I think that’s a great sentiment that is not always in practice. I have a dear old friend who is a member of RLDS. A small independent branch that retained that name when the church became Community of Christ. My point to her was that by her small group claiming the right to break off from the dictates of the world church and not accepting the message of their own prophet they were claiming there right to worship accprding to their own beliefs and conscinece. That assertion includes in my estimation some moral obligation to allow others that same privalage. Where is the line drawn? Doesn’t your church still send out missionaries to convert others? Don’t young LDS men knock on doors and try to convince people of the LDS message? Nothing wrong with that except that when it happens they invite their beliefs to be questioned and challenged. I think that kind of discussion can help move spirituallity forward as long as in the end we can respect that basic right spoken of in article 11. I may be an encounter in someone’s journey but I can respect and even revere the truth that their path is not my own and their relationship with God and where it takes them is unique to them. IMHO there’s an attitude difference between allowing others to worship incorrectly and actually understanding and respecting the individuals spiritual journey. To know that within humanity’s struggle to know God and ourselves neither the Pagan, Mormon, Baptist, Buddhist, Atheist, or Muslim are completely right or wrong. We are simply on the path with more to discover.
Inviting others to join one’s group is different than forcing one to join one’s group. I guess that’s where the line’s drawn. As you said above, there’s nothing wrong with sending out missionaries.
Divergent Paths of the Restoration is a survey of churches that trace themselves back to Joseph Smith, Jr. It was written by a former LDS member who’s now one of the top guys in the Community of Christ church. It’s a very good book; however, pretty expensive now that it’s out of publication.
Aha!* Inviting* {interesting word choice} is not the same as activly trying to convince others that ones specific religion is indeed the best choice, or the closest to God’s will, or the most theologically correct, or whatever the concept is. That kind of activity might arguably be a little contrary to article 11.
article 11.5
“we’ll let you worship according to the dictates of your own conscience, but first we have to try like hell to show you you’re wrong and we’re right”
I have no problem with missionaries in general. It seems to me that if you have sincere beliefs, then wanting to share them with others is natural. I think the exchange of spiritual ideas and concepts helps to move spirituality forward, A little friendly conflict and controversy is a healthy thing. The problem is when one party is interested in the exchange being one way only.
I feel compelled to make it a two way exchange whenever possible. I claim the right to determine my own spiritual path but I am aware that my path is not right for everybody. I tend to be impatient with those who imply that their path is the right one for others.
BTW, I looked up the book you mentioned. Looks interesting. I also looked up the author. I found a Book titled “The Prophet Puzzle” that looks good. I’ll check my local library.
The difference in appraoch from J Smith and SWK can be attributed to the differnce in the men rather than any change in God.
The vote has already been explained. My understanding of it was that it was the committment Monty spoke of and a way for the church through prayer and fasting to feel assured they were recieving the will of God rather than their leader who happens to be a less than perfect human.
In the case of RLDS certain changes were accepted by the world church but not by
certain congregations and so there have been some splits.
My point is that Mormon church seems to have run into something similar to the early Christianity. A lot of direct relevations at the early stage and then it radically changes. When God was talking through Joseph Smith, He didn’t seem concerned if the people were concerned if it was God or JS, but then now that there isn’t a direct voice of God (e.g., “This is the Lord, and I now command that blacks are to receive the full blessings of the priesthood”) it becomes necessary to have confirmation from the masses.
I understand what you’re saying. RLDS had a similar problem with woman in the priesthood. That was one of the “revelations” that caused some to split off. I just finished a book by a biblical scholar that indicates one of the early apostles was a woman but men changed the passage. Kinda ridiculous.
What I’m saying is that your phrasing puts the responsibility on God, as if he changed his mind. I don’t see that as a valid argument. The responsibility is on man and his degree of resistance or surrender. If one prophet uses certain language and one uses another it’s the choice of those two men to do so.
The claim was made that Smith was known to be a charlatan and con man. Is there written proof of this? I understand that Smith was born in Vermont, and moved to upstate NY as a child. Are there any court records of Smith? Did he deceive people (as alleged)? I recall reading that Smith was involved in some efforts to locate “buried treasure”- do records of this incident survive?
The evidence is disputed but real enough in my opinion. here’s a link that tells about it. Add to this evidence that the idea that American Indians were lost tribes of Israel was a popular theory at the time. Oliver Cowdery {Joseph’s second in command} published a book on the subject before he met Smith. Also there was a couple of books circulating before the Book of Mormon came out that spoke of the ideas expressed in the Book of Mormon, one a work of fiction about buried plates containing ancient secrrets. One of the arguements put forth is that Smith could not have written the Book of Mormon on his own given his background and education. The fact is he was not alone. I have often wondered where some of the Book of Mormon theology came from because it’s actually pretty interesting. Recently I’ve read articles that Smith may have gotten hold of books about Gnosticism and other mystic religions and borrowed from them. It’s not too hard to believe that. IMHO Smith was a charlatan but by introducing new theological ideas he actually helped move spirituality forward.
Well, bust my buttons. Exactly what I was trying to say in my O.P.
Jesus was seen as quite the charlatan/heretic by the Romans, and look where He is today. However, Jesus also introduced radically new theological ideas and in doing so he actually helped move spirituality forward.
And, if the newest findings in real factual archaeologically proven documentation is being read properly, perhaps Jesus actually asked Judas to betray him, to move the cause along.
As I said, the patina of almost 2,000 years. Given another 2,000 years I wonder how L.D.S. will be viewed.
** Side note to those who may have just been insulted by what I wrote. I meant no insult at all. In fact, despite not being a Christian, I DO respect the concept of Jesus enough to have capitolized His name in my post up there. I was simply remarking upon how the powers in place at the time percieved him, and what they do with him based on that perception. My personal feelings aren’t what this thread is about, but I find His message to be sublimely beautiful. **
Care to provide any cites on the statement I bolded? We don’t really know what the details of Jesus life were or if Jesus actually existed at all. We have a great story about the man. Actually his theological ideas may have been radical to the area he lived in but Buddha had taught much the same about 600 years before so it wasn’t all that new.
The difference is we may never know about the reality of Jesus {unless some startling new discovery is made} but we can be reasonably sure about Joseph Smith if we care to really examine the evidence. What I hope happens is that people realize the spiritual principles and how they apply to our lives is much more relevant than the details of a story about a man. However, when you say LDS you’re talking about a specific organization, not spiritual principles. I’m hoping in 2000 years we have grown enough spiritually to realize neither the Bible nor the Book of Mormon or the Koran or anything else is the “word of God” and that religions with structured dogma and doctrine and various splinter groups are very much the minority.
-sigh- You are not going to turn my thread into a B.B.Q. Pit thread. Got that? If you feel this way, I respect it. Take that kind of statement to the Pit, piss of the entire world, that’s fine and dandy. Please do not attempt to derail this discussion again. We’ve all been doing just fine right on through Page 2. Please do not attempt to wreck this thread.
As a person, you are free to refute the incredible cross-referenced written accounts of the time of 2,000-odd years ago and say that Jesus never existed. If you are insisting on DNA or a burial site that can be excavated and examined, then I am sorry. Nobody’s stepping up to provide you with that.
A lot of the time, history is accepted as fact because of a plethora of written accounts, each one independant and yet supporting the statements of the others by dint of shared facts. Choosing to absolutely deny the plausability of the statement " Jesus existed on Earth as a person around the year 1 C.E. " is a choice you can make. But you can’t very well demand cite as though I’m proclaiming that aliens really are hidden in Roswell.
I have already supported your basic intention to pursue the origins of canonicity without letting this thread turn into one more “bash Joseph Smith” attack on the LDS. However, here you have siezed on one phrase out of a response to you and overreacted, thus ignoring the actual statement made.
You asserted that the Romans viewed Jesus as a charlatan and a heretic. It is quite within scope (since you introduced the topic) to note that we have no idea whether Jesus was actually viewed as a “charalatan/heretic” by the Romans (or even the Jews if that was simply a typo).
You made an assertion in the context of defending your thesis. It is perfectly logical to challenge that assertion, given that its removal would seem to weaken your position, when your assertion does not actually appear to be supported by evidence. If you want the thread to stay on topic, then don’t throw out gratuitous claims that cannot be supported.
What I seized upon was the quote I …um…seized up- which was saying that nobody knew if He even existed. That was the genesis of my last post. You are correct, I cannot prove that he was considered a heretic.
I withdraw the claim.
I suppose that I, nor you, nor anyone else can definitively prove that Jesus of Nazareth existed on this Earth, since there are no witnesses extant to swear under oath, or provide irrefutable evidence.
Therefore, I withdraw the comments made in the last two posts.
It is 2006. I had no idea that saying that Jesus of Nazareth existed was a gratuitous claim- to use your exact words in replying to my exact post just above. Please accept my apologies in this regard.
I will attempt to contribute to this thread without making such gratuitous claims.
That was not my intention at all. I was more interested in hearing a cite for the section I bolded just as I asked for. I am somewhat familar with the NT and don’t recall the romans considering Jesus a heretic or charlatan. Thats all.
I did not attempt to refute the existence of Jesus in any way. You read too much into my statement. As a spiritual person I prefer to believe Jesus existed and taught the wonderful things that I have come to revere. As a rational reasonable person I was simply stating what I believe to be a fact {not as an attack in any way} that we don’t know with certainty based on historical evidence, if Jesus existed. In much the same way I would acknowledge I can’t prove God exists although I am a believer.
From my own studies I haven’t found an incredible cross referenced plethora of independent written accounts testifying to the existence of Jesus. I’d be gratified to see them if you have any such references. Regardless, I hope you understand that was not the cite I was requesting. Nor was I attempting to hijack the thread.
**