Still abominable?

[_cafe crema]

Sure. I would say the creeds being an abomination, while being harsh, is not meant to suggest the teachings within the creeds are all wrong, only that God views the creeds themselves as an abomination. I don't know if that makes sense, the way I said it.

Nonsense, the creeds are nothing more than a statement of teachings. Also a creed is professed (openly and freely declared or acknowledged: affirmed) to limit "professors" to teachers doesn't work. Those who profess a creed (professors) are all those who declare or acknowledge or affirm the creed, it is not limited to those who teach the creed. LDS can pretend all they want but what Joseph said is that everything other churches teach and those that declare (not teach) those teachings are an abomination or corrupt.

[_jon]

Saying all other churches are abominable and corrupt is a distance away from what Joseph Smith initially reported God told him too.

Stem, does this mean you don't believe the canonised version of the First Vision?

[_Yoda]

Is that still the view of the LDS church? Specifically, the reasons given in v19 for Joseph not to join any existing church: are other churches still considered to have abominable creeds, and corrupt professors whose hearts are far from the Lord?

If not, what happened to change the situation, and when did the change happen?

I would say that a big change occurred in the approach to other churches with the removal of the corrupt preacher in the temple endowment movie. The preacher of other churches, being in cahoots with Satan, was quite offensive, and rightly so, to converts from other religions. This was one of the major 1990 temple changes.

I think that the softening toward other churches happened primarily under the influence of President Hickley. He saw, I believe, a need for collaboration with other churches from a financial standpoint, if nothing else. After all, investing in land for temples, etc., is a lot easier to do if you are friendly.

Like most other changes in the Church, the softening toward other Christian sects has been a gradual one. Now, most young members would be bewildered with discussions involving animosity toward other religions. "The Church they know doesn't adhere to those beliefs."

[_MsJack]

It was very common in the 19th century for Christians from opposing denominations, movements, or ideologies to say harsh, condemnatory things of one another. Viewed in its 19th century context, the 1838 First Vision account isn't at all unusual. There's a spirit of ecumenism and tolerance which has since permeated the Christian world and caused us to be more respectful of denominational divides or differences of opinion on scriptural matters, and it's sometimes hard for us to understand that this just wasn't the attitude of our 19th century forbears.

Mormons simply have the misfortune of having canonized the harsh things that their leaders said about other Christians in the 19th century, so today's Mormons are stuck with a document that forces a theology which requires Mormons to take a very unfriendly view of what other Christians believe. They're saddled with an awkward 19th century religious worldview in a 21st century age of ecumenism, and there's only so much they can do to soften that without doing a complete 180° turn on the canonized version of the First Vision and saying Joseph Smith got that much wrong.

[_Buffalo]

It was very common in the 19th century for Christians from opposing denominations, movements, or ideologies to say harsh, condemnatory things of one another. Viewed in its 19th century context, the 1838 First Vision account isn't at all unusual. There's a spirit of ecumenism and tolerance which has since permeated the Christian world and caused us to be more respectful of denominational divides or differences of opinion on scriptural matters, and it's sometimes hard for us to understand that this just wasn't the attitude of our 19th century forbears.

Mormons simply have the misfortune of having canonized the harsh things that their leaders said about other Christians in the 19th century, so today's Mormons are stuck with a document that forces a theology which requires Mormons to take a very unfriendly view of what other Christians believe. They're saddled with an awkward 19th century religious worldview in a 21st century age of ecumenism, and there's only so much they can do to soften that without doing a complete 180° turn on the canonized version of the First Vision and saying Joseph Smith got that much wrong.

Yes, that is unfortunate. The church has been saddled with a number of rather stupid ideas due to concept of "modern revelation." It's much more difficult for the Mormons to get rid of dead weight doctrine and policy than it is for other denominations.

[_malkie]

It was very common in the 19th century for Christians from opposing denominations, movements, or ideologies to say harsh, condemnatory things of one another. Viewed in its 19th century context, the 1838 First Vision account isn't at all unusual. There's a spirit of ecumenism and tolerance which has since permeated the Christian world and caused us to be more respectful of denominational divides or differences of opinion on scriptural matters, and it's sometimes hard for us to understand that this just wasn't the attitude of our 19th century forbears.

Mormons simply have the misfortune of having canonized the harsh things that their leaders said about other Christians in the 19th century, so today's Mormons are stuck with a document that forces a theology which requires Mormons to take a very unfriendly view of what other Christians believe. They're saddled with an awkward 19th century religious worldview in a 21st century age of ecumenism, and there's only so much they can do to soften that without doing a complete 180° turn on the canonized version of the First Vision and saying Joseph Smith got that much wrong.

Yes, that is unfortunate. The church has been saddled with a number of rather stupid ideas due to concept of "modern revelation." It's much more difficult for the Mormons to get rid of dead weight doctrine and policy than it is for other denominations.

Agreed.

MsJack, since you are on the receiving end of this doctrinal statement, can you say if other Christian denominations accept that "Mormons simply have the misfortune of having canonized the harsh things that their leaders said", and are willing to soften their hurt/dismay at the unavoidable continuation of the belief?

[_harmony]

Yes, that is unfortunate. The church has been saddled with a number of rather stupid ideas due to concept of "modern revelation." It's much more difficult for the Mormons to get rid of dead weight doctrine and policy than it is for other denominations.

If we had prophets who were actually prophets and seers who actually saw... and leaders who actually believed what they tell the members, we'd have ongoing revelation that would supercede these mistakes. Instead, we're saddled with leaders who don't see, don't prophecy, don't reveal anything that would cut this deadwood out.

No wonder we're stagnant.

[_Buffalo]

Yes, that is unfortunate. The church has been saddled with a number of rather stupid ideas due to concept of "modern revelation." It's much more difficult for the Mormons to get rid of dead weight doctrine and policy than it is for other denominations.

If we had prophets who were actually prophets and seers who actually saw... and leaders who actually believed what they tell the members, we'd have ongoing revelation that would supercede these mistakes. Instead, we're saddled with leaders who don't see, don't prophecy, don't reveal anything that would cut this deadwood out.

No wonder we're stagnant.

Another part of the problem is they require unanimity to make changes, and the GA selection process selects for yes men and corporate lackeys who don't want to rock the boat. They need to recruit some outside talent.

[_malkie]

Yes, that is unfortunate. The church has been saddled with a number of rather stupid ideas due to concept of "modern revelation." It's much more difficult for the Mormons to get rid of dead weight doctrine and policy than it is for other denominations.

If we had prophets who were actually prophets and seers who actually saw... and leaders who actually believed what they tell the members, we'd have ongoing revelation that would supercede these mistakes. Instead, we're saddled with leaders who don't see, don't prophecy, don't reveal anything that would cut this deadwood out.

No wonder we're stagnant.

Another part of the problem is they require unanimity to make changes, and the GA selection process selects for yes men and corporate lackeys who don't want to rock the boat. They need to recruit some outside talent.

Call for volunteers?

[_harmony]

If we had prophets who were actually prophets and seers who actually saw... and leaders who actually believed what they tell the members, we'd have ongoing revelation that would supercede these mistakes. Instead, we're saddled with leaders who don't see, don't prophecy, don't reveal anything that would cut this deadwood out.

No wonder we're stagnant.

Another part of the problem is they require unanimity to make changes, and the GA selection process selects for yes men and corporate lackeys who don't want to rock the boat. They need to recruit some outside talent.

There also has to be the possibility of admitting that early church leaders, Joseph in particular, made mistakes. That never happens. As long as Joseph is off limits, there will never be a contructive look at exactly what he did and said... and there will never be any ongoing revelations that address anything Joseph said.