Why did Joseph have to start a new Church?

[Matthew0059]

selek-

After reading your response to Upcountry, I can understand why you have reacted so strongly to what you thought was religious bigotry. I empathize with where you're coming from. However, as I will show, had you paid attention to all of Upcountry's posts- especially the OP- you would have realized that his so-called "bigoted" remarks were not representative of his real character, or even his real position.

If I felt that you would even try to come to meet with me eye to eye on these subjects, instead of constantly affirming your own correctness, I would be more willing to engage with you on these subjects. If your overall goal was to understand and be unified, rather than dominate and subject, I would happily discuss the areas where we disagree on more in depth with you.

I will offer a partial reply- I don't have time for a full one as you have done; I have to get to work- and then might not be able to return to this thread for a while. My issue with how you have acted is not the doctrine you espouse- except for the aforementioned points- but with how you continually called Upcountry bigoted and ignorant- which are against the rules of this board. You can strain at a gnat and say you only called his actions ignorant and bigoted, but the difference matters little, in light of how strongly you worded your reply. I won't say more than that, because you finally realized that he's not, in fact, bigoted. It is frustrating that you realize that only after taking him and me to task for it. His reply, which changed your mind, is little more than a restatement of a paragraph (that he put in red because of its importance) in the OP:

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.

Moving on to your reply, which held some good points:

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.

On the contrary- a plain reading of the verse in question, and the subsequent events in Joseph's life, show that as far as we know, the primary reason God gave to Joseph for joining no church was because they were all wrong. God may have told Joseph he had a greater work in store for him- I've heard that idea oft-repeated at church, with no substantive backing- but there's no evidence for that. In fact, Joseph never mentioned the Lord delivering such a message, but did affirm in the official account and a later account in 1842 that the Lord told him "all religious denominations were believing in incorrect doctrines, and that none of them was acknowledged of God as his church and kingdom. And I was expressly commanded to ‘go not after them." (Wentworth Letter).

It is the primary, stated reason. There may have been others, but they were not the primary, stated reason- despite your assertion that "[n]owhere, however, does he state that this was the sole, or even primary reason, why Joseph was forbidden to join them."

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.

This is good reasoning, I think. It reminds me that for many years, Primitive Christianity was seen and understood as little more than an offshoot of Judaism. Because Judaism was still technically the same religion established by Moses, that was acceptable. However, because none of the churches in Joseph's time were technically the same religion as the one begun by Christ and the Apostles, it would be incorrect to have Mormonism be described as an offshoot of one of the other churches. The way it worked out, Mormonism is seen as a legitimate, original religion, not grouped with the Protestant sects.

This reasoning, I agree with. And I agree that the fact that Joseph was going to be called to a greater work was part of the reason he was told not to join. My only issue is that, at the time, the only reason given to Joseph was to join no church because they weren't correct.

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.

Except, the context of the quote shows Joseph actually agreeing with Upcountry's use of the quote... Did you read the whole quote in context?

If you read the quote and simply disagree with me on its meaning in context, you show no indication of doing so; this has happened a few times in this thread now, so forgive me if the following is wrong. I'm beginning to think you only read what you want to, in order to come to the conclusion that you want to, and that much or most of your posting is a result of "spinal reflexes" to what you do read.

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

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.

...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.

You want to take me to task for getting pedantic over wording, and then in the next paragraphs get pedantic over semantics? We mean and think the same thing in this regard, brother, yet you want everyone to use the exact same wording as you do and they're just wrong if they don't. Yet if another person doesn't agree with your own wording or ideas, they have either a wrong, inferior, or just "different" interpretation.

Do you see why I referred to the beams and motes now?

I refer you to Doctrine and Covenants 112: 9.

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

I'll let this and the following paragraph go. The rebuke of a man in the wrong, holds no weight; you have said everything you've said because you didn't have a full understanding of the situation and Upcountry's real remarks, opinions, and feelings. I appreciate what good you do on this forum, selek, but you're simply wrong in this situation.

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.

I would agree with this- that is what I meant when I said "reject the opportunity" to make covenants. I assumed that you also would understand what I meant.

It is frustrating that you seem to want to argue over the basics of every topic of discussion. I don't have the time, talent, or desire to fully explain every little facet of every single post I write. Maybe you do, but I don't.

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)

I have considered them.

D&C 112 was given to Thomas B. Marsh regarding his calling as an Apostle of the Lord. Remarks about contending and rebuking are to be understood in that context. D&C 121:43 emphasizes that rebuke is only to be given upon being moved by the spirit of the Lord.

You bring Upcountry to task multiple times for failing to show enough love and understanding to his non-LDS brethren. Yet you yourself consummately fail to show any love and understanding to either Upcountry or I. You contend sharply- not for the sake of proving Christ's gospel to an unbeliever and thereby showing them the path to salvation, but to try to straighten out and correct a perceived error in the thinking of another when you have no authority nor reason to do so. This action is in direct opposition to the advice and commandments of God, that "ye shall live together in love" and have no contention amongst us- especially regarding doctrine. Discussion and disagreement are fine, but the spirit of contention is of the devil.

I leave you with the following scriptures, for your own perusal and thought.

4 Nephi 1:2

D&C 42:45

3 Nephi 11:30

I wish I could say I enjoyed this discussion, but I really haven't. I joined because of how strongly I felt Upcountry was being misunderstood and mistreated. I leave because there's now an understanding between him and the other posters on this thread.

I look forward to discussing other things with you, selek- hopefully something we can find a bit more mutual understanding on.

God bless.

[selek]

selek-

After reading your response to Upcountry, I can understand why you have reacted so strongly to what you thought was religious bigotry. I empathize with where you're coming from. However, as I will show, had you paid attention to all of Upcountry's posts- especially the OP- you would have realized that his so-called "bigoted" remarks were not representative of his real character, or even his real position.

You are assuming that because I reached a different conclusion than you did, that I did not pay attention to his posts.

That is nothing more than arrogant presumption and condescension on your part.

Worse, you're simply wrong.

You spend a lot of time in this and other posts speculating about my thoughts, my mindset, and my motives- while presuming to take me to task for allegedly doing the same thing to Upcountry.

You are not, unfortunately, gifted with any particular insight, nor are you qualified to make such judgements, and thus fail time and time again.

If I felt that you would even try to come to meet with me eye to eye on these subjects, instead of constantly affirming your own correctness, I would be more willing to engage with you on these subjects.

Physician, heal thyself.

Your participation in this thread has been nothing but an attemot to affirm your own correctness and my alleged error.

I based my initial stance on a careful reading of Upcountry's statements and the attendant contradictions. I took Upcountry to task for what I perceived to be unsupportably hubristic and charity-deprived attacks against our non-LDS brethren.

I attacked his statements, his arguments, and his pronoucements.

I did not (to the best of my knowledge) attack him as a person, nor belittle his worth in the eyes of God.

When presented with new information (and Upcountry's own clarifications), I adjusted my stance accordingly.

You, however, continue to worry and snap at my heels as though that grants you some sort of credibility or points for "bravery".

Neither could be further from the truth.

The rebuke of a man in the wrong, holds no weight;

Which is why I esteem your "correction" so lightly.

Every accusation you have made against me in this thread can be answered upon your own head with equal facility.

The lenses through which you view things are not one whit less clouded than the lenses through which I view things.

The difference is that I am willing to be corrected based upon new information and new revelation.

You, by contrast, are simply rehashing the same arguments you made before in the hopes of wearying me into compliance.

you have said everything you've said because you didn't have a full understanding of the situation and Upcountry's real remarks, opinions, and feelings.

Partially correct: I said what I did based upon the arguments and statements Upcountry presented, and upon the tone and tenor of those remarks.

I responded to a line of thought that appeared to headed in a dangerously counter-Scriptural direction, and one that could only offend and alienate our non-LDS brethren.

I believe that my response to those arguments was correct, even as it has become apparent that those arguments were not what Upcountry intended to convey.

To refer back to one of President Monson's conference talks, it doesn't matter that the boys only intended to burn one small portion of grass, the adults had to prevent the entire meadow from burning.

I appreciate Upcountry's clarification of this opinions, thoughts, and intents- but I will still be one of the first in line to combat prejudice, arrogance, and anti-Christian dogma- no matter who spouts it or why.

It is frustrating that you seem to want to argue over the basics of every topic of discussion. I don't have the time, talent, or desire to fully explain every little facet of every single post I write. Maybe you do, but I don't.

Gotta love the petulance in this statement.

With this single statement, you've just condensed the last ten paragraphs of whinging into a single quasi-coherent statement.

You are complaining that I have been trying too hard to understand precisely what was said while just one breath earlier, you were whining that I wasn't trying hard enough.

You can't have it both ways.

And because I won't simply roll over and play the game by your rules, you're going to take your ball and go home.

Wow. I'm heart-broken.

"Honestly, there could be tears."

You bring Upcountry to task multiple times for failing to show enough love and understanding to his non-LDS brethren. Yet you yourself consummately fail to show any love and understanding to either Upcountry or I.

Oh, horse pockey. You just got done congratulating me for "changing my mind" and realizing UpCountry's "true intent".

Again, you can't have it both ways.

You contend sharply- not for the sake of proving Christ's gospel to an unbeliever and thereby showing them the path to salvation, but to try to straighten out and correct a perceived error in the thinking of another when you have no authority nor reason to do so.

On the contrary, confronting false teachings is part of my calling and commission both as a Latter-day Saint and as a Priesthood holder.

That is especially true when such teachings might drive an unbeliever away from the true Gospel.

This action is in direct opposition to the advice and commandments of God, that "ye shall live together in love" and have no contention amongst us- especially regarding doctrine. Discussion and disagreement are fine, but the spirit of contention is of the devil.

Then perhaps you'd best look in the mirror.

You have a remarkable ability to quote Scripture to your own purposes, but you also have an equal facility at perverting them to suit your agenda.

We as Latter-day Saints are called and commissioned to be proclaimers and champions of the truth.

We are called and commanded to be wise and profitable servants, to proclaim the truth boldly, rather than to hide our light under a bushel.

I changed my stance based on new information. You are still "contending to straighten out and correct he thinking of another when you have no authority nor reason to do so."

I changed my stance based on Upcountry's admission and clarification, and reached out to try and establish common ground (that whole D&C 121 thing).

You are still acting in a spirit of contention trying to wring some morsel of submission or contrition from me.

Once again: Physician, heal thyself.

Edited May 28, 2013 by selek

[Upcountry]

As an outsider in my own thread, I think everyone should shake hands and hug now.

I hope that everyone will interpret my OP in the least bigoted and most loving way possible for that is how I meant it.

Through history, the Covenant People have been a small percentage (0.2%?) of the population on earth and I don't expect that number to significantly change even given the latest change in missionary policy. To me, this means the Priesthood will continue to be the yeast that makes the bread rise - a small but necessary and very important part of the Plan of Salvation.

I hope and believe that my comments will not drive anyone away that might join. If they join by the Spirit through the missionaries they will not deterred by my comments. Witness the flood of early converts when the Church needed them.

Eventually, all of the other 99.8% will have a chance to accept their ordinances. For those good people that do not accept, I understand that the Terrestrial Kingdom will be theirs. I picture this is as a Paradise but since these souls cannot progress further, they will have failed to live to to their potential. They will be "failed gods". That will be their free choice made as their own agents just as those that followed Lucifer made their choice in the First Estate. That is how I understand our doctrine.

[Letrell]

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.”

Thank you so much, bytor. Before I jumped in and said just what you said, I decided to take a few and scroll through all the comments. This was the only response I sought.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ was "restored", not "created", to the earth. BIG difference.

I applaud you for seeing this!

Sometimes when we get into gospel/doctrine discussions, we forget the basics and get caught up in trying to figure things out. That's why I step back a lot of times...well that and my cursor jumps around a lot and deletes what I spend time posting. LOL.

Anyway...just wanted to say thank you for this comment.

Letrell

[Upcountry]

I titled my thread incorrectly. It should have read:

Why did Joseph have to start a Restored Church? That would distinguish it from the many Reformed Churches. When I composed the title, I was thinking of the churches in Joseph's area

I think the world recognizes LDS as different from today's mainstream Christian churches. This is both because our doctrine is different and also because of the way the church was formed (as was pointed out). We seem so different that some could plausibly argue that we are not a Christian Church (which we certainly are).

Added in edit One argument they might use is that LDS should be considered polytheistic since we worship The Father and The Son as separate beings.

This may be a problem for us in the future since we are such a small population and our existence depends on the tolerance of the world as well as the blessings of the Lord.

Edited May 29, 2013 by Upcountry
added polythesim