The Canon

[dan]

I did not say that scripture could not be written after the death of the last apostle. What I said is that public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle.

Please show me where it says that in the Bible.

 

[Quiddity]

Please show me where it says that in the Bible.

It doesn't. It doesn't even say what books belonged in it and several other things. More interesting is why you trust the Bible if an Apostasized Church assembled it in 397? AFTER the Council of Nicea.

 

[Squirt]

It doesn't. It doesn't even say what books belonged in it and several other things. More interesting is why you trust the Bible if an Apostasized Church assembled it in 397? AFTER the Council of Nicea.

Hi, Victor. We don't believe the book contained in the Bible were written after 397 A.D. We believe they were inspired by God and given by revelation through His prophets. The fact that the decision on which books were to be included in the canon did not take place until after the Apostasy had taken place is less significant to the Latter-day Saints than you might suppose. As a matter of fact, I think we're even more open-mind concerning the books of the Aprocrypha than most Protestant Churches are. It's true that we don't believe the decision as to what to include in the canon was inspired, but we do give the Catholic Church credit for at least preserving the ancient writings as well as it did.

 

[Quiddity]

Hi, Victor. We don't believe the book contained in the Bible were written after 397 A.D.

I didn't say they were written in 397. And deffinately not after. I said they were assembled in 397 in the Council of Hippo.

We believe they were inspired by God and given by revelation through His prophets. The fact that the decision on which books were to be included in the canon did not take place until after the Apostasy had taken place is less significant to the Latter-day Saints than you might suppose. As a matter of fact, I think we're even more open-mind concerning the books of the Aprocrypha than most Protestant Churches are.

Good to hear, although I am still puzzled why you would even accept it if we were apostasized and in error.

 

[Squirt]

Good to hear, although I am still puzzled why you would even accept it if we were apostasized and in error.

You take what you can get.

 

[Quiddity]

You take what you can get.

I noticed. So a truth as monolithic as the Bible can be assembled by a sinful, dispicable, vile, etc. Church as the Catholic Church? I agree...

 

[Squirt]

I noticed. So a truth as monolithic as the Bible can be assembled by a sinful, dispicable, vile, etc. Church as the Catholic Church? I agree...

Well, I'm going to assume that this answer was given with Dan in the back of your mind. I don't recall having said that your Church was sinful, dispicable or vile. But as I said before, it is the words contained in the Bible that we are more concerned with than we are with who assembled them. (Besides, by the time our Church was founded, we had another volume of scripture to rely on as well. )

 

[Quiddity]

Well, I'm going to assume that this answer was given with Dan in the back of your mind. I don't recall having said that your Church was sinful, dispicable or vile.

You are correct and frubals to you for not seeing it as exaggerated as Dan. Or do you?

But as I said before, it is the words contained in the Bible that we are more concerned with than we are with who assembled them. (Besides, by the time our Church was founded, we had another volume of scripture to rely on as well. )

Excellent. I will take you up on what you said in bold in the future. Thank you for you charitable and pleasant tone.

 

[Squirt]

You are correct and frubals to you for not seeing it as exaggerated as Dan. Or do you?

No, I definitely don't. I consider myself to be a fairly liberal Mormon. Sometimes it works in my favor and sometimes it doesn't. But it doesn't really matter, because it's who I am. I know that other LDS people don't always agree with my perspective. I suspect some of them would categorize me as a real radical.

Thank you for you charitable and pleasant tone.

Merely returning kindness with kindness, Victor. Somehow I thought that's what Christianity was all about. :highfive:

 

[dan]

It doesn't. It doesn't even say what books belonged in it and several other things. More interesting is why you trust the Bible if an Apostasized Church assembled it in 397? AFTER the Council of Nicea.

I trust that the Bible is the word of God (as in His word, but not THE only word) as long as it is translated correctly. We don't have a perfect Bible on the earth today, but, luckily, we have the Book of Mormon to clear up the unclear stuff in the Bible.

 

[dan]

I noticed. So a truth as monolithic as the Bible can be assembled by a sinful, dispicable, vile, etc. Church as the Catholic Church? I agree...

Am I to apologize for pointing out the doings of your church leaders?

Do you feel I think less of you as a person?

Am I berating you, personally, for being a Catholic?

 

[Popeyesays]

Am I to apologize for pointing out the doings of your church leaders?

Do you feel I think less of you as a person?

Am I berating you, personally, for being a Catholic?

You know, back when I was fifteen, and attending LDS missionary classes, it was just this attitude of exclusivism that finally convinced me the Mormon Church was not for me. That was a specific statement about the Church of LDS.

When one religion seeks nothing more than driving wedges between it and all the other religions of God, there has to be something wrong with it. That's a general statement about all divisive dogmas.

"The Great Being saith: O ye children of men! The fundamental purpose animating the Faith of God and His Religion is to safeguard the interests and promote the unity of the human race, and to foster the spirit of love and fellowship amongst men. Suffer it not to become a source of dissension and discord, of hate and enmity. This is the straight Path, the fixed and immovable foundation. Whatsoever is raised on this foundation, the changes and chances of the world can never impair its strength, nor will the revolution of countless centuries undermine its structure. Our hope is that the world's religious leaders 216 and the rulers thereof will unitedly arise for the reformation of this age and the rehabilitation of its fortunes. Let them, after meditating on its needs, take counsel together and, through anxious and full deliberation, administer to a diseased and sorely-afflicted world the remedy it requireth."
(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 215)

 

[Squirt]

You know, back when I was fifteen, and attending LDS missionary classes, it was just this attitude of exclusivism that finally convinced me the Mormon Church was not for me. That was a specific statement about the Church of LDS.

When one religion seeks nothing more than driving wedges between it and all the other religions of God, there has to be something wrong with it. That's a general statement about all divisive dogmas.

Scott, I don't see the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as seeking to do what you're accusing it of. Do you think I might find any intolerance within the Baha' i Faith, or are all of your members perfect examples of what your religion teaches? I would suggest that you at least try to separate the Church from the behaviors of some of its members. Do you find Dan's attitude characteristic of most of the LDS people on this forum? I certainly hope that's not the case.

 

[Popeyesays]

Scott, I don't see the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as seeking to do what you're accusing it of. You need to separate the Church from the behaviors of some of its members. Do you find this attitude to be representative of most of the LDS people on this forum? I certainly hope that's not the case.

That's why I specified what was specific and what was general. It was my specific experience that affected me in that specific mannerin 1962 when I was 15.

My general statement has to do with what is and is not, in my estimation the hallmark of a religion of God.

I am well aware that what was my experience THEN is not the epxerience of others in different times and places.

So I am perfectly willing to separate the actions of those two particular missionaries who would be in their early to middle sixties these days, from the actions of others.

Regards,
Scott

 

[mormonman]

Are you saying that, just because LDS accepts these other "revelations," that everyone ought to? If we don't, we don't have proper authority from God?

Well, yeah. That's what were trying to do. You guys don't have the same authority. A 12 year old, that is a deacon in the Aaronic Priesthood, has more authority than the pope or any other different denomination's leader, combined. We have the POWER and AUTHORITY to act in the name of God.

 

[mormonman]

Fact is, most religious groups like to claim some kind of significant tie to the Apostles and the early Church, and then use that tie as a claim to authority. Fact is, none of them (including the LDS) can substantiate that claim.

I'm sorry a church restored by Christ himseld doesn't have a "substantiate claim".

 

[Popeyesays]

Well, yeah. That's what were trying to do. You guys don't have the same authority. A 12 year old, that is a deacon in the Aaronic Priesthood, has more authority than the pope or any other different denomination's leader, combined. We have the POWER and AUTHORITY to act in the name of God.

In the doctrine of your church YES. For any of the rest of us? NO. This is one of the things that turned me off on LDS.

Regards,
Scott

 

[sojourner]

Well, yeah. That's what were trying to do. You guys don't have the same authority. A 12 year old, that is a deacon in the Aaronic Priesthood, has more authority than the pope or any other different denomination's leader, combined. We have the POWER and AUTHORITY to act in the name of God.

It depends on your point of view, really, doesn't it? "We guys" have no more and no less authority as anyone else on this earth, as far as God is concerned, and it's very arrogant for you to say otherwise...even if you do believe it. This is the same sort of elitist balderdash for which Jesus lined out the Pharisees.

 

[sojourner]

I'm sorry a church restored by Christ himseld doesn't have a "substantiate claim".

Which "restored" Church would that be, then? The Lutheran? The Churches of Christ? The Christian Churches? The Presbyterian? The LDS? Which? Shall I continue the list?

Too many Christian bodies claim that they have "real" authority and "real" power because they are the "real" Church, "as established by Jesus Christ Himself." And they're all different bodies, with differing basic doctrine. They all lay claim to restored "real" authority.:areyoucra

And guess what? None of them can substantiate that claim. None of them can dream up one disinterested third party to corroborate their claim. If the adherents to those faiths want to believe that they have "real" authority, then they have that right. But when the weight gets thrown around in the real world, outside the particular faith's sphere of influence, the men are separated from the boys real quick.

 

[mormonman]

Which "restored" Church would that be, then? The Lutheran? The Churches of Christ? The Christian Churches? The Presbyterian? The LDS? Which? Shall I continue the list?

Too many Christian bodies claim that they have "real" authority and "real" power because they are the "real" Church, "as established by Jesus Christ Himself." And they're all different bodies, with differing basic doctrine. They all lay claim to restored "real" authority.:areyoucra

And guess what? None of them can substantiate that claim. None of them can dream up one disinterested third party to corroborate their claim. If the adherents to those faiths want to believe that they have "real" authority, then they have that right. But when the weight gets thrown around in the real world, outside the particular faith's sphere of influence, the men are separated from the boys real quick.

The faiths that you listed were protestant. They weren't restored, they stemmed from the Catholic faith. A good fruit can't be grown from a dead tree. The LDS religion was not a spin off of any other religion. It restored Christ's true Chuch. Of course a third party can't corroborate our religion's claim to the truth. Once those people believe that our religion is true, then they join, thus not being a third party. How many witnesses do you people want? There were at least 11 people besides Joseph Smith that saw and handled the plates of the Book of Mormon. Here are their testimonies: http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/thrwtnss and http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/eghtwtns. All of the original Three Witnesses aposticized from the Church , but never gave up their testimony of the BoM. Why would they do that? They couldn't deny what they actually saw. This might be saying something.