Creeds of men that the lord found abominable...from an lds explanation.

[benidict]

Again, I am not talking about acts of imperfection. But in house corruption where people were killed for political and religious gain—a more systematic form of corruption. People will make terrible mistakes and commit terrible sins in the name of faith. But I am referring to something much more deeper that was found inside the church. Was god angry with how the christian church acted throughout its history. And was there a need for a restoration?

Sidebar: some people bring up MMM and say, hey lookie here. But again the context is missing from the picture and the fear that the mormon settlers had of outsiders. Now we need to remember the antimormonism that was coming out from california. I can only give you a brief account and it is not done by me but by an historian:

Q: Why did the massacre happen?

SESSIONS: In my view there’s one word that tells you why and the word is fear; these guys were scared. All the settlements had been pulled back, Cedar City was ordered to stand. It was the last major settlement between here and California going on the southern route. There were a couple of little, you know, Harmony and there were a few people living down in Washington down that way–but Cedar was it. There were six hundred people in all of Iron County between Parowan and Cedar City. These people were absolutely scared to death. They had been hearing for years the wind over the passes that the Californians were going to come and wipe them out.

You want to have a great (inaudible) if you’re interested in this. You want to see how blessed you are to just get the anti-Mormon stuff that’s out there now. Pick up the Sacramento Bee for the 1850s–hardly a week goes by that in that paper, there isn’t an editorial saying, ‘We need to raise an army and go wipe the Mormons off the face of the earth.’ And the folks in Cedar were scared, in my view, out of their minds that that was exactly what was going to happen.

On Wednesday, some militiamen who were coming out–the massacre happened on Friday–on Wednesday night some militiamen were coming out to- they were told when they were rounded up they were going to go out and bury some people that got killed by the Indians and some of them were coming out and near Pinto Junction they came upon three people from the party making their way back to Cedar City for help.

And not knowing what’s going on, they killed them. They fired on these people. They killed young William Aiden who was, had been a Mormon and was leaving with the party to come to California. Two of these guys, there are various accounts, some say two got away there- or one got away, anyway at least one got away. They killed all three of them eventually. But on Wednesday when only one got away they were just convinced that he made it back to the wagon circle and were telling them, ‘This is not Indians, this is Mormons.’

And I don’t doubt at all that that was the final straw that broke the camel’s back. The decision was made the next day to kill them and it was made out at the Meadows; and Major Higby reported in various accounts, ‘Kill everyone who is old enough to tell the tale.’ And Mormons interpreted that as people at the age of accountability so they tried to pick the kids who looked like they were under eight to save, and killed the rest.

So in my view it was naked fear–they were just scared to death that these guys were going to go on to California and report that Mormons had attacked them and this would bring them in a mob out of California. That’s my view and the view of many other historians as well.

fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2003_Shining_New_Light_on_the_Mountain_Meadows_Massacre.html

I find it interesting that when people gleam information from sites not very favorable to mormons, they do not take notice of context because context is always missing. Momons had been living in fear for a few decades. And the antimormonism in california and also in the US government had its impact because the antimormonism did not stop when the early lds moved to what became known as Utah.

However, the MMM was wrong. But put in context…a little understandable that such a terrible tragedy happened.

hi why me. i really dont see even with the data youve given how this could be understandable. the people who were attacked were clearly civilians, not armed milita or soldiers. also they were heading to california from arkansas, if memory serves me correct. and if the attackers were were acting in self defense, then how come there was no problem on the part of the church when these were executed? sorry. having studied this myself. i cannot see any justification for it. especially when who they were attacking were people simply passing through their territory, and they knew this. also in war, when an enemy surrenders, and you go ahead and kill them anyway. its called murder. not to mention bashing in the heads of the children who were old enough to identify them, and raping and killing the women. i beg to differ that this was an act of self defense, my friend. it is one of those dark spots on Mormon history. i can also point out some of our own, if that will help. it really helps when we own up to the dark things in our history, and not try to cover them up. Peace

 

[why_me]

Why do you post from a Mormon Apologetic board? Do you really believe they are objective?

There is very little objectivity when it comes to mormonism. However, the link I posted makes a good case for context. If california newspapers were writing inflammatory articles about exterminating mormons, well, fear certainly would play a role.

Now I know Tom that when in the future you mention MMM you will not mention the context of what was happening in California. Right?

 

[why_me]

hi why me. i really dont see even with the data youve given how this could be understandable. the people who were attacked were clearly civilians, not armed milita or soldiers. also they were heading to california from arkansas, if memory serves me correct. and if the attackers were were acting in self defense, then how come there was no problem on the part of the church when these were executed? sorry. having studied this myself. i cannot see any justification for it. especially when who they were attacking were people simply passing through their territory, and they knew this. also in war, when an enemy surrenders, and you go ahead and kill them anyway. its called murder. not to mention bashing in the heads of the children who were old enough to identify them, and raping and killing the women. i beg to differ that this was an act of self defense, my friend. it is one of those dark spots on Mormon history. i can also point out some of our own, if that will help. it really helps when we own up to the dark things in our history, and not try to cover them up. Peace

It was not a justification but an understanding what was going through their minds: fear. After being burned out of missouri and Illinois and now being threatened by californians plus, a utah war in the wings, they overreacted and made a terrible mistake. However, if mormons were allowed to be left alone, none of this would have happened.

 

[why_me]

Rory,

Your whole post is spot on the money, but I want to add my specific agreement that “Mormon atheism” is not a hyperbole.

The love of such a god is hence a secular value, and Mormonism is properly a “secular religion.”

Thus everything in the definition of “secular humanism” applies univocally to Mormonism.

You wrote a lot of nonsense but it does make you sound intelligent. However, I have no idea what you are talking about. Mormon atheism? Mormonism is a secular religion? The definition of secular humanism is implied in Mormonism?

Reading your complete post I see someone who is trying to impress. However, it would be much better if you would just talk turkey and stop trying to use academic wording where it is not necessary.

Wow, sounds smart but…without foundation.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

You wrote a lot of nonsense but it does make you sound intelligent. However, I have no idea what you are talking about. Mormon atheism? Mormonism is a secular religion? The definition of secular humanism is implied in Mormonism?

Wow, sounds smart but…without foundation.

Nice personal attack, from the one that accuses others of doing the same.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

Reading your complete post I see someone who is trying to impress. However, it would be much better if you would just talk turkey and stop trying to use academic wording where it is not necessary.

Funny, we’ve never seen you say that to the more academic Mormon apologists at the Mormon board.

 

[benidict]

It was not a justification but an understanding what was going through their minds: fear. After being burned out of missouri and Illinois and now being threatened by californians plus, a utah war in the wings, they overreacted and made a terrible mistake. However, if mormons were allowed to be left alone, none of this would have happened.

i will agree with that. people do not seem to realize also, that Mormons are the only religion in the united states, that the government actually declared war on. funny thing is. if it were not for their Mormon enemys, the troops that went against them probably would have starved in wyoming. from what i understand the Mormons even brought them food and supplies that got them through the winter. it is a very complex history. i think that most problems could be avoided, if the powers that be, would just leave people alone. no disagreement there. peace

 

[why_me]

Funny, we’ve never seen you say that to the more academic Mormon apologists at the Mormon board.

It wasn’t a personal attack at all. It was not just the academic tone but the conclusions: mormons are atheists. This was my problem. When someone makes such a claim, academic words do not impress. Much better to talk turkey and get to the point.

Mormonism is far from secularism as it is from atheism. His conclusions were far fetched.
Soren is more than welcome to go to MAD with his above post as an OP. He would be trounced but…it would be great to read his comments and come backs.

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

How does the Mormon view answer the “problem of evil…far more soundly” than the traditional Christian view? Do Mormons believe that God did not know originally exactly what was going to happen, when it was going to happen, who was going to do what? To me, the idea of organizing preexisting material instead of ex nihilo still has the “problem of evil”, since God chose to organize everything from “intelligences”, and therefore gave Lucifer the capacity to do what he did/does. If we eternally existed as we are then this may be different, however Mormons believe that God organized us from pre-existing matter, and therefore gave us the capacity to do what we do.

Hi Catholic Guy,

There seems to be some LDS who appear to accept the “omnis” of God. But most LDS will absolutely assert that God does not know everything.

In my opinion, part of the reason that Catholics are unable to successfully persuade Mormons (and atheists) that we have resolved the problem of evil is because of a failure at the outset to rigidly define in what evil consists. Most people, including Catholics think that evil is something. Catholic Tradition and Philosophia Perennis, if I understand it correctly, teaches the opposite, that evil is nothing.

We read in Genesis that everything God created was good. But clearly, since the Fall, disease, malice, and the ultimate evil, death, has come into the good Creation that God made. As St. Augustine explains though, evil is never something that is added to good. It is always something that subtracts from good. What is illness but the absence of health? Just as our discussions with Mormons break down because we do not have a precise understand or agreement upon the meaning of “God” or “gods”, so it is when we try to discuss evil.

That I might not seem to be saying what is contrary to our ordinary vocabulary and thought as to the meaning of evil, I cite the Angelic Doctor from the Summa, Part I, Q. 48, art. 1:

…it cannot be that evil signifies being, or any form or nature. Therefore it must be that by the name of evil is signified the absence of good. And this is what is meant by saying that “evil is neither a being nor a good.” For since being, as such, is good, the absence of one implies the absence of the other.

Anyone who will not permit this understanding of the meaning of “evil” in a discussion has already stacked the deck against the Catholic before the discussion gets started. It is ironic, the LDS often allege that it was the early Christians who were guilty of “hellenizing” (placing too much emphasis on philosophy) in how they arrived at their creedal statements about God. But in this very thread you see how that no less than we, LDS use philosophy in arriving at their definitions. Their philosophy rejects the Catholic understanding of evil (I started to say “nature” of evil. But it has no nature. It is a negation. It is truly non-existence.) Then they can find comfort in the fact that they have solved the “problem of evil” by rejecting a God that knows everything. But such a draconian solution is only necessary to those who reject Aquinas and Augustine.

 

[ParkerD]

How does the Mormon view answer the “problem of evil…far more soundly” than the traditional Christian view? Do Mormons believe that God did not know originally exactly what was going to happen, when it was going to happen, who was going to do what? To me, the idea of organizing preexisting material instead of ex nihilo still has the “problem of evil”, since God chose to organize everything from “intelligences”, and therefore gave Lucifer the capacity to do what he did/does. If we eternally existed as we are then this may be different, however Mormons believe that God organized us from pre-existing matter, and therefore gave us the capacity to do what we do.

CatholicGuyNY,
I agree that God “gave us the capacity to do what we do,” and that He is truly omniscient including not being bound by time in that omniscience. Therefore, He knew Lucifer was going to rebel before that rebellion occurred, yet let it occur, and does so still. He does so because He knew that within the context of allowing spirits to choose, there would be growth among those who choose good over evil, despite the presence of evil.

(By the way, I’ve read Rory’s post and I don’t understand the concept, so I am neither saying yea or nay about whether evil is “something” or is “nothing”.)

I agree that since LDS believe Lucifer did rebel and yet Lucifer was at one time during the pre-pre-mortal period a “son of the morning”, (as stated by Isaiah), that it can be said that God brought forth a spirit from being an intelligence, and that spirit (Lucifer) had the capacity to rebel and do so exerting influence upon other spirits, so that would mean that God saw that a good result could be obtained by there being such an opposition–yet He allowed the opposition and did not “begin” the opposition. Lucifer’s intelligence was pre-existing before he was brought forth as a spirit, and then became a fallen angel by his own choice. His pre-existing intelligence was known by God, and therefore God had foreknowledge that he would rebel. By allowing this rebellion, a plan Lucifer didn’t and doesn’t understand or comprehend is occurring within eternity, which is that growth arises out of the conditions of opposition started by Lucifer at the point in time that he rebelled, and such growth is still occurring in this world yet we also have the Savior to allow our rescue and deliverance from the ultimate punishments that eternal law would enact based on our mistaken choices (sins).

You probably have heard the comparison to the growth of a muscle. It is a very simple comparison, but provides the simple idea–our muscle grows when it finds resistance and must therefore “strain” or “push against”, and it does not grow if there is nothing in the way of resistance. Physical therapists insist that a person use their muscles during their re-conditioning process. They shouldn’t just lay around never using their muscles, or the muscles will atrophy.

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

It wasn’t a personal attack at all. It was not just the academic tone but the conclusions: mormons are atheists. This was my problem. When someone makes such a claim, academic words do not impress. Much better to talk turkey and get to the point.

Mormonism is far from secularism as it is from atheism. His conclusions were far fetched.
Soren is more than welcome to go to MAD with his above post as an OP. He would be trounced but…it would be great to read his comments and come backs.

Look why me,

I was the one who introduced the “A” word to the discussion. If you will look back at my post, I think you will see that I was pretty careful to say that from a Catholic perspective, it is more accurate to designate the Mormon as atheist than polytheist. This is for the reason that they systematically disbelieve in the Creator God of one universe. That is apparent from the arguments that followed wherby the LDS were speaking oxymoronically of multiple universes. We are that far apart regarding the nature of God and the gods. It is a gulf that separates the Catholic from the Mormon, so much so, that shocking as it may seem, it is accurate to say that Mormons deny that there is a God like the one Catholics believe in.

If what I say has any merit, it says nothing as regards the truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I am on the record as to affirming the ecclesiatical appeal and authoritative similarities that exist between Catholicism and Mormonism. I am never among those who snipe at the LDS because they believe in “becoming gods”. My whole reason for daring to suggest that it might be worthwhile for Catholics to consider Mormonism under the umbrella of atheism was so that the Catholics would cease to be scandalized when they read of Mormons becoming gods.

There has to be a recognition that Mormons do not believe that they are becoming ex nihilo creators of universes. But that is what comes to the mind of the Catholic until they understand the diminished view of the nature of God within the LDS Cosmos. I think I have built enough good will at MA&DB that someday I might, if the circumstances were appropriate, float this idea over there. But to simply introduce it out of the blue would be to get an overwhelming and understandably emotional response. I can think of a few people over there who might be willing to be open-minded about it. Maybe I should do it in the pundit forum. Let me give it some thought why me.

I am ordinarily horrified at the pathetic failure of most Protestants and Catholics to recognize the best reasons for why they should not consider LDS claims. We constantly hear about Kolob, Adam-God, Jesus and Satan as brothers, or this thing about becoming gods. Catholics and Protestants find something that seems bizarre or weird about Mormonism and overemphasize it outside of its context. I can’t do that because I believe in truths that from a non-Catholic angle, look weird and strange. The truth, whatever it is, might appear at first to be a little odd. If weird disqualifies then what about consuming God in Holy Communion? Oh wait some Catholic says…we can explain that. Oooops too late. Nobody gives the Mormons time to explain their meanings. Surface weirdness disqualifies. If surface weirdness disqualifies, the Catholics appear to be pretty strange to folks who are only superficially familiar. I will go so far as to say that if the Catholic faith is false, something outwardly strange, like Mormonism, could be what I would expect to be true. But I still have to recognize the gulf that exists between our mutual understandings of the nature of God/gods.

why me, Do you think it would be worth opening such a discussion over at MA&DB? You say Soren would get trounced. I am sure I would too. But it wouldn’t be in any persuasive manner. Being trounced in the sense of being piled on by angry or emotional people isn’t something I relish. But my argument is simple and just, and I know that I bear no malice to any LDS when I suggested it before, or if I should ever do so again.

Regards,

Rory

 

[ForeverGrace]

You seem to be so confused about LDS teaching that I can only imagine that you got your information from anti-Mormon fundamentalist literature. The way you make your claims shows all the markings of such influence. You would be better off examining actual Mormon publications, such as their Gospel Principles. Then you will be better able to read the related literature more critically.

Nope. My dearest friend is/was a Mormon. She died two years ago and came to the full realization that the truth of Jesus Christ cannot be found in a Mormon Ward or Temple. Her family disowned her and it it took her 7 months to get her name off of the Mormon membership rolls. That even included a letter to the LDS in Salt Lake from an attorney.

We have evaluated what the Bible says against what what Mormons documents say. It took us months of reading and carefully documentating everything we found. So while you may want to insult someone new to these forums with condescension, I do know a thing or two about this. I have offered the evidences to any who would like to see it. I believe I read in the rules that Catholic Answers discouraged posting long articles. I want to be a gracious visitor. I think this is my third day here and already I’ve been condescended to and even downright insulted. I’ve not said one single word against Catholicism. I have asked questions about things that I do not understand just as I did with my friend who died.

Please do not presume to know me in such as way that you can even figure out what and why I think certain things.

 

[benidict]

Nope. My dearest friend is/was a Mormon. She died two years ago and came to the full realization that the truth of Jesus Christ cannot be found in a Mormon Ward or Temple. Her family disowned her and it it took her 7 months to get her name off of the Mormon membership rolls. That even included a letter to the LDS in Salt Lake from an attorney.

We have evaluated what the Bible says against what what Mormons documents say. It took us months of reading and carefully documentating everything we found. So while you may want to insult someone new to these forums with condescension, I do know a thing or two about this. I have offered the evidences to any who would like to see it. I believe I read in the rules that Catholic Answers discouraged posting long articles. I want to be a gracious visitor. I think this is my third day here and already I’ve been condescended to and even downright insulted. I’ve not said one single word against Catholicism. I have asked questions about things that I do not understand just as I did with my friend who died.

Please do not presume to know me in such as way that you can even figure out what and why I think certain things.

i would take comfort in knowing that your friend was seeking the Lord and truth. im sure she is safe with Him in heaven. peace and Grace to you. i still have question about a friend of mine who died, and the way he died, 6 years ago. will put you in my prayers.

 

[why_me]

Look why me,
why me, Do you think it would be worth opening such a discussion over at MA&DB? You say Soren would get trounced. I am sure I would too. But it wouldn’t be in any persuasive manner. Being trounced in the sense of being piled on by angry or emotional people isn’t something I relish. But my argument is simple and just, and I know that I bear no malice to any LDS when I suggested it before, or if I should ever do so again.

Regards,

Rory

I think that your concept is beyond the scope of the people on the mormon threads. They will read Mormons are atheists and assume that mormons do not believe in god. I don’t think that they the reader will follow your post beyond that reasoning. And that is the point that I wanted to make.

I think that it could be worth opening a discussion on MAD but the conclusion that mormons are atheists might get a chuckle and then a trouncing. But then again, maybe not. It could lead to a great academic discussion. Either way it is worth a try as long as you explain why you think that mormons can be consider as atheists.

 

[why_me]

Nope. My dearest friend is/was a Mormon. She died two years ago and came to the full realization that the truth of Jesus Christ cannot be found in a Mormon Ward or Temple. Her family disowned her and it it took her 7 months to get her name off of the Mormon membership rolls. That even included a letter to the LDS in Salt Lake from an attorney.

I am sorry to hear about your good friend. Usually mormon parents do not disown their children because they leave the lds church. It was a big mistake by her parents. And usually the process of name removal is not problematic. But since it goes from ward to salt lake it may take awhile.

Again sorry about the loss of your friend.

 

[eshuster]

Folks:

There are far too many misconceptions in this forum to resolve by one person, and in many cases it is clearly a matter of interpretation. As a Christian who has elected to be baptized into the Mormon faith, I find it ever intriguing to read other Christians trying to explain our faith. While some are able to articulate basic beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, others take “point doctrines” and mingle the theology with anecdotal thoughts to come to conclusions that are “sort of right,” but doctrinally incorrect.

The abomination spoken of in the first vision is simple, yet unspecific. IF man was closing the canon against the will of God; denying revelation from God; misinterpreting the word of God; and setting up churches for financial gain; then surely it would be considered an abomination to God. Although many will not believe that was going on at the time of the first vision in the early 1800’s, it is the foundation on which the restoration of the gospel is built. Latter-day Saints believe there was an apostasy and restoration, most other Christians do not. That is OK, beyond the first vision there have been generations of prophets who have declared there is truth in all Christian Churches and therefore we need not focus on the “abomination” referred to in the first vision. If there was an apostasy then there was abomination. If there wasn’t an apostasy then the first vision is a sham. Is is that easy.

There is ample scriptural and historical evidences of the apostasy and the restoration; the only debate is the interpretation of such scriptures and events.

Interpretation is where much of this hinges. Catholics interpret scriptures one way, Evangelicals another. Methodists interpret scriptures one way and Baptists another. Mormons interpret scriptures one way and Lutherans another. And so forth.

Debates regarding scriptural interpretation have been going on for centuries and will continue until the end. Those with doctorates and education feel their interpretations are the most correct, while others feel the inspiration of the Holy Ghost provides a more correct interpretation. Some feel their translation of the Bible is the best and still others may choose from the 16 others in active circulation - in some cases wildly different in translation.

And so it goes.

It all comes down to faith - believing in something you cannot see, relying on the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and then following the Lord’s advice that by their fruits you will know them. Those who things lead to truth.

I love you brothers and sisters and thank you for your passion.

I hope to visit from time to time when I have a few moments to spare. Otherwise please visit the Foundation for Christian Studies at www.studychristianity.org.

Take care and God bless,
Eric Shuster

 

[benidict]

Folks:

There are far too many misconceptions in this forum to resolve by one person, and in many cases it is clearly a matter of interpretation. As a Christian who has elected to be baptized into the Mormon faith, I find it ever intriguing to read other Christians trying to explain our faith. While some are able to articulate basic beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, others take “point doctrines” and mingle the theology with anecdotal thoughts to come to conclusions that are “sort of right,” but doctrinally incorrect.

The abomination spoken of in the first vision is simple, yet unspecific. IF man was closing the canon against the will of God; denying revelation from God; misinterpreting the word of God; and setting up churches for financial gain; then surely it would be considered an abomination to God. Although many will not believe that was going on at the time of the first vision in the early 1800’s, it is the foundation on which the restoration of the gospel is built. Latter-day Saints believe there was an apostasy and restoration, most other Christians do not. That is OK, beyond the first vision there have been generations of prophets who have declared there is truth in all Christian Churches and therefore we need not focus on the “abomination” referred to in the first vision. If there was an apostasy then there was abomination. If there wasn’t an apostasy then the first vision is a sham. Is is that easy.

There is ample scriptural and historical evidences of the apostasy and the restoration; the only debate is the interpretation of such scriptures and events.

Interpretation is where much of this hinges. Catholics interpret scriptures one way, Evangelicals another. Methodists interpret scriptures one way and Baptists another. Mormons interpret scriptures one way and Lutherans another. And so forth.

Debates regarding scriptural interpretation have been going on for centuries and will continue until the end. Those with doctorates and education feel their interpretations are the most correct, while others feel the inspiration of the Holy Ghost provides a more correct interpretation. Some feel their translation of the Bible is the best and still others may choose from the 16 others in active circulation - in some cases wildly different in translation.

And so it goes.

It all comes down to faith - believing in something you cannot see, relying on the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and then following the Lord’s advice that by their fruits you will know them. Those who things lead to truth.

I love you brothers and sisters and thank you for your passion.

I hope to visit from time to time when I have a few moments to spare. Otherwise please visit the Foundation for Christian Studies at www.studychristianity.org.

Take care and God bless,
Eric Shuster

and we love you too! peace

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

I think that your concept is beyond the scope of the people on the mormon threads. They will read Mormons are atheists and assume that mormons do not believe in god. I don’t think that they the reader will follow your post beyond that reasoning. And that is the point that I wanted to make.

I think that it could be worth opening a discussion on MAD but the conclusion that mormons are atheists might get a chuckle and then a trouncing. But then again, maybe not. It could lead to a great academic discussion. Either way it is worth a try as long as you explain why you think that mormons can be consider as atheists.

Hey why me.

That’s my sense too. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut. Maybe something could prompt me. Maybe not. I monitor the goings on there almost daily. I really don’t see any reason to making such a point with LDS folk at this time.

Rory

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

Folks:

There are far too many misconceptions in this forum to resolve by one person, and in many cases it is clearly a matter of interpretation. As a Christian who has elected to be baptized into the Mormon faith, I find it ever intriguing to read other Christians trying to explain our faith. While some are able to articulate basic beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, others take “point doctrines” and mingle the theology with anecdotal thoughts to come to conclusions that are “sort of right,” but doctrinally incorrect.

The abomination spoken of in the first vision is simple, yet unspecific. IF man was closing the canon against the will of God; denying revelation from God; misinterpreting the word of God; and setting up churches for financial gain; then surely it would be considered an abomination to God. Although many will not believe that was going on at the time of the first vision in the early 1800’s, it is the foundation on which the restoration of the gospel is built. Latter-day Saints believe there was an apostasy and restoration, most other Christians do not. That is OK, beyond the first vision there have been generations of prophets who have declared there is truth in all Christian Churches and therefore we need not focus on the “abomination” referred to in the first vision. If there was an apostasy then there was abomination. If there wasn’t an apostasy then the first vision is a sham. Is is that easy.

There is ample scriptural and historical evidences of the apostasy and the restoration; the only debate is the interpretation of such scriptures and events.

Interpretation is where much of this hinges. Catholics interpret scriptures one way, Evangelicals another. Methodists interpret scriptures one way and Baptists another. Mormons interpret scriptures one way and Lutherans another. And so forth.

Debates regarding scriptural interpretation have been going on for centuries and will continue until the end. Those with doctorates and education feel their interpretations are the most correct, while others feel the inspiration of the Holy Ghost provides a more correct interpretation. Some feel their translation of the Bible is the best and still others may choose from the 16 others in active circulation - in some cases wildly different in translation.

And so it goes.

It all comes down to faith - believing in something you cannot see, relying on the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and then following the Lord’s advice that by their fruits you will know them. Those who things lead to truth.

I love you brothers and sisters and thank you for your passion.

I hope to visit from time to time when I have a few moments to spare. Otherwise please visit the Foundation for Christian Studies at www.studychristianity.org.

Take care and God bless,
Eric Shuster

Hey Eric,

I have to take exception with an important presupposition that I am unwilling to concede. You seem to take it for granted that we will all agree regarding the church of the 1820’s (or of any age) that “IF man was closing the canon against the will of God; denying revelation from God; misinterpreting the word of God; and setting up churches for financial gain; then surely it would be considered an abomination to God.”

I see in the Old Testament record the graphic and sometimes sordid history of a priesthood that doesn’t lose authority though priests, princes, and people behaved in ways similar or worse to what you describe. Of course I can agree that such practices as you mention would be unacceptable to God, and perhaps even sink to a level that could be thought “abominable”. But we have a precedent in the Old Testament that should make us wary about presuming a loss of priesthood authority on the basis of the most horrendous behaviors coupled with better promises of perpetuity and continuity than those given to the sons of Aaron.

As you suggest, I do not admit that Catholic atrocities remotely approach what our detractors tend to believe, but beyond that, if I did, bad behavior in the inspired Scriptures does not easily lend itself to an assumption of lost priesthood authority.

Rory

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

I see in the Old Testament record the graphic and sometimes sordid history of a priesthood that doesn’t lose authority though priests, princes, and people behaved in ways similar or worse to what you describe. Of course I can agree that such practices as you mention would be unacceptable to God, and perhaps even sink to a level that could be thought “abominable”. ***But we have a precedent in the Old Testament that should make us wary about presuming a loss of priesthood authority on the basis of the most horrendous behaviors coupled with better promises of perpetuity and continuity than those given to the sons of Aaron. ***

This is a very important point, especially in light of why me claiming (or at least implying the claim) that if we look at the history of Christianity we can see reason for a restoration.