Quote:
Originally Posted by ceeboo
Hi again Vanhin,
I greatly appreciate your efforts  and perspective
Why you claim there was an apostasy- Yes, I fully realize the importance of the apostasy claim by LDS leading to " restore " ( thank you for that )
I was simply offering a different view that there was not a Great Apostasy " nor is there any evidence in NT for it.
I will try " abomination " ( short answer as to not get caught up in nor divert from the topic at hand ) Nicene Creed, year 520 or so, adopted by the only Christian Church that was available on the planet. JS implies in 1820ish that the Creed is an abomination.
Try, if you would, understand how some may find that enormously insulting especially when you consider that many do not adhere to the " first vision " or the next several things that followed. Not sure I did a very good job with that but I did try.
I would absolutly agree that the " first vision " is indeed paramount to what the LDS faith is built on. I would further suggest that all following visions by all prophets, from first ( JS )
to current ( Monson sp?? sorry ) should be completly accepted without contradiction or " speculation " as to the evaluation of the authenticity of all it's total claims.
I would agree that the evaluation of the authenticty of the first vision claim is a large part of your religion, but all the following prophetic claims and doctrine are certainly a part of that " restoration ".
Thanks for your ear,
God bless,
Carl |
Thanks. Let's talk about "abomination". I agree that the words can be insulting to some.
I will quote the passage in question:
...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.”
According to the narrative, it is not Joseph Smith who is implying that "their creeds were an abomination" and that "those professors were all corrupt", it is the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ. Obviously, one would be less likely to be insulted, if they knew for sure that Christ said that, and not Joseph. So, without knowing the answer to the question I posed in my previous post, it is premature for anyone to feel insulted in my opinion.
Obviously none of us were there when it happened. So where does that leave someone who is introduced to the account of the First Vision? I think it leaves them with the following options. They can-
1) ...outright reject it without investigating it further, and conclude, without really knowing for sure, that it DID NOT happen.
2) ...outright accept it without investigating it further, and conclude, without really knowing for sure, that it DID happen.
3) ...investigate the claim to determine for themselves, if at all possible, the truth about it.
4) ...ignore the implications, and not care whether it is true or false.
Are there other options? And where do you see yourself, having had the account of the First Vision presented to you?
Sincerely,
Vanhin