• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Do you agree with what this LDS Apostle is saying?

Flat Earth Kyle

Well-Known Member
Do you agree with what this Apostle of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is saying? What parts do you agree with and what parts do you disagree with and why?

In April of 2008 Elder Jeffery R. Holland Stated the following.
" 1.Today I would like to address a major doctrine which characterizes our faith but which causes concern to some, namely the bold assertion that God continues to speak His word and reveal His truth, revelations which mandate an open canon of scripture.

2.Some Christians, in large measure because of their genuine love for the Bible, have declared that there can be no more authorized scripture beyond the Bible. In thus pronouncing the canon of revelation closed, our friends in some other faiths shut the door on divine expression that we in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints hold dear: the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, and the ongoing guidance received by God’s anointed prophets and apostles. Imputing no ill will to those who take such a position, nevertheless we respectfully but resolutely reject such an unscriptural characterization of true Christianity.

3
.One of the arguments often used in any defense of a closed canon is the New Testament passage recorded in Revelation 22:18: “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of … this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book.” However, there is now overwhelming consensus among virtually all biblical scholars that this verse applies only to the book of Revelation, not the whole Bible. Those scholars of our day acknowledge a number of New Testament “books” that were almost certainly written after John’s revelation on the Isle of Patmos was received. Included in this category are at least the books of Jude, the three Epistles of John, and probably the entire Gospel of John itself. 1 Perhaps there are even more than these.

4.But there is a simpler answer as to why that passage in the final book of the current New Testament cannot apply to the whole Bible. That is because the whole Bible as we know it—one collection of texts bound in a single volume—did not exist when that verse was written. For centuries after John produced his writing, the individual books of the New Testament were in circulation singly or perhaps in combinations with a few other texts but almost never as a complete collection. Of the entire corpus of 5,366 known Greek New Testament manuscripts, only 35 contain the whole New Testament as we now know it, and 34 of those were compiled after A.D. 1000. 2

5.The fact of the matter is that virtually every prophet of the Old and New Testament has added scripture to that received by his predecessors. If the Old Testament words of Moses were sufficient, as some could have mistakenly thought them to be, 3 then why, for example, the subsequent prophecies of Isaiah or of Jeremiah, who follows him? To say nothing of Ezekiel and Daniel, of Joel, Amos, and all the rest. If one revelation to one prophet in one moment of time is sufficient for all time, what justifies these many others? What justifies them was made clear by Jehovah Himself when He said to Moses, “My works are without end, and … my words … never cease.” 4

6.One Protestant scholar has inquired tellingly into the erroneous doctrine of a closed canon. He writes: “On what biblical or historical grounds has the inspiration of God been limited to the written documents that the church now calls its Bible? … If the Spirit inspired only the written documents of the first century, does that mean that the same Spirit does not speak today in the church about matters that are of significant concern?” 5 We humbly ask those same questions.

7.Continuing revelation does not demean or discredit existing revelation. The Old Testament does not lose its value in our eyes when we are introduced to the New Testament, and the New Testament is only enhanced when we read the Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ. In considering the additional scripture accepted by Latter-day Saints, we might ask: Were those early Christians who for decades had access only to the primitive Gospel of Mark (generally considered the first of the New Testament Gospels to be written)—were they offended to receive the more detailed accounts set forth later by Matthew and Luke, to say nothing of the unprecedented passages and revelatory emphasis offered later yet by John? Surely they must have rejoiced that ever more convincing evidence of the divinity of Christ kept coming. And so do we rejoice.

8.Please do not misunderstand. We love and revere the Bible, as Elder M. Russell Ballard taught so clearly from this pulpit just one year ago. 6 The Bible is the word of God. It is always identified first in our canon, our “standard works.” Indeed, it was a divinely ordained encounter with the fifth verse of the first chapter of the book of James that led Joseph Smith to his vision of the Father and the Son, which gave birth to the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ in our time. But even then, Joseph knew the Bible alone could not be the answer to all the religious questions he and others like him had. As he said in his own words, the ministers of his community were contending—sometimes angrily—over their doctrines. “Priest [was] contending against priest, and convert [was contending] against convert … in a strife of words and a contest about opinions,” he said. About the only thing these contending religions had in common was, ironically, a belief in the Bible, but, as Joseph wrote, “the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question [regarding which church was true] by an appeal to the Bible.” 7 Clearly the Bible, so frequently described at that time as “common ground,” was nothing of the kind—unfortunately it was a battleground.

9.Thus one of the great purposes of continuing revelation through living prophets is to declare to the world through additional witnesses that the Bible is true. “This is written,” an ancient prophet said, speaking of the Book of Mormon, “for the intent that ye may believe that,” speaking of the Bible. 8 In one of the earliest revelations received by Joseph Smith, the Lord said, “Behold, I do not bring [the Book of Mormon forth] to destroy [the Bible] but to build it up.” 9

10.One other point needs to be made. Since it is clear that there were Christians long before there was a New Testament or even an accumulation of the sayings of Jesus, it cannot therefore be maintained that the Bible is what makes one a Christian. In the words of esteemed New Testament scholar N. T. Wright, “The risen Jesus, at the end of Matthew’s Gospel, does not say, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth is given to the books you are all going to write,’ but [rather] ‘All authority in heaven and on earth is given to me.’ ” 10 In other words, “Scripture itself points … away from itself and to the fact that final and true authority belongs to God himself.” 11 So the scriptures are not the ultimate source of knowledge for Latter-day Saints. They are manifestations of the ultimate source. The ultimate source of knowledge and authority for a Latter-day Saint is the living God. The communication of those gifts comes from God as living, vibrant, divine revelation. 12

11.This doctrine lies at the very heart of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and of our message to the world. It dramatizes the significance of a solemn assembly yesterday, in which we sustained Thomas S. Monson as a prophet, a seer, and a revelator. We believe in a God who is engaged in our lives, who is not silent, not absent, nor, as Elijah said of the god of the priests of Baal, is He “[on] a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be [awakened].” 13 In this Church, even our young Primary children recite, “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.” 14

12. In declaring new scripture and continuing revelation, we pray we will never be arrogant or insensitive. But after a sacred vision in a now sacred grove answered in the affirmative the question “Does God exist?” what Joseph Smith and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints force us to face is the next interrogative, which necessarily follows: “Does He speak?” We bring the good news that He does and that He has. With a love and affection born of our Christianity, we invite all to inquire into the wonder of what God has said since biblical times and is saying even now.

13.In a sense Joseph Smith and his prophetic successors in this Church answer the challenge Ralph Waldo Emerson put to the students of the Harvard Divinity School 170 years ago this coming summer. To that group of the Protestant best and brightest, the great sage of Concord pled that they teach “that God is, not was; that He speaketh, not spake.” 15
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Flat Earth Kyle

Well-Known Member
14.I testify that the heavens are open. I testify that Joseph Smith was and is a prophet of God, that the Book of Mormon is truly another testament of Jesus Christ. I testify that Thomas S. Monson is God’s prophet, a modern apostle with the keys of the kingdom in his hands, a man upon whom I personally have seen the mantle fall. I testify that the presence of such authorized, prophetic voices and ongoing canonized revelations have been at the heart of the Christian message whenever the authorized ministry of Christ has been on the earth. I testify that such a ministry is on the earth again, and it is found in this, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

15.In our heartfelt devotion to Jesus of Nazareth as the very Son of God, the Savior of the world, we invite all to examine what we have received of Him, to join with us, drinking deeply at the “well of water springing up into everlasting life,” 16 these constantly flowing reminders that God lives, that He loves us, and that He speaks. I express the deepest personal thanks that His works never end and His “words … never cease.” I bear witness of such divine loving attention and the recording of it, in the sacred name of Jesus Christ, amen.

(References:
1. For an introductory discussion on this topic, see Stephen E. Robinson, Are Mormons Christians? (1991), 46. The issue of canon is discussed on pages 45–56. Canon is defined as “an authoritative list of books accepted as Holy Scripture” (Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th ed. [2003], “canon”).

2. See Bruce M. Metzger, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible: An Introduction to Greek Paleography (1981), 54–55.

3. See Deuteronomy 4:2, for example.

4. Moses 1:4.

5. Lee M. McDonald, The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon, rev. ed. (1995), 255–56.

6. See “The Miracle of the Holy Bible,” Liahona and Ensign, May 2007, 80–82.

7. Joseph Smith—History 1:6, 12.

8. Mormon 7:9; emphasis added.

9. D&C 10:52; see also D&C 20:11.

10. N. T. Wright, The Last Word: Beyond the Bible Wars to a New Understanding of the Authority of Scripture (2005), xi.

11. Wright, The Last Word, 24.

12. For a full essay on this subject, see Dallin H. Oaks, “Scripture Reading and Revelation,” Ensign, Jan. 1995, 6–9.

13. 1 Kings 18:27.

14. Articles of Faith 1:9.

15. “An Address,” The Complete Writings of Ralph Waldo Emerson (1929), 45.
 

Flat Earth Kyle

Well-Known Member
I feel Elder Holland here makes a ton of really strong statements.

Paragraph 5 here was one of my favorite parts.
"5.The fact of the matter is that virtually every prophet of the Old and New Testament has added scripture to that received by his predecessors. If the Old Testament words of Moses were sufficient, as some could have mistakenly thought them to be, 3 then why, for example, the subsequent prophecies of Isaiah or of Jeremiah, who follows him? To say nothing of Ezekiel and Daniel, of Joel, Amos, and all the rest. If one revelation to one prophet in one moment of time is sufficient for all time, what justifies these many others? What justifies them was made clear by Jehovah Himself when He said to Moses, “My works are without end, and … my words … never cease.”
 

Flat Earth Kyle

Well-Known Member
What do you think about this statement, "God's works are without end, and God's words never cease.”?

If God were to speak to me today, telling me to take my family and move to another place in town because there is going to be a flash flood in which my house will be destroyed and I were to write those words down in my Journal, would that not be just as holy and valuable as God's words in the Bible?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I find it curious that, for Mormons, the canon of the bible remains closed. They have not added one book to the bible. I further find it curious that they do not accept the full canon or texts -- as represented by the Ethiopian church. I further find it curious that the BoM, D&C and PGP have not seemed to remain "open" to addition. I further find it curious that no other, newer documents have been canonized by the Mormons for nearly 200 years. I'd be curious to know just how much the elder understands about the nature of the canon, as it was originally conceived, if he thinks it "ought" to remain open?

The canon, originally conceived, was a "yardstick" -- a measuring device (canon means "reed" -- such as one used as a measuring device). A measuring device, by definition, has limits if it is to be a measuring device. What the early church was saying was, "This is the stuff we feel is OK to read in church." It was not intended to be a "stopping" point, for what is holy text and what is not; it was intended to be a starting point in determining what carried authenticity and authority. The elder in question seems to be treating it as the former. A 24 inch gauge must remain 24 inches, or it isn't a 24 inch gauge anymore. It becomes something else, and the standard of 24 inches becomes meaningless.
 

Flat Earth Kyle

Well-Known Member
This is what we are taught on the scriptural canon
"With the multiplicity of true books, of both Old and New Testament origin, there was also a proliferation of false writings from apostates and from authors who for one reason or another wished to propagate some particular thesis. From time to time decisions needed to be made as to which books were authoritative and which were false. A council of Jewish scholars met for this purpose in Jamnia, or Javneh (near Joppa), in about A.D. 90, and some determinations were made as to what were the official and accepted books of the Jews’ religion. This probably was a defensive reaction to the rise of Christian writings, and perhaps also from the fact that the Christians freely used the Jewish scriptures (Old Testament) as well as the writings of the Apostles and the early Christian leaders. It appears that the rabbis wanted to make clear the distinction between the two.

Councils were held in early Christianity to determine which of the writings were authoritative and which were heretical. Some good judgment was used, and many spurious books were rejected, while our present New Testament was preserved. Times of persecution also precipitated decisions as to which books were true and which false. If a Christian is forced by the Roman government to burn his books, he most likely will surrender those that are nonauthoritative and conceal the more valuable documents. In order to do this, he must know which are which.

No doubt many writings, of both Old and New Testament times, have been lost, and perhaps even willfully destroyed (see Lost books). When the Church was in apostasy, whether before or after the time of Christ, some valuable writings were misjudged to be in error (because the judges lacked the truth) and so were discarded. Likewise some books of lesser value may have been judged to be good. In the main, however, sound guidelines were established that helped to preserve the authoritative books. Among these rules were the following: (1) Is it claimed that the document was written by a prophet or an apostle? (2) Is the content of the writing consistent with known and accepted doctrines of the faith? (3) Is the document already used and accepted in the Church? By application of these tests the books now contained in the Bible have been preserved.

Although the decisions were made in the past as to which writings are authoritative, that does not mean that the canon of scripture is complete and that no more can be added. True prophets and apostles will continue to receive new revelation, and from time to time the legal authorities of the Church will see fit to formally add to the collection of scripture.
"

Now do Latter-day Saints have scripture outside of the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price? Yes. We have the Family Proclamation to the World, General Conference, the Ensign, the New Era, the Friend, Teachings of the Presidents of the Church and our own personal journals.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
This is what we are taught on the scriptural canon
"

Now do Latter-day Saints have scripture outside of the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price? Yes. We have the Family Proclamation to the World, General Conference, the Ensign, the New Era, the Friend, Teachings of the Presidents of the Church and our own personal journals.
So personal journals are considered scripture?
This is the first time I have heard this claim.
 

Flat Earth Kyle

Well-Known Member
So personal journals are considered scripture?
This is the first time I have heard this claim.

It depends, did you receive personal revelation when you wrote in it? Were you testifying of some experience when you experienced the hand of God in your life? If yes, then I do not see any grounds that it should not be considered personal scripture.
 

Flat Earth Kyle

Well-Known Member
Strong Statement.
10.One other point needs to be made. Since it is clear that there were Christians long before there was a New Testament or even an accumulation of the sayings of Jesus, it cannot therefore be maintained that the Bible is what makes one a Christian. In the words of esteemed New Testament scholar N. T. Wright, “The risen Jesus, at the end of Matthew’s Gospel, does not say, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth is given to the books you are all going to write,’ but [rather] ‘All authority in heaven and on earth is given to me.’ ” 10 In other words, “Scripture itself points … away from itself and to the fact that final and true authority belongs to God himself.” 11 So the scriptures are not the ultimate source of knowledge for Latter-day Saints. They are manifestations of the ultimate source. The ultimate source of knowledge and authority for a Latter-day Saint is the living God. The communication of those gifts comes from God as living, vibrant, divine revelation. 12
 

Flat Earth Kyle

Well-Known Member
Yeah, me too. ;)

Just think about it, the book of 1st and 2nd Nephi were Nephi's journals concerning his spiritual observations and dealings with God. If I have spiritual revelations, observations and dealings with God, what makes my journal any different? Though just because I have a journal filled with my own experiences does not devalue the other scriptures I have before me. Nephi had his journals filled with experiences, yet he savored over the teachings of the Brass Plates (The Old Testament).
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Just think about it, the book of 1st and 2nd Nephi were Nephi's journals concerning his spiritual observations and dealings with God. If I have spiritual revelations, observations and dealings with God, what makes my journal any different? Though just because I have a journal filled with my own experiences does not devalue the other scriptures I have before me. Nephi had his journals filled with experiences, yet he savored over the teachings of the Brass Plates (The Old Testament).
Good grief. The fact that you may value your own journal does not make it scripture. That's what makes your journal different.
 

Flat Earth Kyle

Well-Known Member
Good grief. The fact that you may value your own journal does not make it scripture. That's what makes your journal different.

If God speaks to me and tells me something and I write it down how is that not personal scripture?

It is just as much scripture as a patriarchal blessing is.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
If God speaks to me and tells me something and I write it down how is that not personal scripture?

It is just as much scripture as a patriarchal blessing is.
Honestly, some of the things you say leave me darned near speechless. Yaddoe. (And let me tell you, not many people on this forum can do that.) All I can say is that I hope the non-LDS posters here don't put too much stock in what you're saying here, because the Church's leadership has made it absolutely clear what is and what is not "scripture." And while your patriarchal blessing may have been inspired, and while God may reveal something to you that applies to your own life per se, it is not "scripture." Scripture is what is contained in the "Standard Works." If you need an official statement to that effect, let me know. You are using the word "scripture" to mean "anything of a spiritual nature that is true." That's not what it means. 14 million Mormons do not all have their own unique "scriptures."
 
Last edited:

Flat Earth Kyle

Well-Known Member
Honestly, some of the things you say leave me darned near speechless. Yaddoe. (And let me tell you, not many people on this forum can do that.) All I can say is that I hope the non-LDS posters here don't put too much stock in what you're saying here, because the Church's leadership has made it absolutely clear what is and what is not "scripture." And while your patriarchal blessing may have been inspired, and while God may reveal something to you that applies to your own life per se, it is not "scripture." Scripture is what is contained in the "Standard Works." If you need an official statement to that effect, let me know. You are using the word "scripture" to mean "anything of a spiritual nature that is true." That's not what it means. 14 million Mormons do not all have their own unique "scriptures."

Alright we will compare notes, feel free to share your references.
 

Flat Earth Kyle

Well-Known Member
You Have a Noble Birthright
Julie B. Beck April 2006 General Conference
...your blessing with fasting and prayer so that your spirit is humble and teachable. Your personal preparation is very important. Just like the early Saints, you can regard your patriarchal blessing as your own “personal scripture.” ...blessing is inspired, “personal revelation from God.”...


Identity of a Young Woman
Elaine L. Jack October 1989 General Conference
...’ and ‘Did God create all people?’ These questions prompted me to read the scriptures with the hope of receiving immediate answers. But the answers took long in coming.... ...teenage years, to receive a patriarchal blessing. Study it carefully and regard it as personal scripture
 

Flat Earth Kyle

Well-Known Member
To the Young Women of the Church
Ezra Taft BensonOctober 1986 General Conference
I admonish you to participate in a program of daily reading and pondering of the scriptures. We remember the experience of our beloved prophet, President Spencer W. Kimball. As... ...teenage years, to receive a patriarchal blessing. Study it carefully and regard it as personal scripture
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
It depends, did you receive personal revelation when you wrote in it? Were you testifying of some experience when you experienced the hand of God in your life? If yes, then I do not see any grounds that it should not be considered personal scripture.
What is the difference between "scripture" and "personal scripture"?
 

Flat Earth Kyle

Well-Known Member
What is the difference between "scripture" and "personal scripture"?

Some scripture, such as the Bible is holy writings meant for the world,
and some scripture is specific to you and your family individually. I could read the Bible forever, but it is not going to tell me I need to move because a flash flood is going to come and wash my house away; however God could warn me beforehand in a vision, with a vocal warning, a strong prompting, an angelic messenger etc. and I could write that down and for me that would be personal scripture.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
Some scripture, such as the Bible is holy writings meant for the world,
and some scripture is specific to you and your family individually. I could read the Bible forever, but it is not going to tell me I need to move because a flash flood is going to come and wash my house away; however God could warn me beforehand in a vision, with a vocal warning, a strong prompting, an angelic messenger etc. and I could write that down and for me that would be personal scripture.
If they are different why are you treating "scripture" and "personal scripture" as the same thing?
 
Top