Why did Joseph have to start a new Church?


Upcountry
 Share

Recommended Posts

Heather: I have read the rules. I think this is no more controversial than some of what Joseph said himself. Please judge. I will accept your verdict. Sorry if it is too long.

When 14 year old Joseph Smith went to the grove to ask which church to join, all Christian churches (and all major churches on earth) believed (and still believe) that:

1) God is a spirit without body, parts, or passions; and,

2) The Christian rite of baptism denoting entrance into the Christian Faith is symbolic. It is not a required ordinance of God.

If God is spirit only, then the resurrected Jesus cannot be the same personage as God the Father as demanded by the Trinitarian Doctrine that The Father and the Son are one God. They cannot be the same God if the Son has a body and God the Father is a spirit only. [The claim that God the Son is the physical manifestation of God the Father is difficult to accept since the resurrected body of Jesus plays such a prominent role in Christianity and since we are all to be resurrected].

Jesus’ teaching of Mk: 16:16: “believe and be baptized and be saved; believe not and be damned” could not have been more explicit. It is a requirement. And, if a properly administered physical baptism is a requirement to enter heaven (for reasons unknown), then a loving and just god must provide a method for baptism for those already dead. Otherwise, heaven would be limited to those hearing the churches’ missionaries. If, instead, these words mean baptism is a just a symbol of membership in the Christian Church, as many Christian believe today, then any ritual called “Baptism” can provide the key to heaven. Mankind will gradually drift away from the baptism done in the correct form - just as the Reformed LDS Church has drifted away from the Doctrine of Baptism of the Dead.

In Acts, Chapter 19: 1-7, Paul showed us that baptism is not merely a symbol of the Christian faith. He re-baptized those who thought themselves Christians. He also showed us that we can examine doctrine to determine whether a particular church is true or false. Logic plays a role in selection of a religion. "By their fruits you shall know them" also means there can be no significant counterfeits.

Thus, Joseph Smith was told not to join any church since every church on earth at the time was wrong on at least these two points: the Trinity and the nature of baptism. A belief that God is a pure spirit does not really matter except for the logical error – an error not to be expected in the doctrine of a “True Church”. But a belief that baptism is a symbol and not a physical requirement matters greatly. A symbol can be modified with the times, de-emphasized, and even eliminated in a burst of ecumenical fervor (as is happening now). A physical requirement must be satisfied with the proper authority (the Priesthood) and in the proper form. It doesn't matter what you think, or what you think you do. It only matters what you do.

In Luke 4:6, Satan said “that [the world] is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it”. The world today worships a god of spirit without body, parts or passion. As Latter Day Saints, we are taught that The Father and The Son, Jesus, both have a body, that Satan is only a spirit and that baptism is a requirement not just a symbol of acceptance. Thus, to the world, LDS seem to be the cult of the Church of Jesus Christ in the Christian world, while to LDS we are the True Church in a world of the Church of Satan - AKA the “Great and Abominable Church”, AKA the “Whore of Babylon” (as Joseph said). These other churches also think us to be polytheists. It is notable that we are the only church in the world with these rather obvious doctrines. It seems that “By their fruit you shall know them.” also means that no counterfeit churches are allowed. You can tell the “True Church” by its doctrine.

I believe that all mankind is in every way eligible to enter heaven since LDS provides the proper baptism for them. They will be judged as we are judged - by the goodness of their souls. But, since their churches have no priesthood, they cannot participate in God’s ordinances. Their members are spiritually satisfied but they are sterile. Furthermore, their church organizations can and are being used against us as we fulfill our spiritual tasks using the Priesthood restored through Joseph Smith. Why do they do this? Why should they care? This makes no sense to me unless it is a sign that we are the “True” Church.

If it were only the choice of which church to join, I would join the LDS church. For me, the existence of God itself is the issue. Scientists view spiritual things with skepticism and cannot include God in any theory. But, we do accept unseen forces by noting their effects on others. When we see that a compass points north, we derive the theory of light. When we see galaxies behaving strangely, we deduce the existence of Black Holes. When I see the insanity in the Middle East and the pain and suffering in the world, I deduce that God and Satan exist and that the Bible contains their messages. Then, selection of the LDS Church as the logical True Church of God is easy. Of course, anyone can choose to be a skeptic. I cannot.

Edited by Upcountry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mat 9:16-17

16 No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment, for that which is put in to fill it up taketh from the garment, and the rent is made worse.

17 Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When 14 year old Joseph Smith went to the grove to ask which church to join, all Christian churches (and all major churches on earth) believed (and still believe) that:

1) God is a spirit without body, parts, or passions; and,

2) The Christian rite of baptism denoting entrance into the Christian Faith is symbolic. It is not a required ordinance of God.

First and foremost, the phrase "all Christian Churches" is both misleading and a "No True Scotsman" fallacy. In short, you are begging the question.

The Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, for example, believe the rite of baptism is salvific and essential, rather than merely symbolic.

Are you sincerely trying to suggest that they are not, by definition, Christian?

Second, the "without body, parts, or passions" nonsense crept into the Church as they began to incorporate elements of Greek philosophy in order to make Christianity "more palatable" to the intellectual elites of the day. It is neither Scriptural nor true- and one must literally "wrest" the Scriptures in order to read such things in.

Third, the "symbolic baptism", sola scriptura, and priesthood of all believers heresies crept into Protestantism when they tried to explain how their words were authoritative and yet those of the Church actually founded by the Apostles were not.

Each is an ad hoc rationalization designed to bolster a particular position, and none stands up to extended (and informed) scrutiny.

Thus, to the world, LDS seem to be the cult of the Church of Jesus Christ in the Christian world, while to LDS we are the True Church in a world of the Church of Satan - AKA the “Great and Abominable Church”, AKA the “Whore of Babylon” (as Joseph said). These other churches also think us to be polytheists. It is notable that we are the only church in the world with these rather obvious doctrines. It seems that “By their fruit you shall know them.” also means that no counterfeit churches are allowed. You can tell the “True Church” by its doctrine.

I believe that all mankind is in every way eligible to enter heaven since LDS provides the proper baptism for them. They will be judged as we are judged - by the goodness of their souls. But, since their churches have no priesthood, they cannot participate in God’s ordinances. Their members are spiritually satisfied but they are sterile. Furthermore, their church organizations can and are being used against us as we fulfill our spiritual tasks using the Priesthood restored through Joseph Smith. Why do they do this? Why should they care? This makes no sense to me unless it is a sign that we are the “True” Church.

As a faithful Latter-day Saint, I believe you are painting with too broad a brush here.

That there are those in other Churches who oppose us does not mean that all other Churches oppose us.

That there are heretics, and fools, and demons in other Churches does not mean that they are not sincere in their efforts to follow Christ.

Yes- we are the only "true" Church currently authorized and endowed by God to administer the necessary ordinances here on Earth.

But that doesn't for a moment mean that God will not find their "widow's mite"- offered out of their poverty- to be acceptable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New thoughtOf course, because God commanded him to.

But why did God have to have a new church? That is what I tried to explain.

If the new wine comments are directed at me, I guess I am.

The Catholic Church has so changed the rite of Baptism that it is meaningless. Sprinkles?? I leave it to your expertise to say whether the others post a claim our priesthood and perform the rite correctly.

They call themselves Christian so I guess they are according to their definition but would you call them the "True Church"? I don't. If you have another church with the properties of LDS in mind, let me know. I will investigate them.

Is there another significant faith that practices Baptism for the Dead? Which one?

The Jews, Muslims and the Catholic Church will not let us baptize their dead members. They also condemn us as heretics for our belief in the separate beings of Father and Son. An a true Muslim will try to kill us.

Of course there are good members in all churches and even those that are unbelievers. That is why I placed that paragraph in RED.

Are they not working against us?

Edited by Upcountry
New Thought
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They call themselves Christian so I guess they are according to their definition...

This game is one of semantics and pedanticism whether it's played by anti-Mormons or pro-Mormons, and it's just as futile in either case.

They are followers and disciples of Christ (however imperfectly they walk the path). That is sufficient to meet the standard definition used by most people of common sense, reason, and an open-mind.

but would you call them the "True Church"? I don't.

Actually, I don't particularly care what you call them.

As I stated above, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only organization with the authority to perform these ordinances.

That does not, however, automagically define everyone else as some sort of "counterfeit" Christian.

Does Christ love Mother Teresa one iota less than Thomas Monson?

Is the widow's mite she offered: a lifetime of selfless service to the best of her knowledge and ability; any less precious in the Lord's sight than Monson's offering?

The Jews, Muslims and the Catholic Church will not let us baptize their dead members. They also condemn us as heretics for our belief in the separate beings of Father and Son. An a true muslim will try to kill us.

SOME Jews, Muslims, and Catholics have sought to prevent us from performing baptisms for the dead. SOME of the them.

A tiny minority.

The vast majority neither no of the practice nor particularly care.

It is hyperbolic, bigoted, and foolish of you to tar all people in a particular group for the actions of a very few.

Further, you seem to have an obsession with "No True Scotsman" fallacies and bigoted stereotypes.

Not all Muslims are jihadis.

Leave the ignorant bigotry at home, please (no matter at whom it is directed).

There is no room for it here.

Are they not working against us?

Are they? Or are they simply following God to the best of their knowledge and understanding?

That our interests do not align does not mean "they" are out to get us, let alone actively opposing us.

You need to parse your remarks A LOT more carefully if you intend to be taken seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joseph didn't start a new church...... the Church that Christ established was restored...hence the restored Gospel. And just for purposes of clarification...Joseph's prayer was answered thus in the Sacred Grove:

"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.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By “all Christian Churches” I mean those without the “True” Priesthood. LDS is certainly a Christian church but because it also has the Priesthood, it is also the “true church”.

Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches do not perform the rite of baptism with authority or correctly. Of course, they call themselves Christian but that is not what Joseph calls them. God calls them "wrong". I call them "not true". Same meaning. Their rites are meaningless. That is why we baptize for them! It does not matter that they call their rites essential and not symbolic. To us, since they are not correctly performed and can change form with the wind, they are what I mean when I say “symbolic”

Re: body parts etc., it doesn’t matter where it crept in. It was part of the religious network that Joseph was asked to join. Since they were all wrong, Joseph could not join any of them.

Of course, LDS is a restored church and a continuation of that founded by Jesus and the early Apostles. It is not a new church. Must we discuss trivia?

Symbolic baptism is where you can baptize an infant by sprinkles or where you deem a person baptized because you say that he wanted it in his heart. A required rite must be done correctly in all parts. Your car will not run on water even if you are certain you have filled it with gas.

Many of the members do not care. But their leaders do and the policies of their organizations do care. That is why the LDS Church is very careful about who they baptize and ask permission of their families. They got into extensive troubles with the Jews and Catholics.

Did I not indicate that the “widow’s mite” would be accepted up there in the red part?

That other religions are sincere matters not. When Joseph was asked if one must be a Mormon to be saved, he said yes! And he answered correctly given the premise of the question.

The Prophet's Answer to Sundry Questions

"I answered the questions which were frequently asked me, while on my last journey but one from Kirtland to Missouri, as printed in the Elders' Journal, Vol. 1, Number 2, pages 28 and 29 as follows:

Third [question]-- "Will everybody be damned, but Mormons?"

Yes, and a great portion of them, unless they repent, and work righteousness.

To his mind, since our church had the only priesthood, and that was at that time the only way to get baptized, he answered correctly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By “all Christian Churches” I mean those without the “True” Priesthood. LDS is certainly a Christian church but because it also has the Priesthood, it is also the “true church”.

This is still a case of special pleading in which you apply a peculiar definition for the purposes of excluding those who disagree with you.

Such definitions are intellectually dishonest no matter who offers them, or for what purpose.

If you cannot make your case without deliberately perverting the language, then perhaps you'd best not make your case, at all.

Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches do not perform the rite of baptism with authority or correctly. Of course, they call themselves Christian but that is not what Joseph calls them.

Call For References: please demonstrate factually where Joseph denied that these churches were "Christian".

God calls them "wrong". I call them "not true". Same meaning. Their rites are meaningless. That is why we baptize for them! It does not matter that they call their rites essential and not symbolic. To us, since they are not correctly performed and can change form with the wind, they are what I mean when I say “symbolic”

Again, you are resorting to private definitions in order to demagogue the issue.

Re: body parts etc., it doesn’t matter where it crept in. It was part of the religious network that Joseph was asked to join. Since they were all wrong, Joseph could not join any of them.

Call For References.

Please demonstrate that Joseph was forbidden to join them because they were wrong, rather than because he was called to a greater work.

Yes, the Lord states plainly that they were all wrong, and that their creeds were an abomination. Nowhere, however, does he state that this was the sole, or even primary reason, why Joseph was forbidden to join them.

While you're at it you might address the fact that Joseph continued to worship with his family (a Presbyterian church, if I recall correctly) without actually becoming a member of the Church itself (as he had been commanded not to).

Of course, LDS is a restored church and a continuation of that founded by Jesus and the early Apostles. It is not a new church. Must we discuss trivia?

Considering the number of instances of special pleading, jaundiced definitions, and blatant intellectual honesty in your posts thus far, I believe that Bytor is perfectly justified in insisting upon specificity, accuracy, and pinning you down on the details.

Symbolic baptism is where you can baptize an infant by sprinkles or where you deem a person baptized because you say that he wanted it in his heart. A required rite must be done correctly in all parts. Your car will not run on water even if you are certain you have filled it with gas.

That does not make them any less devout or sincere in their efforts to follow Christ.

You are still trying to justify your casual redefining of the term "Christian"- and you are no nearer to accomplishing that goal.

Many of the members do not care. But their leaders do and the policies of their organizations do care. That is why the LDS Church is very careful about who they baptize and ask permission of their families. They got into extensive troubles with the Jews and Catholics.

Horse Pockey.

We got into troubles with a few isolated malcontents- including one who was committing fraud in order to "indict" the Church after they declined to pay her off.

Did I not indicate that the “widow’s mite” would be accepted up there in the red part?

No- on the contrary, you solemnly declared that despite their sincere desire and offering, they were not "Christian"- at least according to your peculiar definition of the term.

That other religions are sincere matters not. When Joseph was asked if one must be a Mormon to be saved, he said yes! And he answered correctly given the premise of the question.

You need to work on your reading comprehension.

Joseph's answer indicated that everyone- including Mormons- would be damned unless "they repent and work righteousness."

It was not "being Mormon" that would save, but repenting and working righteousness.

Without repenting and working righteousness, Mormons will be damned right alongside the rest of the heathens.

To his mind, since our church had the only priesthood, and that was at that time the only way to get baptized, he answered correctly.

Given the numerous problems with your posts thus far, I cannot help but wonder what rare combination of abilities and insights qualifies you to speak so definitively about Joseph's mind. Edited by selek
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to put on my head moderator hat here. While this is an LDS site, we love that members of other faiths join us. Heck we even have a non LDS chaplain as one of our moderators. That being said; this site will NOT be used to condemn or bash another religion. There is extremely little tolerance of that amongst the moderating staff.

We should be looking at what makes us similar instead of constantly pointing out the differences. We don't like it when people bash us as LDS, let's not put ourselves into the same category.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was reminded of this in another thread, but it seems very appropriate to the tack this conversation has sailed:

Luke 18:

10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.

11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.

12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

Given this, whom shall the Lord find worthy at that great and last day of judgement?

The Latter-day Saint who kept not his covenants, or the sinner who made no covenants and yet sought Christ in all that he did and said?

Unto whom shall the Lord be merciful?

The Latter-day Saint who prided himself on "not as other men are"?

Or the atheist who could not lift his eyes heavenward in his long life?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heather: I have read the rules. I think this is no more controversial than some of what Joseph said himself. Please judge. I will accept your verdict. Sorry if it is too long.

FYI: Heather doesn't come to this site. I happen to manage this site. You may have noticed in your greeting from her to forward any questions etc. to me. :) She is the VP of technology for the foundation that owns this site.

You have posted this in LDS discussions. This particular forum there is no debating of our beliefs. Just so you know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not mean to bash another church or even non-believers. Their churches do good work in that they bring thoughts of God and do service to our fellow man. There are exceptions both in the present and in history.

I do not mean that other Christian churches are not correctly called Christian. They follow Christ. It is just that (as far as I can tell) the essence of our temple work is to perform work for all the world that the world cannot perform for themselves. That is why we submit their names. That we baptize them in our temples is no reflection on their goodness or worthiness. Baptism correctly done by LDS in our temples seemed to me to be a required rite for everyone - not just LDS. I did not intend this as "bashing" - just a statement of the obvious.

Hence, I am astonished that I am thought bigoted.

Nevertheless, I accept the verdict of the community and offer my apologies.

Upcountry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Outsider view here, but if God told Joseph Smith to build a new church--one that would be the restoration of the New Testament church, then there's the basic answer. If the LDS understanding of church hierarchy is correct, and the priesthood had been lost, then he would have a new mission as well. If baptisms for the dead is not an obscurity from Corinth, but an essential part of the Plan of Salvation, then he had new work as well. I could go on, but it's pretty easy for me to see why Joseph Smith thought he had to start from scratch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mat 9:16-17

16 No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment, for that which is put in to fill it up taketh from the garment, and the rent is made worse.

I know this is only meant as an analogy, but it's one I never understood. When I was a kid my mother often patched my old jeans with newer material without any problems. OK I suppose the mend didn't last for ever, but clothes are not supposed to be eternal anyway.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Symbolic baptism is where you can baptize an infant by sprinkles or where you deem a person baptized because you say that he wanted it in his heart. A required rite must be done correctly in all parts. Your car will not run on water even if you are certain you have filled it with gas.

You hear that kind of argument all the time from fundamentalist Christians. It's a variation of the old idea that "sincerity is not enough because it's possible to be sincerely wrong". Your version rests on the assumption that God is analogous to an automobile - but is this true? If Jesus could turn water into wine, could he not also turn water into gasoline? ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus could create worlds and turn cats into rats if He wished (with the power of His Father). But He cannot impinge on our agency. We are different from the world and all of its creatures. There may be requirements to do things in a particular way for reasons we do not understand. Why does the Presiding officer in an ordinance make the priest repeat his sacrament prayer if it is incorrectly said? Why do we always have a clear line of authority in our meetings?

I have postulated that some things relating to the Children of God are higher than inert matter and ordinary creatures and, although it may seem strange to us, these things must be done correctly. We have our temples to do these things for those who cannot.

Neither Christ nor Satan can meddle with our agency and our ability to make our own choices since we are agents to ourselves.

Thank you for your understanding and comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't stomach to see a brother steamrolled as much as Upcountry has. There might be some context and history here I don't see, but from a plain reading of this thread he has been misused and maltreated. There is no love here, and less patience.

selek: you need to step out of the realm of cold logic and rationality and into the realm of real human emotions. You're not dealing with an automatic robot here, but a human being. You have to connect instead of steamroll. Right now you're using a sledgehammer when, judging by Upcountry's responses and humility in the face of your ferocious responses, a scalpel would have sufficed.

Furthermore, in your zeal to overtake Upcountry, you've made some egregious errors that most 16-year old Priests wouldn't make. That's not like you- you clearly have the gift of a sound mind, judging from this and other posts. What's more, you clearly treasure that sound mind, judging from your signature line.

Please demonstrate that Joseph was forbidden to join them because they were wrong, rather than because he was called to a greater work.

Yes, the Lord states plainly that they were all wrong, and that their creeds were an abomination. Nowhere, however, does he state that this was the sole, or even primary reason, why Joseph was forbidden to join them.

Joseph makes it quite clear from the now-official account of the First Vision that He was commanded to join none of them because they were wrong. JS-H 1:18-19:

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

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all 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've gone over the 1828 version of Webster's, and can't find any definition of the word "for" that allows any wiggle room for the reason that Joseph was commanded not to join any other churches (admittedly, I didn't read all 31 definitions- you're free to do so, if you want). Conversely, I did find multiple definitions that essentially render an acceptable substitute "because". In modern vernacular, the phrase would read "I must join none of them, because they were all wrong". Joseph went into the grove with one question which had two parts-- which church was right, and therefore which was the church he ought to join. He therefore received an answer which had two parts-- he should join none of them, because they were all wrong. The reason for the answer cannot be separated from the answer itself.

You've tried to invent wiggle room where there really is none. Furthermore, you need to provide references- preferably scriptural- that concretely state the Lord told Joseph, during the First Vision, that the reason he was supposed to join no church was because of the greater work in store for Joseph. There is no indication of Joseph realizing this "greater work" was in store for him until the appearance of Moroni a few years later.

Once you do provide those references, then the issue of Joseph attending Protestant churches with his family can be discussed.

You need to work on your reading comprehension.

Joseph's answer indicated that everyone- including Mormons- would be damned unless "they repent and work righteousness."

It was not "being Mormon" that would save, but repenting and working righteousness.

Without repenting and working righteousness, Mormons will be damned right alongside the rest of the heathens.

Might I suggest you take your own advice here?

Given the lack of context in the quote, and the unfortunate placing of the commas, it could be read to mean what you say- that everyone both non-Mormon and Mormon are damned unless they work righteousness. It could also be interpreted to mean that everyone non-Mormon is automatically damned, along with those Mormons who don't "repent and work righteousness".

However, given the context of the answer and the rest of his responses, we're not left with any room to believe that he meant the first interpretation (non-Mormons could be saved if they work righteousness). When answering questions about belief on the Bible, Joseph claimed that no other religions believed it, preferring their creeds and interpretations. If a man is saved "no faster than he gains knowledge" (Joseph Smith), and the Bible contains much of the truth and the Book of Mormon the fullness of the Gospel, and someone doesn't believe either, there is no room for then believing that that person will be saved- or even can work righteousness- without believing at least one.

Of course, we also have to remember that the entire foundation of the Church, God's work with man, etc. has been and continues to be the Priesthood and its ordinances. Without those ordinances, no man, no matter how righteous, can be saved; all are damned. Even Christ was baptized, to "fulfill all righteousness". Therefore, without accepting the rites and teachings of Mormonism- which is the fulness of the Gospel, which was preached since Adam- no one can be saved. If someone accepts all the rites and teachings of Mormonism, you might as well call them "Mormon"; whether that acceptance comes in this life or the next, it matters little.

Was reminded of this in another thread, but it seems very appropriate to the tack this conversation has sailed:

Luke 18:

10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.

11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.

12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

Given this, whom shall the Lord find worthy at that great and last day of judgement?

The Latter-day Saint who kept not his covenants, or the sinner who made no covenants and yet sought Christ in all that he did and said?

Unto whom shall the Lord be merciful?

The Latter-day Saint who prided himself on "not as other men are"?

Or the atheist who could not lift his eyes heavenward in his long life?

You're strongly implying by your post and your tone in this thread that Upcountry is the prideful Mormon in danger of the hellfire. If you don't mean to imply that, you need to work on your presentation. If you are implying that, then I refer you to the beams and motes parable.

Your question requires so many assumptions to be read into it to make it work the way you want it to, that it is practically useless. Furthermore, the two questions-- who is found worthy, and who will obtain mercy-- are different enough that the answer for each one can change independent of the other, depending on the circumstance. All the merciful shall obtain mercy, but only the righteous who have followed all the commandments of Christ are found "worthy" of eternal life, and that's only after being washed clean in the Blood of the Lamb.

Jesus' parable doesn't apply to the true atheist, whom you identify as the "sinner who made no covenants". In the parable, the difference was between two men who received the available ordinances of their time, and the difference pride makes in being justified through the spirit. Shifting the characters of the parable to an unrighteous covenant-maker and someone who made no covenants does so much damage to the parable that it falls apart and is useless. If the atheist is truly penitent and humble, his atheism is shed the moment he has his first contact with divinity- and because of the Light of Christ within that so-called atheist, I cannot imagine many, if any, scenarios in which that first contact would *not* be on this earth. Therefore, describing the man as an "atheist" on Judgment Day does damage to the underlying principles being discussed. I am harping on that term "atheist", but it still holds true for anyone who makes no covenants: if someone has the opportunity to make covenants and rejects that opportunity, they cannot be saved in the kingdom of God.

If we ignore all that and assume the atheist is somehow penitent his whole life, and a seeker of truth and righteousness, and accepts baptism after death, than the atheist would be "preferred" (in other words, he would obtain a higher degree of glory than the hypocrite who rejected or treated lightly the light and truth he received). Yet that steps outside the bounds of the parable. The publican couldn't look up because of his shame at breaking the laws of God. An atheist doesn't believe God exists to have any laws to break- therefore his act of "not looking up" would be because of a flippant disregard for the things of God, not out of fear. A penitent man who makes no covenants- even when the opportunity presents itself- isn't truly penitent, except perhaps from the worlds' viewpoint.

Your scenario is so confusing that it does more harm than good; it feeds into the "do your own thing, as long as you're a 'good person' you'll be saved!" mentality. While I won't say it is impossible for an atheist to be a true, humble follower of Christ and God- for all things are possible with God- I will say that your presentation of it confuses the basic principle being discussed here (baptism and the saving covenants/ordinances) so much that it is useless. And though you claim that this parable only has reference to the "tack this conversation has sailed", the entire context is still a discussion about authoritative ordinances.

You have a lot of useful information that could help Upcountry immensely as he seeks to refine his views and outlook. But if you continue to set yourself up as his enemy rather than his friend, you'll do much harm and little to no good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good evening Upcountry! It is a pleasure to meet you. :)

I do not mean to bash another church or even non-believers. Their churches do good work in that they bring thoughts of God and do service to our fellow man. There are exceptions both in the present and in history.

I do not mean that other Christian churches are not correctly called Christian. They follow Christ. It is just that (as far as I can tell) the essence of our temple work is to perform work for all the world that the world cannot perform for themselves. That is why we submit their names. That we baptize them in our temples is no reflection on their goodness or worthiness. Baptism correctly done by LDS in our temples seemed to me to be a required rite for everyone - not just LDS. I did not intend this as "bashing" - just a statement of the obvious.

Hence, I am astonished that I am thought bigoted.

Nevertheless, I accept the verdict of the community and offer my apologies.

Upcountry

I have absolutely no clue as to why you are being labeled bigoted. I don't understand selek's posts at all.

You are absolutely correct. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only true Church of God on this earth. Before it was restored on to this earth by Joseph Smith, all of the other churches here on this earth were wrong. All other churches and religions were and currently are incapable of providing what is necessary for us to receive eternal life.

ALL accountable people who wish to enter the Celestial Kingdom MUST be baptized while on the earth or through proxy. This true mode of baptism and the authority to baptize exist ONLY in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Baptism also allows entry in to God's church. Therefore, to enter the Celestial Kingdom you must be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Regards,

Finrock

Edited by Finrock
Clarification
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good evening Upcountry! It is a pleasure to meet you. :)

ALL accountable people who wish to enter the Celestial Kingdom MUST be baptized while on the earth or through proxy. This true mode of baptism and the authority to baptize exist ONLY in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Baptism also allows entry in to God's church. Therefore, to enter the Celestial Kingdom you must be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Regards,

Finrock

It is not membership in a Morman or LDS church that saves us. We are saved by access to The (True) Priesthood - the same authority as that of the Early Church and Adam. Those members were neither Mormons nor LDS. That said, I very much appreciate your thoughts and those of the earlier writer Mathew0059.

I am a scientist trained to be a skeptic, to depend on observation and logic, and to distrust faith. Yet I love God instinctively (I assume He exists) and believe Him to be loving, merciful and just. I also believe that the True Church may be determined by the consistency of their doctrine. That is why I am a stickler for theory and definitions. So far, the LDS Church has provided such consistency that I have become ever more convinced as I dig deeper into our scriptures.

Edited by Upcountry
Enter name
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In modern vernacular, the phrase would read "I must join none of them, because they were all wrong".

Matthew, I don't pretend that this is NOT a valid interpretation; but it remains an interpretation- one of many.

I was very precise in my phrasing: the accounts to which you are referring do not demonstrate that "they were wrong" was the whole, or even primary, reason that Joseph was not to join the various Churches.

I acknowledge that it is the only reason stated, but we have no reason to believe that there were not others.

Or to put it another way, "the lack of evidence is not evidence of lack".

It is quite possible that this reason was only one of many, and history lends evidence (not proof) to support such a notion.

Are you familiar at all with the reasoning behind the creation of the District of Columbia?

One of the primary rationales behind creating a Federal district was to ensure that no mere state or commonwealth could lay claim to the Federal capital. The states were, by definition, to be a union of equals, with none having any more prestige or authority than another- thus the capital became a district unto itself.

In the same vein, had Joseph (the future prophet) been a baptized or even ordained member of a particular sect, Mormonism (as it is commonly understood) would be defined (for better or worse, and with varying degrees of accuracy) as an offshoot of that sect.

Had Joseph been an Episcopalian, we as a people would be seen primarily as an offshoot of Episcopalianism, rather than what we rightly are: a restoration of Christ's true church.

While I don't disagree that your preferred interpretation is the most commonly accepted, that interpretation is neither mandatory, nor necessarily whole and complete.

Furthermore, you need to provide references- preferably scriptural- that concretely state the Lord told Joseph, during the First Vision, that the reason he was supposed to join no church was because of the greater work in store for Joseph. There is no indication of Joseph realizing this "greater work" was in store for him until the appearance of Moroni a few years later.
On the contrary, I need prove nothing of the sort.

I neither claim that God told Joseph such a thing, nor that Joseph was aware of the work (at this early juncture) of the work he would be called to do.

God's reasoning is his own, and we often understand his methods only in retrospect.

The lesson of the 118 pages, and the providential (quite literally, in fact) duplication of the record in 1 Nephi are a similar example.

Mormon (and Moroni), Joseph, and Martin only understood the Lord's wisdom and preparation after the manuscript had been lost.

The Lord did not indicate WHY this was wisdom before hand. His servants understood only after the lesson had been learned.

Neither you nor Upcountry have demonstrated that the fact they were in error was the primary- let alone only- reason why God forbade Joseph to join those Churches.

Might I suggest you take your own advice here?
You may suggest anything you like- but you have yet to provide any evidence that I am wrong.

Given the lack of context in the quote, and the unfortunate placing of the commas, it could be read to mean what you say- that everyone both non-Mormon and Mormon are damned unless they work righteousness. It could also be interpreted to mean that everyone non-Mormon is automatically damned, along with those Mormons who don't "repent and work righteousness".

Context is the heart of the problem: in order to reach his inflammatory conclusion and continue the bashing of anyone who doesn't believe exactly as he does, Upcountry has to ignore the last two centuries (give or take a decade and a half) of official Church doctrine and teaching.

He was cherry-picking a quote, twisting it to fit his agenda, and then pretending his interpretation was held by the Church as a whole.

Upcountry didn't get "steamrolled" for bearing his testimony; he got "steamrolled" for spouting anti-Christian bigotry as though it were the official policy of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

It is NOT, and no barracks-lawyering is going to change that simple fact.

... without accepting the rites and teachings of Mormonism- which is the fulness of the Gospel, which was preached since Adam- no one can be saved.
For the record, you are correct that the rites and teachings currently contained in Mormon theology are essential.

They are not, however, "Mormon" rites and teachings. They belong to the Church of the Firstborn, whose sole current incorporation is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

If someone accepts all the rites and teachings of Mormonism, you might as well call them "Mormon"; whether that acceptance comes in this life or the next, it matters little.
And thus we come to the crux of the matter: "in this life or the next."

The terms "Mormon" and "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" are temporary, transient terms.

We will not be known as "Mormons" or "Latter-day Saints" in the next world: but only as sons and daughters of God, or as members of the "Church of God".

Sectarian differences will be abolished. There will only be two categories- those who follow Christ and those who will not.

Do you really believe that someone who genuinely devoted her entire life to Christ would deny him afterward because some schmuck in a pointy hat told her to?

You don't think someone who spent his entire life seeking the true Christ will not recognize him when he sees him?

Yes- there will be those who were deceived and will choose a lesser glory. But can it honestly be said that such an one was a true disciple of Christ?

That they choose a lesser glory does not mean that the deception continues, only that they chose something other than the fulness of God's offering and redemption.

You're strongly implying by your post and your tone in this thread that Upcountry is the prideful Mormon in danger of the hellfire. If you don't mean to imply that, you need to work on your presentation. If you are implying that, then I refer you to the beams and motes parable.
I refer you to Doctrine and Covenants 112: 9.

On that nore, however, shall we schedule a visit to the opthalmic surgeon together?

In point of fact, I couldn't care less how much Upcountry polishes his rameumptom.

I DO care about him spouting anti-Christian bigotry on this board (in violation of the rules, common sense, and common decency) and pretending he speaks on behalf of all "right-thinking" Mormons.

His rants were ignorant, bigoted, and intended to do one thing only: to drive a wedge between Latter-day Saints and our fellow Christians.

For all your complaints about me failing to build bridges, I've yet to see anything from you about Upcountry trying gleefully to burn them.

The non-LDS Christians on this board are our brothers and sisters in Christ. They are sons and daughters of God.

For a self-professing Latter-day Saint to sneer at them about how we are saved and they are not is to subvert every tenet of the Church.

Before you get too busy throw around parables, I suggest you and Upcountry review Alma 31 and decide who among us has been expressing the following sentiments:

Holy God, we believe that thou hast separated us from our brethren; and we do not believe in the tradition of our brethren, which was handed down to them by the childishness of their fathers;
we believe that thou hast aelected us to be thy bholy children;
thou hast aelected us that we shall be saved, whilst all around us are elected to be cast by thy wrath down to hell;
And again we thank thee, O God, that we are a chosen and a holy people.

Contrary to your accusation, I know I am a sinner and do not pat myself on the back for being "not like other men", let alone pretend that my membership in the Church somehow makes me intrinsically better than my neighbor.

All the merciful shall obtain mercy, but only the righteous who have followed all the commandments of Christ are found "worthy" of eternal life, and that's only after being washed clean in the Blood of the Lamb.
Indeed- but how many Mormons can honestly say they have followed all the commandments?

A membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints doesn't guarantee you a cup of warm spit in hell, let alone better seating than your "heathen" neighbor.

Only those who are true disciples of Christ (which does NOT automagically equate to membership in the LDS Church) will be truly worthy.

Yes- God will be merciful. But if he is more merciful to us than to our non-LDS brethren, he reveals himself to be a "respector of persons"- something we know to be intrinsically impossible.

If someone has the opportunity to make covenants and rejects that opportunity, they cannot be saved in the kingdom of God.
This statement is so overly broad as to render it useless.

It is not enough merely to reject the oppportunity: you must do so knowingly. And that means having a testimony (or at least the seeds of one)- and is ultimately up to Christ himself to judge.

Brushing off the missionaries is not sufficient- the rejection must be an informed decision, not one made in haste or ignorance.

Finally, we're talking about two different things: redemption and exaltation. It is unwise to conflate them.

The ordinances you speak of are necessary and mandatory to exaltation, not to resurrection/redemption.

Per the conventional Christian understanding, even Sons of Perdition will be "redeemed" (according to LDS theology). Note the difference between redemption and exaltation.

Per the Church website:

SONS OF PERDITION

The followers of Satan who will suffer with him in eternity. Sons of perdition include (1) those who followed Satan and were cast out of heaven for rebellion during premortality, and (2) those who were permitted to be born to this world with physical bodies but then served Satan and turned utterly against God. Those in this second group will be resurrected from the dead but will not be redeemed from the second (spiritual) death and cannot dwell in a kingdom of glory (D&C 88:32, 35).

Note, again, the qualifiers: "served Satan and turned utterly against God".

Does such a term actually apply to someone who was born and raised in a non-LDS faith and sought to be a good person their whole life?

A penitent man who makes no covenants- even when the opportunity presents itself- isn't truly penitent, except perhaps from the worlds' viewpoint.
A judgement you are not qualified to make, let alone pronounce as an eternal verity.
Your scenario is so confusing that it does more harm than good; it feeds into the "do your own thing, as long as you're a 'good person' you'll be saved!" mentality.
Only if one chooses to interpet it that way, in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

My emphasis has been both clear and consistent: someone who genuinely seeks the truth and embraces it when it is offered, someone who earnestly seeks to become a disciple of Christ, or someone who is truly accepting of and seeks to emulate Christ's love to the best of their ability will find their way into a Kingdom of Glory.

None other need apply; membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints notwithstanding.

You have a lot of useful information that could help Upcountry immensely as he seeks to refine his views and outlook. But if you continue to set yourself up as his enemy rather than his friend, you'll do much harm and little to no good.
A couple of scriptures come to mind. I leave you to consider them at your leisure.

Doctrine and Covenants 112: 5

(The aforementioned) Doctrine and Covenants 112: 9

Doctrine and Covenants 121:43 (in which I am a big believer and in need of the occasional reminder)

To Upcountry, I would also offer the following:

Doctrine and Covenants 112: 11

11 I know thy heart, and have heard thy prayers concerning thy brethren. Be not partial towards them in love above many others, but let thy love be for them as for thyself; and let thy love abound unto all men, and unto all who love my name.
If this does not echo the Lord's commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves- even the non-LDS ones- as ourselves, then what possible validity could it contain?

Doctrine and Covenants 112: 24-26

24 Behold, vengeance cometh speedily upon the inhabitants of the earth, a day of wrath, a day of burning, a day of desolation, of weeping, of mourning, and of lamentation; and as a whirlwind it shall come upon all the face of the earth, saith the Lord.

25 And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord;

26 First among those among you, saith the Lord, who have professed to know my name and have not known me, and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house, saith the Lord.

Doctrine and Covenants 121:45

45 Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven.

Emphasis Mine in all of the above.

Note that we, as Latter-day Saints are in no wise commanded to treat the "gentile" as less than ourselves.

Indeed, while we as Latter-day Saints are singled out for particular blessings (notably the ordinances Matthew0059 mentioned above), we are also singled out with great responsibilities and great condemnation and tribulation where we fail.

Of those to whom the Lord has given much, he expects much- including love unfeigned and charity towards our non-LDS brethren.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not membership in a Morman or LDS church that saves us.

We are saved by access to The (True) Priesthood - the same authority as that of the Early Church and Adam.

Those members were neither Mormons nor LDS.

Upcountry: I did not see this post until after I'd started (and finished) my soliloquy above.

That having been said- I apologize for not returning to this conversation earlier (the last four days have been remarkably hectic).

In point of fact, I agree with you.

As I pointed out, however, that authority is not a subset of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

As you point out above, the reverse is true: we as a Church are subset of the true Church and derive our attributes and ordinances from the whole.

As stated above, the LDS movement is temporary and transient. When all is said and done, we will be restored to the greater whole- the Church of God, and sectarian divisions will be a thing of the past.

The woman who was raised Catholic and spent her whole life seeking Christ will be afforded the same opportunity at exaltation as is the Sister born and raised in the LDS Church.

She will not be afforded access to "Mormon" ordinances, but to Christ's ordinances.

She will be judged on her actions and upon her decisions, not by the watermark in her Bible (as you acknowledge above).

I took your earlier posts as belittling and demeaning non-members, and as self-aggrandizing membership in the Church.

That was the behavior to which I referred as "bigoted".

I do not doubt your testimony, but I've got something of a spinal reflex towards those who engage in Christian a/o Catholic bashing.

If that's not you, then I apologize for misunderstanding you.

I am a scientist trained to be a skeptic, to depend on observation and logic, and to distrust faith. Yet I love God instinctively (I assume He exists) and believe Him to be loving, merciful and just. I also believe that the True Church may be determined by the consistency of their doctrine. That is why I am a stickler for theory and definitions. So far, the LDS Church has provided such consistency that I have become ever more convinced as I dig deeper into our scriptures.

Again, your testimony is similar to my own- my training was as an engineer and analytical thinker.

I, too, distrust assumptions and unfounded assertions, and yet I have pronounced faith in God.

I've outlined a bit more clearly in the post above where I think you were "off the reservation", and if I have misunderstood you, I apologize.

I look forward to further clarification of your thoughts and opinions, and exchanging the same with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Selek,

I greatly appreciate your response above. I can only testify that my initial article starting this thread was not meant to demean other members of any faith or non faith.

I can understand how other societies would embrace other doctrines. I do not condemn them at all because I would like to believe that the God of this world is loving, merciful and just for all. I would hope to have those same qualities except that I certainly will not judge anyone.

The hope for salvation that I find in joining an established religion is based on the fact that I personally can somewhat understand LDS doctrine better than the other churches that I might have joined. LDS doctrine makes sense to me personally and logically. I probably would have remained an agnostic were it not for LDS teachings filtered through my common sense and experiences.

As I reflect on this thread, I sympathize with Brother Joseph. He had to bring forth a new (restored) faith that claimed exclusivity (temples and ordinances were for members only), that fostered a society that, except for missionary work, was self contained, and that taught religious doctrines that contradicted established teachings in very fundamental ways to a very religious population. And, he had to fight Satan's influence. Absent unbecoming Divine intervention, Joseph could only have succeeded in the frontier of early America. Perhaps, that is why this land was held apart.

Thanks again for all your comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good morning Upcountry. I hope you are having a good day! =)

It is not membership in a Morman or LDS church that saves us. We are saved by access to The (True) Priesthood - the same authority as that of the Early Church and Adam. Those members were neither Mormons nor LDS. That said, I very much appreciate your thoughts and those of the earlier writer Mathew0059.

Oh, I agree with you. Mere membership doesn't save anyone and although anciently they weren't called Mormons or LDS, us and them all belong to the same Church.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is "the name given to the Church of Christ in the latter-days to distinguish it from the Church in other dispensations" (Source).

"The kingdom of God on earth is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (D&C 65). The purpose of the Church is to prepare its members to live forever in the celestial kingdom or kingdom of heaven. However, the scriptures sometimes call the Church the kingdom of heaven, meaning that the Church is the kingdom of heaven on earth.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the kingdom of God on the earth, but it is at present limited to an ecclesiastical kingdom. During the Millennium, the kingdom of God will be both political and ecclesiastical" (Source).

If you are in the Celestial Kingdom, you will be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ, whether it is called by it's ancient name or its more modern version.

Regards,

Finrock

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share