They Are All Wrong

[Guest]

When Joseph Smith knelt to pray to find out which of the many churches he should join, he got quite a response.  But too many people focus on the wrong words of the response.  Both insiders and outsiders tend to focus on the phrase "They are ALL wrong."  Why are they wrong?  To answer this, I'd like to focus on some other words.

Quote

They draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me...

-JSH, v 19

I believe this means something rather different than what I have heard commonly taught and discussed.  What I usually hear from LDS apologists is that the professors of religion are actually being deceptive, hypocritical, or insincere.  I'm not sure if that was the intended meaning.  I believe it has to do with revelation.

Several times on this forum and many times in real life, the critics of the Church have talked about why our faith is wrong.  We're a cult.  We're deluded.  We've been deceived.  We're just ignorant.  We don't believe in the Bible.  The Book of Mormon is a book of lies.  Blah blah.

There was a fairly decent guy who came on here a couple years ago.  He was an evangelical.  He was polite enough to simply have a conversation.  We talked about finding the truth.  And I told him about the first step to truth being that we have to pray about the thing we're considering (such as the Bible or Book of Mormon).  Once we know that, we need to continually ask for the guidance of the Holy Ghost to determine if our interpretations are also correct.  He was surprised.  He simply accepted the Bible was true.  He had never prayed about it.  And any interpretation was simply true.  He never prayed about it.  He was well versed.  He knew a lot of doctrines as he'd been taught.  But he never considered the source of truth would have to start with revelation.  Instead, it was some words on paper and man's understanding.

More recently, Velvet Shadow came here with a LOT of questions that she refused to accept answers for.  Things were going to be her way or it was simply not right.  Throughout the entire thread, she never once said she'd been praying for revelation until I told her that's what she needed to do.  She had to learn on her own.  She had to have HER questions answered.  She was only studying based on her own wisdom and her own ability to learn and understand.  The idea that they can individually receive revelation is beyond them.

I do want to admit that I have known many individual evangelicals who have declared that they have felt God talk to them.  But they don't seem to see that this is a common occurrence.  They don't see revelation as a means of constant guidance.  And they don't see that as the basis of a testimony or of their faith or understanding of the truth.  And they certainly don't see revelation (continuing revelation) to teach the true doctrine.

The information the Lord gave Joseph, I believe, was not about deception, or insincerity.  It was the very basis of their beliefs.  They tried setting up what they sincerely believe to be true based on study and reason.  I've never heard anyone say that the very basis of their beliefs, testimony, doctrine, etc. was due to revelation.

This is why they are wrong.  Not all their doctrines.  Truly, they do have a lot of things right. But what is wrong is that they use man's power and wisdom to discern Godly knowledge.  That, on its face seems ridiculous to me.  Man, with all his flaws and weaknesses can understand the things of God?  The same God that said

Quote

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways...

Isaiah 55:8

By trusting in their own wisdom, they draw near unto him with their lips.  But we use our heart to reach out for revelation.  And they deny that prophecy exists.

The next thing is power and authority.  Again, we have individuals who have been miraculously healed by the power of faith.  Would that we all could have such faith.  But they deny the authoritative power of the priesthood.  Thus, they have

Quote

a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.

He wasn't talking about the power of faith, which I believe many sectarians have in abundance.  But there is something different about the power of the priesthood.  And they go out of their way to declare that there is no such thing.  Why does sacerdotalism even matter?  Why do we need to be ordained by one who has authority already (5th AoF)? They simply deny such a thing.

These two main reasons are the reason why "They are ALL wrong."

[Vort]

For my whole life, my secular culture and even my family and Church have taught me that "it's the thought that counts". Unrelenting adult experience has taught me that it's the results that count.

It's impossible to be right with God if your thoughts and intents are wrong. But even if your heart is in the right place, if your foundational principles are wrong, your spiritual temple will be weak and crumble under stress. There simply is no other way.

[zil]

Excellent, @Carborendum!  Thanks.

[JohnsonJones]

I agree, but I'm not sure this covers all religions exactly as you describe.

For example, we look at Baptists.  The main focus is to be saved.  The way one is saved is very similar to how Mormons talk about revelation.  In order to be saved it is more than just the individual.  The individual must make a choice to accept the Lord and then open their heart to them.   It is then that the Lord turns their heart towards him.  They have a literal change.  If one is saved they KNOW they are saved.  This is far more than them simply deciding this, this is more than a decision.  It is the Lord that changes by letting them KNOW that they are now Saved.  He also changes them so that when they are saved they only desire to do what he wants.  They no longer have the desire to sin.  They must feel it strongly enough to be able to know, not just hope or believe, that they are saved and will go to heaven.

They do not talk to angels or claim priesthood authority, but they do claim the Holy Spirit and that their hearts can be changed and turn to the Lord and that thus they can also know in their hearts that they are saved. 

In some ways, it is very similar to our ideas of knowing something is true.

Edited September 14, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[wenglund]

I have always thought the phrase to mean something along the lines of lip service. The fact that a similar phrase was used in connection with the hypocrisy of the Pharisees (see Mark 7:6), seems to support my belief.

Quote

6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.

However, the three verses that follow tend in a way to substantiate Carbs interpretation:

Quote

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching fordoctrines the commandments of men.

8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold thetradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

. . . .

13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

[Guest]

20 hours ago, wenglund said:

I have always thought the phrase to mean something along the lines of lip service. The fact that a similar phrase was used in connection with the hypocrisy of the Pharisees (see Mark 7:6), seems to support my belief.

However, the three verses that follow tend in a way to substantiate Carbs interpretation:

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

You bring up a pretty good comparison. But I might argue that the same description which I've outlined would apply to the Pharisees as well.

The Pharisees were right about a lot of things.  And they even may have been sincere in their religious devotion.  But the problem they had was that they arrived at their religious positions through exegesis rather than revelation. They were devoted to the doctrines and beliefs  arrived at by their ability to interpret the written word rather than by Divine guidance.

As a result Jesus called simple, humble fishermen to he his leaders.  In this dispensation, the Lord called a simple, humble farmboy who dared to have the faith to pray to know whither is truth.

The difference between what you're saying vs what I'm saying is the definition of lip service.

You believe it means lack of sincerity in their beliefs. I, rather, believe that they are indeed sincere.  But it simply doesn't occur to them that the doctrines they have discerned through study alone could possibly be wrong.  And when it is confirmed by the fact that much of what they believe is actually correct, it is a difficult argument to tell them that they arrived at those truths through a faulty or incomplete methodology.

Thence, they would be all the more vehement in their defense of what they believe to be right.

[theplains]

On 9/14/2018 at 3:54 PM, Carborendum said:

These two main reasons are the reason why "They are ALL wrong."

The passage says, "... the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight."

Would you elaborate on which creeds and what specifically about the creeds this personage found abominable?

Thanks,
Jim

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, theplains said:

The passage says, "... the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight."

Would you elaborate on which creeds and what specifically about the creeds this personage found abominable?

Thanks,
Jim

I thought I had addressed that already.  I'll repeat just because I like you.  Continuing the same verse you just quoted...

Quote

...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.

What I was specifically describing was the lack of belief in continuing revelation through a prophet of God.  Such was the pattern throughout all history and throughout all of scripture.  But say that we need prophets today and they deny such need.  When we talk of priesthood authority, they deny the need for any such authority.  In fact, many say that such authority is evidence of deception because no man can represent God's will.  So, I guess the prophets of old were all liars.

Instead of relying wholly upon revelation (the "rock" that Jesus built his church) they insist that man's wisdom, philosophy, and traditions are what shall inform us on what commandments to obey and which ones to not obey, and how to obey them.

The alternative that they've also gone to is essentially "we're all prophets".  With that, they come closer to the truth, but miss the mark again.  That's a longer discussion.  So, to continue answering your question, here are a few examples.

• Baptism of infants was specifically mentioned in the Book of Mormon as an abomination. 
• Abandoning of baptism (as many faiths have) is also a result of man trusting in his own wisdom and understanding rather than what the prophets tell us.
• Joseph, himself, was persecuted for daring to say that he had a vision.  The theme of the day was that the time of visions and heavenly visitation were done away.  All such encounters were obviously of the devil.
• Complete cessation of any temple ordinances.  Sealing is the highest of all ordinances with the greatest divine power there is, and they completely omit it from any worship or teachings.
• What I was trying to expand upon and connect with other threads was the Westminster Confession of Faith:

Quote

There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions,

Here was Joseph having a vision of the Father and the Son.  For all he could tell, they were human except for the "glory beyond all description" part.  Yet, these creeds described some nebulous unknown description of some being who was so far removed from man that there would be no reason for us to relate to Him or He to us.

Joseph, through actual personal revelation and face-to-face experience, knew that God was a personal god. He was a being with a body and passions.  He felt real emotions.  He can relate to us because he feels as we feel.  The difference being that His feelings are in all righteousness.  That is how he can love us.  That is how we can love him.  We truly are his children.