Still Unanswered.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Peace@Mar 13 2004, 11:39 AM

Okay..Cal here is my sermon on 'feelings/emotions vs. true spiritual manifestations

When one has emotions/feelings during a spiritual talk, or experience....and not the spiritual confirmation...you will be lifted for just a short time....

Then when things get tough or cloudy, or unspiritual, you will drop down emotionally and feel bad, disappointed...even angry at God.

That is because emotions/feelings are subjective....when they feel good, you feel good...

However, when you have a confirmation from the Spirit....you are given strength....enduring strength....strength even in hard times, unspiritual times, or even confusing times. Spiritual confirmation gives you 'steadfastness' even in trials...

There is a major difference between 'feelings/emotions and actual Spiritual confirmations.

There may be, but you haven't made the distinction. All you have said is that your 'spiritual manifestations' last longer. That is a difference in quantity, not quality. Or, in the alternative, what you may be saying is that the feelings your are refering to are different than than other feelings. The are still "feelings" and you have yet to show how they can't possibly arise from the same kind of origin. Maybe they do, but you haven't said anything that supports it. You have just said they have a different effect.

Different emotions come from different parts of the brain and are controlled by different neurotransmitters. Please show us how these special emotions arise from something external to your own brain.

BTW--I have no doubt that nature (or God) has built into us coping mechanisms. It is clear that neurotransmitters, like adrenaline, do exactly that. But, you don't need to go any furhter than neuroscience to explain it.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Cal+Mar 13 2004, 11:53 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Mar 13 2004, 11:53 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Peace@Mar 13 2004, 11:39 AM

Okay..Cal here is my sermon on 'feelings/emotions vs. true spiritual manifestations

When one has emotions/feelings during a spiritual talk, or experience....and not the spiritual confirmation...you will be lifted for just a short time....

Then when things get tough or cloudy, or unspiritual, you will drop down emotionally and feel bad, disappointed...even angry at God.

That is because emotions/feelings are subjective....when they feel good, you feel good...

However, when you have a confirmation from the Spirit....you are given strength....enduring strength....strength even in hard times, unspiritual times, or even confusing times. Spiritual confirmation gives you 'steadfastness' even in trials...

There is a major difference between 'feelings/emotions and actual Spiritual confirmations.

There may be, but you haven't made the distinction. All you have said is that your 'spiritual manifestations' last longer. That is a difference in quantity, not quality. Or, in the alternative, what you may be saying is that the feelings your are refering to are different than than other feelings. The are still "feelings" and you have yet to show how they can't possibly arise from the same kind of origin. Maybe they do, but you haven't said anything that supports it. You have just said they have a different effect.

Different emotions come from different parts of the brain and are controlled by different neurotransmitters. Please show us how these special emotions arise from something external to your own brain.

BTW--I have no doubt that nature (or God) has built into us coping mechanisms. It is clear that neurotransmitters, like adrenaline, do exactly that. But, you don't need to go any furhter than neuroscience to explain it.

Well I will say that anything that happens to us will have a physical effect tracable in the brain somewhere...but it doesn't mean it originated there.

Much of our stimulus originates from outside of our brain...touch, smells, visual sites....etc....they all stimulate the brain and create 'feelings'...so why not God/Spirit of God?

[Snow]

Originally posted by Cal@Mar 13 2004, 11:27 AM

I think that Snow's approach (though we often disagree on some things) is a reasonable one---though he respects the feelings he has about mormonism, when reality conflicts with some of the things that a lot of other mormons just take at face value (insisting on a literal interpretation of all of Genesis, or the whitewashed mormon history that most of us got in SS and Seminary classes) he is willing to question and revise. (Pardon me, Snow, for speaking for you--if I am off base, or misrepresent what you believe.)

My only point in refering to Snow was to point out that many people in the church consider themselves good mormons without relying TOTALLY on "feelings"--feelings can mislead and can be interpreted as the HG, when they are really just wishful thinking (I'm not saying the there is no influence of a HG, just that it is not always clear when one is feeling the HG and when one is hallucinating)---the only good check on this is by answering the question---

I'm glad that you recognize that my arguing with you about faith and reason is mostly an acadmic exercise. Faith (and the Spirit) cannot supplant reason and fact. In LDS philosophy, they are required to go together. In actual LDS practice, there are implementation problems and we are asked to suspend reason or so it sometimes seems.

You know what I do? If a question is raised - say like a worldwide ancient flood - I have my academic opinion and if it is out of whack with the orthodox Church opinion (which there may not even be one) then I adopt the attitude that it is non-essential for salvation and therefore any opinion of the Brethren need not have been inspired, even if there thought it was inspired. Non-critical to salvation = non-issue.

Now, on something like the translation of the Book of Mormon, I think that what is known is consistent with a divine process. It doesn't prove it, but it is plausible - for me, so I adopt it as a matter of faith. Other's disagree and that's fine, either they don't have faith or they different reasoning tools.

However Cal, I do believe that the Spirit is real and imparts knowledge. I believe that I have been on the receiving end of that knowledge. You call it emotion. I agree that much of it is, even for myself, but I also believe that there is a qualitative difference to the Spirit. Unfortunately, unless you have experienced the mystery, you don't know what I know - so to speak. Leap of faith my friend...

[Jason]

Peace,

You said: "It's a matter of being a part of an order...so that not just anyone is running around performing ordinances without record or authorization."

Okay. Many Christian "churches" have this order....

"The one thing these unworthy men have is the 'authorization' from the organization. Also, if they are only temporarily unworthy...they can receive the authority back from God at His will."

Again, other's have authorization. (especially the Catholic church whose authorization stems from St. Peter.)

"The foundation of the priesthood is faith... the power of the priesthood is charity/pure love of Christ...and the authority of the priesthood is the order."

Soooo, this sort of invalidates the exclusive LDS claim, don't you think?

Jason

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Cal@Mar 13 2004, 11:27 AM

I have to disagree...that we can know it....and not just by faith.

The fruits are proof...miracles, spiritual insights, profound peace, the feeling of being attended by the Spirit...

Drugs will do all that too, are they divine?

Why always take a smart-alecky approach, Cal?

Drugs might make you feel that way for a while, but they are man-induced feelings, they go away, and in order to get the feeling back you have to go get another fix. And after a while, it gets to be addicting. And expensive. And to pay for it, you have to start stealing and maybe even hurting people to get the money you need for your next fix.

Which of those fruits are good?

Jenda--give me a break! I wasn't advocating the use of drugs! My point is that just because you have those feelings doesn't mean they come from outside your own head---your brain is capable of "feeling" all kinds of things( which is the point of the drug reference) and you don't need to assume they come from anywhere besides your own head. It is well understood by neuro-science that the human brain has a bevy of neuro-transmitterst that are responsible for the feelings and emotions that we get. By stimulating various parts of the brain a neurologist can cause you to have the same kinds of feelings that people describe as religious epiphanies.

My point: Feelings, BY THEMSELVES, without some basis in external evidence, are not a good barometer of whether you have found the truth. Truth always requires a REALITY check. IOW, "feelings" generated truth is not reliable in the face of external evidence to the contrary.

A good feeling about what is otherwise rational and reasonable is iceing on the cake, but is not the cake itself.

I think that Snow's approach (though we often disagree on some things) is a reasonable one---though he respects the feelings he has about mormonism, when reality conflicts with some of the things that a lot of other mormons just take at face value (insisting on a literal interpretation of all of Genesis, or the whitewashed mormon history that most of us got in SS and Seminary classes) he is willing to question and revise. (Pardon me, Snow, for speaking for you--if I am off base, or misrepresent what you believe.)

My only point in refering to Snow was to point out that many people in the church consider themselves good mormons without relying TOTALLY on "feelings"--feelings can mislead and can be interpreted as the HG, when they are really just wishful thinking (I'm not saying the there is no influence of a HG, just that it is not always clear when one is feeling the HG and when one is hallucinating)---the only good check on this is by answering the question---does this feeling comport with what I see in front of me in the real world? I seriously doubt that a just God would punish one for using the brain he has given us. Even JS said that we are not to be commanded in all things---which says to me that JS recognized that we need to be using our own brain, faculties and talents to make decisions about what is true and correct about the world we live in.

Cal, think about what I wrote.

You stated that you can't rely on feelings. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID, TOO! I said that instead of relying on feelings, look at the fruits the feelings bring on. In a God-inspired experience, the fruits are good fruits. Love, justice, peace, doing good to/for others, etc. In the alternate experience YOU chose to compare it with, the fruits of the experience were not good. Addiction, stealing, assaulting, etc.

I think that you assume a lot of things about most of us that post here. For example, I am pretty conversant regarding church history. I do not assume that the white-washed version is necessarily accurate. I read all accounts, and I study and pray about them. I accept many things that have been revealed. I don't wear blinders. However, where people try to tie things together with a lot of ifs and maybes, I don't accept them. I feel that some people are vindictive, and would try to pull a conspiracy out of thin air if they thought it would convict someone for something.

Yes, I do believe in having faith, and faith leads to knowledge. But if you are talking of knowledge as the world gives, I don't really need it. Faith is much more fulfilling to me. But thanks for your concern and interest.

[Helen Mar Kimball]

The Deseret News Church Section for July 11, 1970, told of an interesting case:

"Mr. and Mrs. John Lono Pea are an amazing couple....he was set apart as genealogy secretary.

"'I found out through my family telling me and in genealogy work that a grandparent was an offspring of one of the Negroes who mirated to Hawaii in 1820, through the slave trade.

"'I have a sure testimony that what the Lord has said regarding the priesthood is true. I sent my genealogy to the First Presidency so there would be no chance of my getting the priesthood through any means except when the Lord wills it.

"'I don't want to offend God by trying to have it because someone through the goodness of their heart, wants me to have it....'"

Unless there is another man in Hawaii with the name "John L. Pea there is reason to believe that Mr. Pea was mistakenly ordained to the priesthood and performed baptisms and other ordinances before his ancestry was discovered. The following is from a Council meeting held Oct.29,1936:

"Letter read from President W. Francis Bailey of the Hawaiian Mission stating that Brother William Pakale, a priest, and Brother John L.Pea, who have recently been discovered to be one-eighth negro, have heretofore officiated in performing some baptisms and other ordinances. President Bailey asks for a ruling as to what should be done in such cases.

"After some discussion of the matter, Elder Stephen L. Richards moved that the matter be referred to Elder George Albert Smith, who will attend the approaching Oaho Stake Conference, with instructions that in the event he should find that a considerable number of people are involved, we assuming the authority was given to those brethren to officiate in these ordinances, that ratification of their acts be authorized. In the event he should discover that there are only one or two affected, and that the matter can be readily taken care of, it may be advisable to have re-baptism performed.

"Motion seconded by Brother Ballard and unanimously approved." (Council Minutes, Oct. 29, 1936, Bennion papers, typed copy; also cited by Lester Bush in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Spring 1973, p. 141)

[Cal]

Originally posted by Peace@Mar 13 2004, 12:00 PM

Okay..Cal here is my sermon on 'feelings/emotions vs. true spiritual manifestations

When one has emotions/feelings during a spiritual talk, or experience....and not the spiritual confirmation...you will be lifted for just a short time....

Then when things get tough or cloudy, or unspiritual, you will drop down emotionally and feel bad, disappointed...even angry at God.

That is because emotions/feelings are subjective....when they feel good, you feel good...

However, when you have a confirmation from the Spirit....you are given strength....enduring strength....strength even in hard times, unspiritual times, or even confusing times. Spiritual confirmation gives you 'steadfastness' even in trials...

There is a major difference between 'feelings/emotions and actual Spiritual confirmations.

There may be, but you haven't made the distinction. All you have said is that your 'spiritual manifestations' last longer. That is a difference in quantity, not quality. Or, in the alternative, what you may be saying is that the feelings your are refering to are different than than other feelings. The are still "feelings" and you have yet to show how they can't possibly arise from the same kind of origin. Maybe they do, but you haven't said anything that supports it. You have just said they have a different effect.

Different emotions come from different parts of the brain and are controlled by different neurotransmitters. Please show us how these special emotions arise from something external to your own brain.

BTW--I have no doubt that nature (or God) has built into us coping mechanisms. It is clear that neurotransmitters, like adrenaline, do exactly that. But, you don't need to go any furhter than neuroscience to explain it.

Well I will say that anything that happens to us will have a physical effect tracable in the brain somewhere...but it doesn't mean it originated there.

Much of our stimulus originates from outside of our brain...touch, smells, visual sites....etc....they all stimulate the brain and create 'feelings'...so why not God/Spirit of God?

Peace--show me WHERE outside the brain these feelings arise from and I will be impressed.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Snow+Mar 13 2004, 12:13 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Mar 13 2004, 12:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Mar 13 2004, 11:27 AM

I think that Snow's approach (though we often disagree on some things) is a reasonable one---though he respects the feelings he has about mormonism, when reality conflicts with some of the things that a lot of other mormons just take at face value (insisting on a literal interpretation of all of Genesis, or the whitewashed mormon history that most of us got in SS and Seminary classes) he is willing to question and revise. (Pardon me, Snow, for speaking for you--if I am off base, or misrepresent what you believe.)

My only point in refering to Snow was to point out that many people in the church consider themselves good mormons without relying TOTALLY on "feelings"--feelings can mislead and can be interpreted as the HG, when they are really just wishful thinking (I'm not saying the there is no influence of a HG, just that it is not always clear when one is feeling the HG and when one is hallucinating)---the only good check on this is by answering the question---

I'm glad that you recognize that my arguing with you about faith and reason is mostly an acadmic exercise. Faith (and the Spirit) cannot supplant reason and fact. In LDS philosophy, they are required to go together. In actual LDS practice, there are implementation problems and we are asked to suspend reason or so it sometimes seems.

You know what I do? If a question is raised - say like a worldwide ancient flood - I have my academic opinion and if it is out of whack with the orthodox Church opinion (which there may not even be one) then I adopt the attitude that it is non-essential for salvation and therefore any opinion of the Brethren need not have been inspired, even if there thought it was inspired. Non-critical to salvation = non-issue.

Now, on something like the translation of the Book of Mormon, I think that what is known is consistent with a divine process. It doesn't prove it, but it is plausible - for me, so I adopt it as a matter of faith. Other's disagree and that's fine, either they don't have faith or they different reasoning tools.

However Cal, I do believe that the Spirit is real and imparts knowledge. I believe that I have been on the receiving end of that knowledge. You call it emotion. I agree that much of it is, even for myself, but I also believe that there is a qualitative difference to the Spirit. Unfortunately, unless you have experienced the mystery, you don't know what I know - so to speak. Leap of faith my friend...

Snow---I suppose we have all experienced our "mysteries". The fact that you call it a mystery makes me think that it may be just that. But, hey, no one will ever know what is inside another persons mind. So, I respect what ever you say about it for yourself.

I once had an experience in the mission field that felt like I had a view of what one might call "all knowledge" or complete conscienciousness of the universe. But, in retrospect, it didn't ACTUALLY convey any knowledge at all, it was simply a "feeling" which I can now clearly write off as an altered mental state--probably brought on by excessive fasting (low blood sugar).

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Mar 13 2004, 08:35 PM

Peace,

You said: "It's a matter of being a part of an order...so that not just anyone is running around performing ordinances without record or authorization."

Okay. Many Christian "churches" have this order....

"The one thing these unworthy men have is the 'authorization' from the organization. Also, if they are only temporarily unworthy...they can receive the authority back from God at His will."

Again, other's have authorization. (especially the Catholic church whose authorization stems from St. Peter.)

"The foundation of the priesthood is faith... the power of the priesthood is charity/pure love of Christ...and the authority of the priesthood is the order."

Soooo, this sort of invalidates the exclusive LDS claim, don't you think?

Jason

Brigham Young and Joseph Smith both believed that the christians churches of their day held the aaronic priesthood...they just didn't have the Melchizadec priesthood.

so....it is exclusive...but not as exclusive as some might think.

However.. the church's teachings on eternal marriage, and work for the dead is as exclusive as it gets....I know of no other religion that does temple work like we do.

that is because it was restored...in it's fullness through Joseph Smith.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Cal@Mar 13 2004, 10:44 PM

Okay..Cal here is my sermon on 'feelings/emotions vs. true spiritual manifestations

When one has emotions/feelings during a spiritual talk, or experience....and not the spiritual confirmation...you will be lifted for just a short time....

Then when things get tough or cloudy, or unspiritual, you will drop down emotionally and feel bad, disappointed...even angry at God.

That is because emotions/feelings are subjective....when they feel good, you feel good...

However, when you have a confirmation from the Spirit....you are given strength....enduring strength....strength even in hard times, unspiritual times, or even confusing times. Spiritual confirmation gives you 'steadfastness' even in trials...

There is a major difference between 'feelings/emotions and actual Spiritual confirmations.

There may be, but you haven't made the distinction. All you have said is that your 'spiritual manifestations' last longer. That is a difference in quantity, not quality. Or, in the alternative, what you may be saying is that the feelings your are refering to are different than than other feelings. The are still "feelings" and you have yet to show how they can't possibly arise from the same kind of origin. Maybe they do, but you haven't said anything that supports it. You have just said they have a different effect.

Different emotions come from different parts of the brain and are controlled by different neurotransmitters. Please show us how these special emotions arise from something external to your own brain.

BTW--I have no doubt that nature (or God) has built into us coping mechanisms. It is clear that neurotransmitters, like adrenaline, do exactly that. But, you don't need to go any furhter than neuroscience to explain it.

Well I will say that anything that happens to us will have a physical effect tracable in the brain somewhere...but it doesn't mean it originated there.

Much of our stimulus originates from outside of our brain...touch, smells, visual sites....etc....they all stimulate the brain and create 'feelings'...so why not God/Spirit of God?

Peace--show me WHERE outside the brain these feelings arise from and I will be impressed.

I shouldn't want to impress you. Only enlighten you.

What do you want...? Are you asking to know where God/Spirit of God is? Where it comes from to stimulate brain activity? How about from the LIGHT? Or LIFE? Where ever you see light, there is God, where ever you see life...there is God. Read the 88th section of the Doctrine & Covenants.

Death is even God doing His work among us and we are touched. We feel emotions and power beyond our own making decisions and causing things to happen. Death is a good one to serve as God/Spirit of God effecting our brains, making us feel something beyond our control, or our influence.

[Jason]

Peace,

You said: "Brigham Young and Joseph Smith both believed that the christians churches of their day held the aaronic priesthood...they just didn't have the Melchizadec priesthood."

Are you making that up, or do you have a reference?

"However.. the church's teachings on eternal marriage, and work for the dead is as exclusive as it gets....I know of no other religion that does temple work like we do."

Well, eternal marriage possibly, but work for the dead? No. Catholics believe that through their good works, they can help those who have died full of sin.

Jason

[Guest Starsky]

Peace,

You said: "Brigham Young and Joseph Smith both believed that the christians churches of their day held the aaronic priesthood...they just didn't have the Melchizadec priesthood."

Are you making that up, or do you have a reference?

I am not making it up. I read it in the 'Teachings of Brigham Young/or The Teachings of Joseph Smith'... I can't remember which because I have both and was reading both at the time I found it in there.

"However.. the church's teachings on eternal marriage, and work for the dead is as exclusive as it gets....I know of no other religion that does temple work like we do."

Well, eternal marriage possibly, but work for the dead? No. Catholics believe that through their good works, they can help those who have died full of sin.

Jason

I understand good works...but I am speaking about ordinances.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Peace@Mar 14 2004, 08:23 AM

Peace,

You said: "Brigham Young and Joseph Smith both believed that the christians churches of their day held the aaronic priesthood...they just didn't have the Melchizadec priesthood."

Are you making that up, or do you have a reference?

I am not making it up. I read it in the 'Teachings of Brigham Young/or The Teachings of Joseph Smith'... I can't remember which because I have both and was reading both at the time I found it in there.

"However.. the church's teachings on eternal marriage, and work for the dead is as exclusive as it gets....I know of no other religion that does temple work like we do."

Well, eternal marriage possibly, but work for the dead? No. Catholics believe that through their good works, they can help those who have died full of sin.

Jason

I understand good works...but I am speaking about ordinances.

Peace--do you believe they really said it and meant what they said?

If they (whoever said it) was right, then why did JTB have to come to JS to ordain him, he could have gone to the nearest Catholic church.

[Jason]

Peace,

You said: "I am not making it up. I read it in the 'Teachings of Brigham Young/or The Teachings of Joseph Smith'... I can't remember which because I have both and was reading both at the time I found it in there."

You know, I've read both those volumes (Joesph's volume was much more interesting by the way...) but I don't recall ever reading anything like what you've claimed.

You must be mistaken. Otherwise, why would Smith claim that John the Baptist visited him restoring the Aaronic Priesthood?

Your friend,

Jason

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Cal+Mar 14 2004, 08:28 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Mar 14 2004, 08:28 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Peace@Mar 14 2004, 08:23 AM

Peace,

You said: "Brigham Young and Joseph Smith both believed that the christians churches of their day held the aaronic priesthood...they just didn't have the Melchizadec priesthood."

Are you making that up, or do you have a reference?

I am not making it up. I read it in the 'Teachings of Brigham Young/or The Teachings of Joseph Smith'... I can't remember which because I have both and was reading both at the time I found it in there.

"However.. the church's teachings on eternal marriage, and work for the dead is as exclusive as it gets....I know of no other religion that does temple work like we do."

Well, eternal marriage possibly, but work for the dead? No. Catholics believe that through their good works, they can help those who have died full of sin.

Jason

I understand good works...but I am speaking about ordinances.

Peace--do you believe they really said it and meant what they said?

If they (whoever said it) was right, then why did JTB have to come to JS to ordain him, he could have gone to the nearest Catholic church.

Good point Cal...I think it was the restoring all things to it's correct order why they needed John The Baptist...

Also, this way the other churches could take no claim to the beginnings of the restored church...couldn't claim it was a break off etc..

But those were good points and questions Cal. :)

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Mar 14 2004, 10:22 AM

Peace,

You said: "I am not making it up. I read it in the 'Teachings of Brigham Young/or The Teachings of Joseph Smith'... I can't remember which because I have both and was reading both at the time I found it in there."

You know, I've read both those volumes (Joesph's volume was much more interesting by the way...) but I don't recall ever reading anything like what you've claimed.

You must be mistaken. Otherwise, why would Smith claim that John the Baptist visited him restoring the Aaronic Priesthood?

Your friend,

Jason

Do you recall in one of those books where they stated that each week they should invite the ministers to come speak because they could learn truth from all of them?

I don't know why you didn't come across the mention of other churches having the arronic P.... but I showed it to my husband ...so I know it was in one of them.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Peace+Mar 14 2004, 11:08 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Peace @ Mar 14 2004, 11:08 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--ExMormon-Jason@Mar 14 2004, 10:22 AM

Peace,

You said: "I am not making it up. I read it in the 'Teachings of Brigham Young/or The Teachings of Joseph Smith'... I can't remember which because I have both and was reading both at the time I found it in there."

You know, I've read both those volumes (Joesph's volume was much more interesting by the way...) but I don't recall ever reading anything like what you've claimed. 

You must be mistaken.  Otherwise, why would Smith claim that John the Baptist visited him restoring the Aaronic Priesthood? 

Your friend,

Jason

Do you recall in one of those books where they stated that each week they should invite the ministers to come speak because they could learn truth from all of them?

I don't know why you didn't come across the mention of other churches having the arronic P.... but I showed it to my husband ...so I know it was in one of them.

On a related topic---I have often found it difficult to reconcile two, what seem to be, contradictory lines of thought.

On the one had JS was quoting the Lord refering to other religions in terms like "draw near to me with their mouths", in the BoM it refers to the great and abomoniable church, and there are several other references to other churches as being of the devil etc.

But then, JS joined the Methodist church after being told by God to join none of them. JS was also quoted as saying that if he couldn't convert a person to mormonism, he would exort him to be faithful in his own. (now i can see the logic in that last statement)---its just that it is incongruent, on its face, with JS's own degradation of all the other religions, as described in the Bom and by his other comments.

I'll post this as a new thread