The Canon

[dan]

1) Nobody else has elders or bishops (Apostles). None of them study the Biblical prophets. None of them find God revealed anywhere in the world today. None of them study and interpret the scriptures. No ordained clergy ever has hands laid on them by those in authnority over them. No one except the LDS. Get over yourselves, please. These things have always been present in the Church under any of a number of different names.

Please show me evidence of a church that chooses a leader by revelation and then ordains him to the priesthood by the laying on of hands by those who have had the same process performed for them.

2) None of that has anything to do with what was being talked about here. We're not talking about acts of violence against young men and women. We're not even talking about the hundreds of martyrs of the Faith who were sacrificed and crucified and fed to lions and drawn and quartered and disemboweled. We're talking about authority. I have yet to see any party outside the Chruch's sphere of influence accord any kind of authority to any Church leader. The authority is only effective within the organization that grants it.

I have seen it.

 

[dan]

Even Peter, who was given the keys of the kingdom, having said that he would follow Jesus to the grave, denied him three times. I guess I'm in pretty good company!

He was given the keys after Christ's resurrection (and Peter's denial). Also, when Jesus tells Peter he will deny Him three times it's in the impertive in Greek. At least, it is in my Greek. Think about that.

angellous, I never said that i knew whether I would have been faithful or not. I have no way of knowing either.

 

[sojourner]

Please show me evidence of a church that chooses a leader by revelation and then ordains him to the priesthood by the laying on of hands by those who have had the same process performed for them.



I have seen it.

I really don't think we need continue. If I named several, you'd find some way to discount them, probably by saying that they were "apostate and had no authority from Jesus Christ." You're going to blithely continue believing that LDS are the only "real" church with any "real" authority, completely unconcerned that the rest of the world's population of Christians disagree with you...and you wonder why many don't like you!

Again: arrogance and elitism are not the principal attributes of the Christian.

And back we come to the OP. You find it inconceivable that "we" don't open the canon to "further revelation." And you don't seem to care that "we" don't find an open canon either desireable or necessary. If your canon remains open, good for you! "Ours" is closed, and closed for good reason.

 

[sojourner]

He was given the keys after Christ's resurrection (and Peter's denial). Also, when Jesus tells Peter he will deny Him three times it's in the impertive in Greek. At least, it is in my Greek. Think about that.

angellous, I never said that i knew whether I would have been faithful or not. I have no way of knowing either.

So? None of that matters. I'm still in good company!
Think about that.

 

[Squirt]

...ah! But, we Christians have to over come hundreds of years of knee-jerk tradition of burning books - when we weren't burning people - and if in these enlightened times we confine the auto da fe to our hearts it is still so much easier to shout "Burn the Heretic" than to say "I see your point and whilst I do not agree at this time, I shall ponder it" ... hmmm? When was the last time you heard anyone say that? ... when was the last time YOU said that?

I hear it occasionally, but not as often as I'd like to. I say it occasionally, but not as often as I should.

Growing up in a Protestant Church, I discovered The Apocrypha when, as a child, I was given the Old Testament in cartoon form based on The Douai Bible ... and when I asked grown-ups about it I was Shhhhhshed. Obviously, I was hooked ... I had God's Story laid out like a Superman comic and the added frisson of "Forbidden Stuff" ... so, don't tell my vicar, will you (she wouldn't understand) but I accept happily The Apocrypha (which in my copy of The New English Bible is snuck in between the two Testaments - but in my Jerusalem Bible is embedded in the text).

:biglaugh: That reminds me of a conversation I had with my son shortly before he was to be baptized. (We baptize at the age of eight, incidentally, so it was entirely possible for this conversation to take place.) He'd been preparing for his baptism for several months. Finally the day came when he was supposed to meet with our Bishop to see if he understood the reason for baptism and the covenents he'd be entering into by being baptized. We were sitting out in the foyer of our Church waiting for the Bishop to finish talking to another member of the congregation. My son suddenly got very serious and confided in me that he wasn't sure he ought to be baptized. I was rather surprised and asked why he felt that way. He said, very apologetically, "Well... I'm just not sure I believe that story about Jonah getting swallowed by the whale." He was such a comic book fan. I could just kick myself now for not likening the story to one of his comic books.

One thing it taught me (when I was old enough to realise what I had been taught) is that if we listen to each other we MIGHT learn something ... we don't necessarily have to agree ... BUT WE DO HAVE TO LISTEN WITH RESPECT

Absolutely!

(sorry I shouted ... I am probably being brash and nervous in a new environment ... like a fish desperately seeking the water) I hope I haven't offended anyone. ... and I apoligise if I have ... it is/was inadvertent.

On the contrary, you've left a rather good first impression on me.

 

[dan]

I really don't think we need continue. If I named several, you'd find some way to discount them, probably by saying that they were "apostate and had no authority from Jesus Christ."

I've used evidence to back up every assertion I've made. It's as easy to find some way to discount it as it is to find some way to prove it.

You're going to blithely continue believing that LDS are the only "real" church with any "real" authority, completely unconcerned that the rest of the world's population of Christians disagree with you.

I do believe that we're the only church with any real authority and I'm surprised that you find that faith disagreable. You feel the same way about your church.

..and you wonder why many don't like you!

I'd like to point out that I've never wondered that. I've never asked anyone to like me, I've just asked people to back up the claims they make.

Again: arrogance and elitism are not the principal attributes of the Christian.

Neither is avarice, murder and incest.

And back we come to the OP. You find it inconceivable that "we" don't open the canon to "further revelation." And you don't seem to care that "we" don't find an open canon either desireable or necessary. If your canon remains open, good for you! "Ours" is closed, and closed for good reason.

I don't find any of that inconceivable. I find it perfectly compatible with an apostate church.

 

[DakotaGypsy]

Thank you for correcting the spelling of the word "canon," although it was kind of funny spelled the original way.:biglaugh:

 

[may]

And as for you, O Daniel, make secret the words and seal up the book, until the time of [the] end. Many will rove about, and the [true] knowledge will become abundant. daniel 12;4

(Daniel 11:33) And as regards those having insight among the people, they will impart understanding to the many. And they will certainly be made to stumble by sword and by flame, by captivity and by plundering, for [some] days.​

(Daniel 12:3) "And the ones having insight will shine like the brightness of the expanse; and those who are bringing the many to righteousness, like the stars to time indefinite, even forever................ its all happening in this time of the end, accurate translation of Gods word is only a part of it.

(Matthew 13:11) In reply he said: "To YOU it is granted to understand the sacred secrets of the kingdom of the heavens, but to those people it is not granted.​

(Matthew 24:45) "Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time?

 

[sojourner]

I've used evidence to back up every assertion I've made. It's as easy to find some way to discount it as it is to find some way to prove it.



I do believe that we're the only church with any real authority and I'm surprised that you find that faith disagreable. You feel the same way about your church.



I'd like to point out that I've never wondered that. I've never asked anyone to like me, I've just asked people to back up the claims they make.



Neither is avarice, murder and incest.



I don't find any of that inconceivable. I find it perfectly compatible with an apostate church.

Yes, it is easy to do that. What does that tell you about absolutism?

Thank you for proving my point so eloquently. And, for the record, I don't feel that way about my church. My church is all about sharing the authority of Christ with the other members of the Faith.
[edit] It's not your faith I find disagreeable, it's your dogmaticism. Of course you attribute authority to your church. I do to mine. BUT, what I don't do is make that authority binding upon those who aren't members of my church.

Avarice? Murder? Incest? What are you implying??? I've never participated in any of these things, and neither has my particular branch of the church.

Thank you for proving my point twice in one post!

 

[dan]

If I am right, and God has granted me authority, is it binding over all His creations?

 

[Popeyesays]

If I am right, and God has granted me authority, is it binding over all His creations?

In my estimation, the only grantor of authority for you is your own fancy and imagination. But I am not a Christian, and believe that the authority of Christ has been passed on to Baha`u'llah.

I don't demand that you accept that, though I think you have to investigate the claim in good faith.

As to the LDS claim I have investigated it in good faith, and do not accept it.

In my estimation the authority of Christ was never intended to extend past its fulfillment.

Regards,
Scott

 

[sojourner]

If I am right, and God has granted me authority, is it binding over all His creations?

Possibly, according to your ecclesiology. In my ecclesiology, the authority is passed down through the episcopate, not through the presbyterate, diaconate, or laity.

See what I mean? You would say that my ecclesiology is apostate. I would say that your ecclesiology is not in the apostolic succession. The one cancels out the other. In this case, neither one of us can really say which is "true," except from a standpoint of relativity -- that relativity being dependent upon our respective ecclesiologies.

That's why the whole question of the canon is a moot question. Your standards of canonization come from a different authority.

Nobody says that the LDS don't have a valid system of authority. We do assert, however, that our authority is just as valid for us, as yours is for you. I just don't think the LDS can unilaterally claim universal authority outside their own sphere of influence. Neither can the Anglicans, or the RCs, or the Orthodox, etc.

 

[nutshell]

In my estimation, the only grantor of authority for you is your own fancy and imagination. But I am not a Christian, and believe that the authority of Christ has been passed on to Baha`u'llah.

I don't demand that you accept that, though I think you have to investigate the claim in good faith.

As to the LDS claim I have investigated it in good faith, and do not accept it.

In my estimation the authority of Christ was never intended to extend past its fulfillment.

Regards,
Scott

And we do not accept the Baha'i claim, nor do we demand you accept the LDS claim. That's why we're LDS and you're not and you are Baha'i and we're not. Not too complicated.

 

[dan]

Possibly, according to your ecclesiology. In my ecclesiology, the authority is passed down through the episcopate, not through the presbyterate, diaconate, or laity.

See what I mean? You would say that my ecclesiology is apostate. I would say that your ecclesiology is not in the apostolic succession. The one cancels out the other. In this case, neither one of us can really say which is "true," except from a standpoint of relativity -- that relativity being dependent upon our respective ecclesiologies.

That's why the whole question of the canon is a moot question. Your standards of canonization come from a different authority.

Nobody says that the LDS don't have a valid system of authority. We do assert, however, that our authority is just as valid for us, as yours is for you. I just don't think the LDS can unilaterally claim universal authority outside their own sphere of influence. Neither can the Anglicans, or the RCs, or the Orthodox, etc.

I guess this whole forum is pointless then.

 

[Popeyesays]

And we do not accept the Baha'i claim, nor do we demand you accept the LDS claim. That's why we're LDS and you're not and you are Baha'i and we're not. Not too complicated.

That's why I like your user-name so much. It fits you. You have put it in a nutshell. "We choose to follow or we decide we cannot follow."
That does not mean this discussion or this forum is futile, for we can find a lot to agree on as well, and we can learn from our disagreements.

I'll frubal that.

Regards,
Scott

 

[sojourner]

I guess this whole forum is pointless then.

It's pointless why? Because neither side of this argument gets to say, "I'm right?" What if there is no absolute here? Is it still pointless to debate?

 

[dan]

Do you believe in absolute truth?

 

[JillianMarie77]

When scripture was canonized it was in an effort to reign in the meandering beliefs and practices of the people. Of course there are probably myriad books that were not included but the council at Nice decided upon the ones you know today.

Evidence of these other writings were discovered at Nag Hamadi in the 40's. Often these writings are now referred to as the Gnostic gospels.

What do you think of those mormon man?

 

[sojourner]

Do you believe in absolute truth?

I'm really not going to get hooked into discussing this with you -- it's grossly off-topic. Short answer: Yes, I do. But I don't think any one group has a good grasp of what that truth is.

 

[James the Persian]

When scripture was canonized it was in an effort to reign in the meandering beliefs and practices of the people. Of course there are probably myriad books that were not included but the council at Nice decided upon the ones you know today.

Evidence of these other writings were discovered at Nag Hamadi in the 40's. Often these writings are now referred to as the Gnostic gospels.

What do you think of those mormon man?

Actually, the First Council of Nicea (in Asia Minor, not Nice, which is in France) had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the Biblical canon. How many times will I have to correct this myth bandied around as fact? The first council that came up with the NT canon we have today was the 3rd Council of Carthage in 397 (that's 72 years after Nicea I, to be clear) and that was a local council only and so not binding on the entire Church.

James