If you reject the LDS message...

[SoftSpoken]

"Those who reject it" would include a broad spectrum of folks, not necessarily limited to those who investigated Mormonism and decided not to join, as well as those of us who did join and later realized we had made a serious mistake and un-joined. I've been in the latter category for seven years now and have known many, many people in both - and the longer I'm out, the more I'm finding in both.

When you say we "like" to say we are excluded by others - who are these others? Members of the LDS church? Please elucidate. Thanks.

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.

 

[A New Dawn]

This is your opinion only. My opinion differs. I find no contradiction.

And no one has suggested you act contrary to your conscience.

You are using the same argument against Mormonism that was used against the early Christians. That might just be the most wonderful thing I've heard in a long time. It is a compliment to my faith that is not easily topped. Absolutely no sarcasm there.

There is no problem but with not accepting God whenever he speaks. In my opinion, anyway.

But the contradiction indicates that it is not God issuing both "revelations". The God of the Bible does not change. God, himself, would not tell everyone that salvation requires no works on our part, that faith alone is salvific, and then turn around and contradict that very statement by ordering further works to be done.

Christ fulfilled the law. Why would he turn around and establish another law?

 

[skylark1]

It is, indeed, gnosis when an isolated group claims to hold the secrets of salvation, and makes them available to a small, select group of believers. Indeed, not even all within Mormonism are going to be saved.

You are using the same argument against Mormonism that was used against the early Christians. That might just be the most wonderful thing I've heard in a long time. It is a compliment to my faith that is not easily topped. Absolutely no sarcasm there.

I think that this might be what Dawn had in mind.

One thing followed from all this Gnosticism was a highly intellectual way of life and thought. There was this long series of emanations between a man and God; man must fight his way up a long ladder to get to God. In order to do that he would need all kinds of secret knowledge and esoteric learning and hidden passwords. If he was to practice a rigid asceticism, he would need to know the rules; and so rigid would his asceticism be that it would be impossible for him to embark on the ordinary activities of life. The Gnostics were, therefore, quite clear that the higher reaches of religion were open only to the chosen few. This conviction of the necessity of belonging to an intellectual religious aristocracy precisely suits the situation at Colosse.

The Gnostic heresy​

I hope that helps.

(And that Dawn will correct me if I was mistaken.)

 

[SoftSpoken]

Moodshadow brought this to my attention with her response to you. I am not concerned so much about exclusion. We had LDS neighbors move in next door and I was asked to baby-sit their youngest. I wasn't excluded as a possible baby-sitter. I don't even care if LDS want to curse me or not curse me(I've been bought by the blood). Other LDS have not treated me as kindly. I'll live whether people include me or exclude me.

However, people must wonder why your scriptures say to curse the person who rejects Mormonism (free agency has nothing to do with this discussion). These scriptures that I posted from the D&C are not in keeping with how Christ told us to treat others (Christian or non-Christian). These verses do not say if they are Protestant or Catholic, curse them. If they are Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, atheist, or whatever, they are to be cursed for rejecting the LDS message.

I do not question why Christ curses some and not others. It is his right to determine who he curses. Why did he instruct the ancient apostles to shake the dust from their feet against those who would not receive or hear them, thereby securing for those a fate worse than Sodom and Gomorrha? Is that in harmony with the same teachings that you seem to think the commandment given to the Latter-Day Saints goes against?

 

[skylark1]

I do not question why Christ curses some and not others. It is his right to determine who he curses. Why did he instruct the ancient apostles to shake the dust from their feet against those who would not receive or hear them, thereby securing for those a fate worse than Sodom and Gomorrha? Is that in harmony with the same teachings that you seem to think the commandment given to the Latter-Day Saints goes against?

I hope that you don't mind my input.

I think that the symbolic shaking off of the dust from their feet was similar to when Pilate washed his hands when Jesus was sent to him. Pilate had tried to free Jesus. He encouraged Jesus to defend himself, he offered to the crowd the choice of freeing either Jesus or Barabbus, he pleaded with the crowd, "What crime has he committed?" But the crowd only yelled louder to crucify Jesus. So Pilate washed his hands as symbol that he was innocent of the murder of Jesus.

In the same way, the disciples were to shake off the dust of their feet to show that they were not responsible for whatever judgment that people received for rejecting Christ. In itself, it wasn't a curse but a symbol that absolved them from any responsibility for these people's decision to reject Christ and the result of doing so.

 

[SoftSpoken]

I hope that you don't mind my input.

I don't mind at all. These are public discussions, and I think the more people that get involved, the better they usually are.

I think that the symbolic shaking off of the dust from their feet was similar to when Pilate washed his hands when Jesus was sent to him. Pilate had tried to free Jesus. He encouraged Jesus to defend himself, he offered to the crowd the choice of freeing either Jesus or Barabbus, he pleaded with the crowd, "What crime has he committed?" But the crowd only yelled louder to crucify Jesus. So Pilate washed his hands as symbol that he was innocent of the murder of Jesus.

In the same way, the disciples were to shake off the dust of their feet to show that they were not responsible for whatever judgment that people received for rejecting Christ. In itself, it wasn't a curse but a symbol that absolved them from any responsibility for these people's decision to reject Christ and the result of doing so.

Thanks for your understanding. I fully agree that inherent in it is the symbolic casting off of the sins of those who reject the testimony. That Christ told them that this action was a "witness against them" indicates to me that the action is also a sealing up of judgment "against" them. It was definitely an act against (in opposition to, in contrary to) those who rejected the witness. I believe that those very testimonies are recorded in heaven, and will be brought to the bar of God on the judgment day, provided, of course that those who were so witnessed against by the Lord's servants remained permanently on that same course.

In accordance with the definition of curse as it applies in the context of all verses in the Standard works that reference the shaking of the dust off one's feet (definition below), I neither find that the instruction given in the latter days to curse those who reject the witness is in disharmony with any other commandment of God, nor that it implies anything other than the sealing up of judgment, which is exactly what I believe the "ordinance" of shaking the dust off one's feet has always signified.

CURSE:

In the scriptures, a curse is the application of divine law that allows or brings judgments and their consequences upon a thing, person, or people primarily because of unrighteousness. Curses are a manifestation of God’s divine love and justice. They may be invoked directly by God or pronounced by his authorized servants. Sometimes, the full reasons for curses are known only to God. In addition, a cursed state is experienced by those who willfully disobey God and thereby withdraw themselves from the Spirit of the Lord.

The Lord may remove curses because of the individual’s or people’s faith in Jesus Christ and obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel.

Guide to the Scriptures: Curse, Curses
​

 

[Obiwan]

Those who reject the LDS message here on earth seem to be in a lot of trouble.

And when is the last time that new converts gave the missionaries food, clothing and money (Whoso receiveth you receiveth me; and the same will feed you, and clothe you, and give you money)?

When the vail is lifted from our eyes, if the "LDS message" is in fact God's message, then obviously all will know it and accept it. The reason for Temple Work is so ALL can receive of that message, as has been commanded. Christ came to save ALL MANKIND, not simply the "Evangelical Christian" who knew a particular set of Doctrines in this life.

Your other statement is odd to me..... LDS and the Church help the missionary's all the time. Missionary's have no need to worry about their sustenance. Obviously "we have recieved" the message. So, why do you "add" to the scriptures saying ONLY "converts" should feed and clothe missionary's???

 

[skylark1]

Thanks for your understanding. I fully agree that inherent in it is the symbolic casting off of the sins of those who reject the testimony. That Christ told them that this action was a "witness against them" indicates to me that the action is also a sealing up of judgment "against" them. It was definitely an act against (in opposition to, in contrary to) those who rejected the witness. I believe that those very testimonies are recorded in heaven, and will be brought to the bar of God on the judgment day, provided, of course that those who were so witnessed against by the Lord's servants remained permanently on that same course.

In accordance with the definition of curse as it applies in the context of all verses in the Standard works that reference the shaking of the dust off one's feet (definition below), I neither find that the instruction given in the latter days to curse those who reject the witness is in disharmony with any other commandment of God, nor that it implies anything other than the sealing up of judgment, which is exactly what I believe the "ordinance" of shaking the dust off one's feet has always signified.

What exactly do you mean by "sealing up to judgment?"

I didn't realize that LDS considered shaking the durst off one's feet to be an "ordinance."

 

[SoftSpoken]

But the contradiction indicates that it is not God issuing both "revelations". The God of the Bible does not change. God, himself, would not tell everyone that salvation requires no works on our part, that faith alone is salvific, and then turn around and contradict that very statement by ordering further works to be done.

Christ fulfilled the law. Why would he turn around and establish another law?

You are so right. God does not change. Men do. And men have a history of changing what God gives them, at which point it no longer is God's. When that happens, a restoration of what is God's is needed, if men have any interest in following God over man. As long as people look at the Restoration through Protestant goggles, it will make no sense.

 

[Rescued One]

CURSE:
Curses are a manifestation of God’s divine love and justice. They may be invoked directly by God or pronounced by his authorized servants.

Christ did not tell His servants to curse anyone. The Doctrine and Covenants were said to come from Christ.

 

[Obiwan]

But the contradiction indicates that it is not God issuing both "revelations". The God of the Bible does not change. God, himself, would not tell everyone that salvation requires no works on our part, that faith alone is salvific, and then turn around and contradict that very statement by ordering further works to be done.

Salvation doesn't require "works"..... The Final Judgement does. And depending on the judgement we will get our reward, our Mansion in Heaven.

By the way, the God of the Bible "does" change according to the needs of His Children. For example, God originally gave Moses the Higher Law, but due to the wickedness of the people, God instead gave Moses the lesser Law, the 10 Commandments.

Further, if God doesn't change, why did Christ come and establish and entirely New Religion, not putting new wine into an old jar? It's because men had changed the religion to where it no was no longer the original "pure" one. Likewise in the latter-days, God needed to Restore what was once lost as was prophecied prior to His Comming.

Christ fulfilled the law. Why would he turn around and establish another law?

Who say's he established "another law"? He simply Restored the original again.

Rev. 14: 6
6 And I saw another aangel fly in the midst of heaven, having the beverlasting cgospel to dpreach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every enation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,

The thing you simply need to deal with, is IF "pure" Christianity has been maintained, why would this Angel need to be bringing the Everlasting Gospel to the earth??? The answer is, is this angel wouldn't be.

 

[SoftSpoken]

What exactly do you mean by "sealing up to judgment?"

I just mean to say that the witness borne in the shaking of the dust off one's feet is held... reserved... on the books... in heaven until the day of judgment, at which time it will be brought as evidence against the person who rejects the witness he had been given. Sealed would indicate that the witness will remain on the books until the individual's faith, repentance, etc. would call for its removal. It was a general use of the phrase that I was employing.

I didn't realize that LDS considered shaking the durst off one's feet to be an "ordinance."

The term refers to different things in different contexts:

ORDINANCES

"Sacred rites and ceremonies. Ordinances consist of acts that have spiritual meanings. Ordinances can also mean God’s laws and statutes." Guide to the Scriptures: Ordinances

I think that it fits the middle one pretty good.

 

[SoftSpoken]

Christ did not tell His servants to curse anyone. The Doctrine and Covenants were said to come from Christ.

Well, inherent in the dusting off of one's feet in ancient times was the pronouncement of judgment. The definition of curse that I provided and that you quoted makes it VERY clear that the two are synonymous.

Curse = invoking of God's justice.

Shake the dust off of one's feet in ancient times = invoking of God's justice (in the future).

Shake the dust off of one's feet in modern times = invoking of God's justice (in the future).

So if these two are the same, and the latter act was equated to cursing the person witnessed against, then to witness against someone in former times was to curse them.

 

[A New Dawn]

You are so right. God does not change. Men do. And men have a history of changing what God gives them, at which point it no longer is God's. When that happens, a restoration of what is God's is needed, if men have any interest in following God over man. As long as people look at the Restoration through Protestant goggles, it will make no sense.

Can you show me where there is a history of men changing what God has given them? I am assuming that you have some proof, and not just JS's word on the subject. I mean, that we have been finding older and older documents, and they all support what we have now. The very few instances of someone altering a text (like the Johannine comma, for example) has been discussed here several times, and the very few instances we have do not constitute a "history of men changing what God has given [us]", especially when the alteration consists of borrowing a portion of another text by the same author that is already incorporated in scripture.

We have shown, here in this forum, how what JS did was change the text of what God has given us to come up with some pretty unbiblical doctrines. When you make the claim that 'there is a history of men changing what God has given [us]', it should be supported by evidence. Otherwise, it is just conjecture.

 

[SoftSpoken]

Can you show me where there is a history of men changing what God has given them?

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)
​

We have shown, here in this forum, how what JS did was change the text of what God has given us to come up with some pretty unbiblical doctrines. When you make the claim that 'there is a history of men changing what God has given [us]', it should be supported by evidence. Otherwise, it is just conjecture.

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...

 

[skylark1]

Well, inherent in the dusting off of one's feet in ancient times was the pronouncement of judgment. The definition of curse that I provided and that you quoted makes it VERY clear that the two are synonymous.

Curse = invoking of God's justice.

Shake the dust off of one's feet in ancient times = invoking of God's justice (in the future).

Shake the dust off of one's feet in modern times = invoking of God's justice (in the future).

So if these two are the same, and the latter act was equated to cursing the person witnessed against, then to witness against someone in former times was to curse them.

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

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.

 

[Obiwan]

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

Then you'll be surprised that no such thing exists in the Church..... We have NEVER been taught to do such. And I've lived and went to many Wards in the Church in many areas.

 

[Rescued One]

Well, inherent in the dusting off of one's feet in ancient times was the pronouncement of judgment. The definition of curse that I provided and that you quoted makes it VERY clear that the two are synonymous.

Curse = invoking of God's justice.

Shake the dust off of one's feet in ancient times = invoking of God's justice (in the future).

Shake the dust off of one's feet in modern times = invoking of God's justice (in the future).

So if these two are the same, and the latter act was equated to cursing the person witnessed against, then to witness against someone in former times was to curse them.

Do those people who reject Mormonism curse the missionaries? Then what is it that the missionaries should do?

Matthew 5
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

Luke 6
27 But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,
28 Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.

Romans 12
14 Bless them which persecute you: bless, and curse not.

1 Corinthians 4
11 Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwellingplace;
12 And labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it:
13 Being defamed, we intreat: we are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all things unto this day.

Shaking the dust from one's feet is not to invoke God's judgment. Why would a believer need to invoke God's judgment on anyone? We certainly wouldn't invoke it on other believers. And those who are not believers are condemned already. Our only desire is that they believe, but if they don't we move on to tell the message to others who may come to believe.

Bless them which persecute you: bless, and curse not. When the disciples were martyred, they didn't take up arms to defend themselves. They did not have a weapon as Joseph Smith did. LDS may want to try to justify their cursing ordinance, but I see it as an abomination to God.

 

[Moodshadow]

Then you'll be surprised that no such thing exists in the Church..... We have NEVER been taught to do such. And I've lived and went to many Wards in the Church in many areas.

Really?? You and SoftSpoken seem to have polar-opposite opinions about this, Obi. Why, and which of you is correct?

Many years ago the missionaries in the Garland, Texas, area were directed by their priesthood leaders to shake the dust from their shoes and leave because they were apparently treated poorly by the residents there. I don't know how many years Garland went without missionaries, but finally it was decided to begin teaching there again, and now there are several wards in that fairly small town, which is just northeast of Dallas. I tell you this to point out that "shaking the dust from their feet" does in fact appear to meet the criteria delineated by SoftSpoken. If refusing to teach the people of Garland wouldn't qualify as a curse to Mormons, what would?

 

[Rescued One]

Then you'll be surprised that no such thing exists in the Church..... We have NEVER been taught to do such. And I've lived and went to many Wards in the Church in many areas.

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

And shake off the dust of thy feet against those who receive thee not, not in their presence, lest thou provoke them, but in secret; and wash thy feet, as a testimony against them in the day of judgment.
D&C 60:15