonheretic responded (and understandably so):

"With all due respect, you are in no way an expert on Mormonism, and I find it very irritating that you are a self-proclaimed expert. You have distorted this whole conversation.
​

and this:

"I am sorry I was not able to respond sooner, but I said nothing of the sort [(referring to your assumption)]. This is ANOTHER GROSS DISTORTION. Let me explain what I meant."
​

Which explaination was given, albeit no longer moderate. And you respond:

"I find it irritating that you distort my honest posts and claim that I am a self-proclaimed expert on Mormonism. I have not claimed to be an expert on anything. Now would you please define expert on Mormonism? Are you an expert on Mormonism?"
​

The OP is gone now, and the focus shifts to defending or not everyone's claims that others are viewing their motives or assuming they said things. Where did it go south? Can anyone say for sure? I don't know. All I know is you didn't play it straight yourself, and are now wondering why it got crooked. This happens a lot in your threads. You tell me why. It's neither all you, nor all us. If we've got your threads pegged wrong, help us peg them right. I know I have an interest in this. I can't speak for others.

 

[Moodshadow]

I do not believe so, any more than I believe the Catholic or Protestant doctrines exclude those who choose not to accept them. Men bind themselves to what they will. They unbind themselves from what they will. They are 100% free to do so. Satan and his hosts likely used that same argument against God, pointing out that not all His children would be saved in His plan, and that this was somehow an unfair playing of favorites.

I'm not talking about favoritism at all- not even close. I'm talking about the natural consequences of free-agency choices made. Verse 74 of Section 84 states: Verily, verily, I say unto you, they who believe not on your words, and are not baptized in water in my name, for the remission of their sins, that they may receive the Holy Ghost, shall be damned, and shall not come into my Father’s kingdom where my Father and I am. (emphasis mine)

If a person hears the gospel according to Mormonism and rejects it, there are the consequences, plainly laid out. It sounds pretty exclusionary to me. Am I wrong?

 

[A New Dawn]

How's this...

Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands? He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. 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 7:5-13)
​

I have presented evidence to support my claim that men have changed God's words and works. That evidence was spoken by the mouth of Jesus Christ. It is not conjecture. So when a boy says that Jesus Christ once again has said directly to him that men have changed his words and works, I already have cause to believe that the boy's witness may be true. Should I find more instances in which men have changed what God has given them, my confidence in the possibility that it has happened again will increase yet more. Should I find prophecies in sources already established in my mind and heart by spiritual means to be inspired, indicating that men would abandon or change truth for reasons whatever, my confidence in this possibility will increase still. And so on...

I was looking more for evidence concerning changing what Christ said, or the apostles, but this example is a prime reason why the church took great pains to make sure that they did not change the text when they copied the texts to distribute and preserve them.

So, could you provide examples of where plain and precious parts of the Bible were lost, added or changed? That is, after all, what Joseph Smith was talking about when he made the accusation.

 

[Ran77]

If a person hears the gospel according to Mormonism and rejects it, there are the consequences, plainly laid out. It sounds pretty exclusionary to me. Am I wrong?

What happens in non-LDS Christianity when a person hears the gospel and then rejects it?


:o

 

[Rescued One]

With all due respect, you didn't know it, or you'd have commented about it correctly.

You show no respect when you call another CF member a liar.

 

[SoftSpoken]

I'm not talking about favoritism at all- not even close. I'm talking about the natural consequences of free-agency choices made. Verse 74 of Section 84 states: Verily, verily, I say unto you, they who believe not on your words, and are not baptized in water in my name, for the remission of their sins, that they may receive the Holy Ghost, shall be damned, and shall not come into my Father’s kingdom where my Father and I am. (emphasis mine)

If a person hears the gospel according to Mormonism and rejects it, there are the consequences, plainly laid out. It sounds pretty exclusionary to me. Am I wrong?

You are not wrong in your assessment that there are consequences. If you are right that it is exclusionary, then so is every other Christian sect or belief system that believes these words of Christ:

"And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." (mark 16:15-16)
​

And if that's the case, I sense a very serious double-standard.

 

[Rescued One]

X