The Message of the First Vision

[Anonymous]

DBMormon wrote:

By the standard that Elder McConkie is a knucklehead, I would be labeled as one too.

This may describe us all. But seriously, the exercise in this thread was to review the post I made about how creeds themselves lock in belief. I later discovered quotes by Joseph Smith indicating that was exactly what he intended — it had nothing to do with the content of the creeds. This has all now been discussed in the various posts here on this thread.

I sense, sometimes, that you’re more taking a given statement or two in the comments here, and then laying out what you believe on a topic without due consideration of everything that has been posted. I do the same a lot of the time. It’s more useful to actually engage in the conversation on the thread, listening (reading) a bit of the entire thread before commenting… true?

fwiw.

[Anonymous]

I apoligize,

I thought I had understood the direction and was contributing.

My only secondary thought is that I don’t believe for a moment that Joseph ever wanted a well laid out doctrine or dogma. I think he spent his life allowing God to share insight with him beyond the understanding of the day and that he wanted others to have that same freedom.

I think the church has certainly become more dogmatic, though I think some of that had to happen or at least was naturally bound to.

I believe there is a minimum amount of things a LDS should at least hope for or allow to be true to be a member.

Is this closer to the discussion’s purpose?

If not please help me as I am walking into walls in a dark room

Sorry

Bill

[Anonymous]

DBMormon wrote:

I apoligize,

I thought I had understood the direction and was contributing.

My only secondary thought is that I don’t believe for a moment that Joseph ever wanted a well laid out doctrine or dogma. I think he spent his life allowing God to share insight with him beyond the understanding of the day and that he wanted others to have that same freedom.

I think the church has certainly become more dogmatic, though I think some of that had to happen or at least was naturally bound to.

I believe there is a minimum amount of things a LDS should at least hope for or allow to be true to be a member.

Is this closer to the discussion’s purpose?

If not please help me as I am walking into walls in a dark room

Sorry

Bill

perfect! no apology necessary. opinions are like armpits…we all have a couple…

[Anonymous]

wayfarer wrote:

opinions are like armpits…we all have a couple…

Are you saying my opinions stink?? :lolno:

DBMormon wrote:

I think the church has certainly become more dogmatic, though I think some of that had to happen or at least was naturally bound to.

Isn’t this problematic though…if we put a lot of emphasis on the need for a First Vision for this reason, only to have our Church go in the same direction? Maybe not. If we just tone down the problem with the current religions of Joseph’s day are just natural course of religions that once had truth but needed a course correction.

It is just a weird line people walk in the church to suggest other dogmas and creeds are just such “abominations”, unless they are our dogmas and creeds which are correct (which still sounds very much like 1800s “burned over district” rhetoric). I struggle with framing that right in my mind, unless I just accept we are right, period. I am not comfortable with that.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Isn’t this problematic though…if we put a lot of emphasis on the need for a First Vision for this reason, only to have our Church go in the same direction? Maybe not. If we just tone down the problem with the current religions of Joseph’s day are just natural course of religions that once had truth but needed a course correction.

The first person walks into the woods and says there are no rules about God. God appears and he says I have a body and it is noticed by the first person. The first person starts a church declaring what he knows.

How can a second person walk into the church wanting to be part of it and even after talking to the first person still say “I want to believe there are no rules about God” and he has to declare all things to me as if it were new information?

seems kinda silly to me to want a blank slate forever. Progress means taking what someone started and improving it. but their the foundation is already there

Now multiply this by a couple of dozen revealed truths.

So now there are a couple of dozen known things about God, declared by those claiming to have gotten the information directly from him.

It doesn’t take long before the Church that started on an idea of creeds are bad end up having creeds of their own.

I still think that what prophets and apostles are willing to say that absolutely know is a relatively small group of things and on top of that is a lot of opinion portrayed by some as truth.

[Anonymous]

I agree, wayfarer, with the focus of why “creeds” are abominable – and why I am concerned about modern Mormon creedalism.

I also am concerned about how badly – and I mean terribly – the First Vision is interpreted and applied by so many members. The Nicene Creed, for example, gets blasted by lots of members (along with the Apostles’ Creed, as you’ve described), but it reads as if it was written by a faithful Mormon. I’ve said before, and I believes strongly, that “the creeds” (and the entire focus of Joseph’s question in the grove) had nothing to do with Catholicism – since Catholicism never was an option in his mind. He was was praying about Protestant denominations and nothing else – and, as has been mentioned in another current thread, I think God tends to answer the questions asked when He chooses to answers prayers. If Catholicism wasn’t even a subconscious part of Joseph’s question, I doubt it was any part of the answer he received.

Thus, I believe “the creeds” were the Protestant foundational teachings that were seen as immutable and eternal – including the authority foundation inherent in sola scriptura itself. It’s the denial of “He will yet reveal” that lies at the heart of the creeds being abominable, imo – even as I believe some of the actual Protestant creeds really were (and are) abominable.

[Anonymous]

DBMormon wrote:

How can a second person walk into the church wanting to be part of it and even after talking to the first person still say “I want to believe there are no rules about God” and he has to declare all things to me as if it were new information?

The concept of building on the work of others is, of course, essential in science and technology (though one can get into trouble there as well) since there is simple too much information for one person to derive on their own. The best one person can hope to do is to make incremental additions to the body of technical knowledge, though of course there are those from time to time who make quantum leaps.

Religious “truth”, such as it is, ought to be entirely different. FIrst of all, the essentials should be extremely easy to grasp without any specialized training. And secondly, the body of truth ought to be fairly compact. The important parts I fill in on my own. This seems absolutely essential to me. Building on someone else’s foundation is a recipe for disaster, as many here can attest. Of course this works differently fo rdifferent people. Many — most, perhaps — are perfectly happy with accepting someone else’s ideas and going on from there. For myself, I have found that this is counterproductive, to say the least.

[Anonymous]

wayfarer wrote:

The majority of the creeds are non-controversial, and the ones specific to northern New England: Roman, Apostles, reflect word-for-word Mormon Doctrine.

Here is the Nicene Creed:

Nicene Creed, Catholic Roman Rite wrote:

I believe in one God,

the Father almighty,

maker of heaven and earth,

of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,

the Only Begotten Son of God,

born of the Father before all ages.

God from God, Light from Light,

true God from true God,

begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;

through him all things were made.

For us men and for our salvation

he came down from heaven,

and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,

and became man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,

he suffered death and was buried,

and rose again on the third day

in accordance with the Scriptures.

He ascended into heaven

and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory

to judge the living and the dead

and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,

who proceeds from the Father and the Son,

who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,

who has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.

I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins

and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead

and the life of the world to come. Amen.

This is very interesting. Compare with D&C 20:17-28:

Quote:

By these things we know that there is a God in heaven,

who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God,

the framer of heaven and earth, and all things which are in them;

And that he created man, male and female,

after his own image and in his own likeness, created he them;

And gave unto them commandments

that they should love and serve him, the only living and true God,

and that he should be the only being whom they should worship.

But by the transgression of these holy laws

man became sensual and devilish, and became fallen man.

Wherefore, the Almighty God gave his Only Begotten Son,

as it is written in those scriptures which have been given of him.

He suffered temptations but gave no heed unto them.

He was crucified, died, and rose again the third day;

And ascended into heaven, to sit down on the right hand of the Father,

to reign with almighty power according to the will of the Father;

That as many as would believe and be baptized in his holy name,

and endure in faith to the end, should be saved—

Not only those who believed after he came in the meridian of time, in the flesh,

but all those from the beginning, even as many as were before he came,

who believed in the words of the holy prophets,

who spake as they were inspired by the gift of the Holy Ghost,

who truly testified of him in all things, should have eternal life,

As well as those who should come after,

who should believe in the gifts and callings of God by the Holy Ghost,

which beareth record of the Father and of the Son;

Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God,

infinite and eternal, without end. Amen.

Wayfarer and Heber, you’re making a subtle yet important point about this that has me thinking–

Heber13 wrote:

the point being made about other creeds as abominations…they are “all or nothing” requirements not allowing line upon line progression of belief or revelation?

If so, it changes how I look at the statement that others are abominations. It is not because they are all wrong, or teaching awful things…but the way they limit belief and faith, or that they require allegiance to groups and churches instead of to God, would be an abomination to God.

Thanks for the food for thought!

[Anonymous]

DBMormon wrote:

seems kinda silly to me to want a blank slate forever. Progress means taking what someone started and improving it. but their the foundation is already there

I did not mean to suggest a blank slate for all and require God to reveal the same teachings to each individual. That does seem silly. I was more asking for consistency and fairness in judging Mormon teachings and other religions. Ray pointed out nicely the context of the First Vision comments. It is problematic, as BRM demonstrated, to extrapolate the condemnations Joseph heard in his situation to ALL religions in our modern world, or anything other than Mormonism. It is offensive and prideful to do so.

As Doug pointed out, science and technology also advance by building off of foundations. Let religion and the church follow the same path. It should be open to all to challenge with new ideas and new revelation, and truth will advance what is right. We can maintain authority and keys to the priesthood to run the church in order, but also allow each individual member to go to the woods to seek the same experience Joseph had. They may get it, they may not, but we do not need to establish creeds that would limit members faith by stating they cannot get revelation unless they are in a priesthood leadership position, and sustaining your leaders is translated into a creed of never doubting or challenging what the leaders teach. And then on top of that, calling other creeds abominations while feeling complacent their creeds are the good creeds approved by the Lord (except when in cases like blacks and the priesthood…they are not and no apology necessary). Without getting off point…my statement is not blank slate for all, but open revelation for all as Joseph taught, and still maintain order with keys of the priesthood, as Joseph struggled to maintain. The abomination is if members do not seek personal revelation, even for things that priesthood revelation has been received for. That is God’s plan, as I understand Elder Oaks’ talk.

Quote:

It doesn’t take long before the Church that started on an idea of creeds are bad end up having creeds of their own.

I agree, and wish members of the church more often could see that point, and be careful of hypocrisy. Just last Sunday my daughter brought her Catholic friend to church, only to have the Sunday School teacher say how “whacked out” the Catholics were with their ideas of God and their teachings of the Bible when we have such clear teachings in our church. My daughter’s friend just laughed and told my daughter in private afterwards she is used to hearing how “whacked out” the Mormons were. She didn’t know we thought the Catholics were the ones whacked out. :wtf:

Quote:

I still think that what prophets and apostles are willing to say that absolutely know is a relatively small group of things and on top of that is a lot of opinion portrayed by some as truth.

well said. I agree and I think Elder Uchrdorf has referred to something like this in conference before:

Quote:

There are so many shoulds and should nots that eternal principles get lost in a labarynth of good ideas.

[Author]

Posts