The Most Widespread Form of Idolatry Today

[blooit]

Well I was just wondering what your discussion friends would think such as the books that are in the Catholic Bible which is omitted from the protestant bible. Also such as The Gospels from the Nag Hammadi Collection as the word or are they unfit etc...liken unto BoM. You know where I'm going?

Like if they assert they don't have to pray that the bible is true and not the others then they dismiss the other books. Is the original Bible faulty then i.e...original as in the Catholic Bible established by the Council of Nicea. Their logic on not praying is faulty. The idea of revelation is dead to them?

I was wondering if you had that type of discussion yet?

Ah - I see now. We did not go that direction, and I think that is a great angle. I started to discuss Mark 16 - and the multiple verses missing from different translations and different transcripts. I have a catholic bible sitting on my shelf, so it wouldn't be hard to pull that out.

[Calm]

Mormons aren't all that different.

"No I will not pray to God to know the truth; The Prophet IS the source of the word of God and so only my ability to align what you say with the Prophet determines what is true.""

While "the narrator" is out of the thread, I think it is important to point out there is a huge difference between saying "one shouldn't pray to God to ask him.....[fill in the issue]" and saying "one doesn't need to pray to God to ask him....[fill in the issue]. I don't believe I've ever heard an LDS say one shouldn't pray to God about anything. There may be some questioning of the need to do so, but if someone feels like they should pray about something, all I've ever seen is encouragement to pray and ask.

If "the narrator" was still in this thread, I would have CFRed him for this claim. As he is out, I did it myself. I did a google on lds.org for "will not pray", "won't pray", "do not pray", "don't pray", "should not pray", "shouldn't pray", "do not need to pray" and "don't need to pray". Only the last one yielded a result that was even a little close to what "narrator" had in mind and that was only one hit on a Friend story. Here is the quote:

[saemo]

Well I was just wondering what your discussion friends would think such as the books that are in the Catholic Bible which is omitted from the protestant bible. Also such as The Gospels from the Nag Hammadi Collection as the word or are they unfit etc...liken unto BoM. You know where I'm going?

Like if they assert they don't have to pray that the bible is true and not the others then they dismiss the other books. Is the original Bible faulty then i.e...original as in the Catholic Bible established by the Council of Nicea. Their logic on not praying is faulty. The idea of revelation is dead to them?

I was wondering if you had that type of discussion yet?

The canon was not finalized at Nicaea.

But you bring up a good point...why do the LDS accept what the Catholic Church canonized? Why do the LDS accept the changes made by the the King's men?

I know of no Christian who believes revelation is dead to them. All believe in the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is only something LDS believe about others. What we do believe, is found in Hebrews 1:1-2...

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Christ is the definitive Word, revealed to the entire world. In this respect, there is no more to be said until He comes again. Until that time, He sent us the gift of the Holy Spirit, who reveals to the heart the Son, and guides all to Him.

The Bible, containing the word of God, testifies with the Holy Spirit the same revelation, given to all, on the Cross.

[saemo]

dup post

[Jason]

If you really don't know the Bible is true, and are praying sincerely to ask God that question, does anyone really think God will be insulted and refuse to answer?

[Jason]

But you bring up a good point...why do the LDS accept what the Catholic Church canonized? Why do the LDS accept the changes made by the the King's men?

Because the Catholic Church got this one largerly correct. Minus the Apocrypha and the Song of Solomon they picked inspired and generally worthwhile writings to preserve and canonize.

Christ is the definitive Word, revealed to the entire world. In this respect, there is no more to be said until He comes again.

That's not really what the scripture says, but I have often heard that interpretation from those who believe in a closed canon.

[Muc'ul Ajwalil]

My meetings with my neighbor continue, and I am absolutely blown away with how respectful he has been of our differences of belief. One phrase that he used regularly and that I have heard many time concerns me though. You could summarize this stand as, "No I will not pray to God to know the truth; The Bible IS the word of God and so only my ability to align what you say with the Bible determines what is true."

When was God replaced by the Bible? I see this as a graven image, where God is literally standing there waiting to speak to his children, and like the Pharisees and Sadducees, THE LAW has become preeminent above God himself, while in this case it is "The Word."

The parallels are striking IMHO.

It is an interesting assumption. I call it "Biblioatry". To me, limiting the truth to what is in the Bible, is in a way, denying the omnipotence of God.

[Muc'ul Ajwalil]

Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,

Follow the prophet; don't go astray.

Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,

Follow the prophet he knows the way.

Mormons aren't all that different.

"No I will not pray to God to know the truth; The Prophet IS the source of the word of God and so only my ability to align what you say with the Prophet determines what is true.""

BTW... the whole line about Christians refusing to pray to God for answers is a straw man.

Not really. The difference between one who accepts just what was written 2000 years ago, and a person who accepts a living, open canon through modern prophets, is very big.

Blooit was just illustrating the interesting parallel between the Pharisees in the time of Jesus and the Evangelicals in our time. They had the scriptures. They would not listen to Christ nor His Apostles, nor the Apostles that have been called in this day.

[saemo]

Because the Catholic Church got this one largerly correct. Minus the Apocrypha and the Song of Solomon they picked inspired and generally worthwhile writings to preserve and canonize.

Unless you have accepted the authority of the Catholic Church, how would you know?

That's not really what the scripture says, but I have often heard that interpretation from those who believe in a closed canon.

Jesus Christ, being the Word of God Revealed in its fullest, fulfilled the OT promises of the Messiah. Bringing to completion our Salvation, Jesus said, "It is finished." and this is believed by all Christians. And so all Christians turn to Christ for Salvation. He is our Prophet. He guides us with the Holy Spirit. All of this is very scriptural.

LDS cannot make a case that Jesus required a prophet other than Himself after His Resurrection.

[Ahab]

I think you've built yourself a strawman.

Try discussing my point with me, rather than simply throwing a label on it because you don't agree with it.

[blooit]

Unless you have accepted the authority of the Catholic Church, how would you know?

Jesus Christ, being the Word of God Revealed in its fullest, fulfilled the OT promises of the Messiah. Bringing to completion our Salvation, Jesus said, "It is finished." and this is believed by all Christians. And so all Christians turn to Christ for Salvation. He is our Prophet. He guides us with the Holy Spirit. All of this is very scriptural.

LDS cannot make a case that Jesus required a prophet other than Himself after His Resurrection.

To say that Jesus does not require a prophet is one thing, but to suggest that there is no case for prophets after Jesus is quite a stretch.

Ephesias 4:11

10 He that descended is the same also that aascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

Are we ALL in the unity of the faith, and have a knowledge of the Son of God, are we unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ? - Not by a long stretch. And it takes some pretty good gymnastics to wrest this scripture from its meaning. I think the case is pretty strong. Further, isn't God the same yesterday, today, and forever? Who says when he said it is finished, it meant no more prophets? The Bible doesn't say that.

I respect your view, but there is clearly a case for prophets and other ordained ministry after Christ.

[Jason]

Unless you have accepted the authority of the Catholic Church, how would you know?

By asking God. Turns out that aside from the Song of Solomon the current books in the Bible all contain at least some inspired writings.

Jesus Christ, being the Word of God Revealed in its fullest, fulfilled the OT promises of the Messiah. Bringing to completion our Salvation, Jesus said, "It is finished." and this is believed by all Christians.

No it isn't.

LDS cannot make a case that Jesus required a prophet other than Himself after His Resurrection.

As has been pointed out, the scriptures show clearly that there were in fact prophets other than Jesus active after Jesus' resurrection.

[Lightbearer]

I realize I am talking to a banned poster for this thread, but in the interests of closure I will respond to these quips.:

No it's not.

Actually it is contradictory, first true scripture or "canon" comes from God not men. Thus you cannot separate inspiration or revelation from scripture. It takes revelation to understand revelation. That is the problem. If one says that revelation has ceased, then one also is sealing the heavens to any type of revelation. As Peter declared:

(2 Peter 1:19-21) "We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

So Peter here tells us where scripture comes from, it comes from Holy men of God who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost..." So if the Holy Ghost can speak 2,000 years ago and what is spoken can become scripture then why not today?

There is your mistake. It does not infer that. It infer's that authoritative revelation (i.e. the Bible) has closed. Just as you believe that your private inspiration is not binding on anyone but yourself (and your family), most Christians believe that the personal inspiration is still available, but that it cannot be made authoritative/binding for everyone (i.e. added to the Bible).

That is the bone of contention here, if authoritative revelation has closed, then how can anyone assume that God can "inspire" anyone on any subject. To me that is spiritual doubletalk, to say on one hand that all authoritative revelation has ceased and one has learned this through a "non-authoritative" inspiration!

By not claiming the straw man that you are trying to beat.

I am not the one beating the straw man here, this conflict actually exists. There is no official declaration in the Bible that all revelation after the New Testament has ceased and that there should be no other. The scripture in Revelation is obviously talking about that book not the Bible, since John penned those words hundreds of years before the compiling of the texts into one book and calling it a Bible. I understand the Catholic and Protestant positions, but I am saying they do not make sense scripturally or logically.

Elder Holland gave an excellent conference talk on this a little while back: "My Words... Never Cease"

[blooit]

I would add, if it was finished with Christ, why the writings of Paul and the other apostles?

[handys003]

The canon was not finalized at Nicaea.

But you bring up a good point...why do the LDS accept what the Catholic Church canonized? Why do the LDS accept the changes made by the the King's men?

I know of no Christian who believes revelation is dead to them. All believe in the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is only something LDS believe about others. What we do believe, is found in Hebrews 1:1-2...

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Christ is the definitive Word, revealed to the entire world. In this respect, there is no more to be said until He comes again. Until that time, He sent us the gift of the Holy Spirit, who reveals to the heart the Son, and guides all to Him.

The Bible, containing the word of God, testifies with the Holy Spirit the same revelation, given to all, on the Cross.

Yes I understand the finalized version was later. 1546 correct? However the Council of Nicea was the first gathering to define a set number of books a religious doctrine that later lead to others. Also the ban and destruction of other books that were not in line of the precepts of the Roman influence according to their revelation.

[erichard]

My meetings with my neighbor continue, and I am absolutely blown away with how respectful he has been of our differences of belief. ...

Hi,

You might show these two Bible scriptures to your neighbor:

John 16

12 I have yet MANY THINGS to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you INTO ALL TRUTH: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

Does not this scripture clearly teach that more will be given through the Spirit of truth, also known as the Holy Ghost? But notice that the Bible itself came through men inspired by the Holy Ghost:

2 Peter 1

21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

So John 16:12-13 is teaching that MANY THINGS will come forth, when men are ready, through the SAME SPIRITUAL GIFT by which the Bible was given.

Would it not be valid for a Bible believer to pray and ask God if the Book of Mormon was part of the MANY THINGS that is promised to come forth?

Richard

[blooit]

The canon was not finalized at Nicaea.

But you bring up a good point...why do the LDS accept what the Catholic Church canonized? Why do the LDS accept the changes made by the the King's men?

I know of no Christian who believes revelation is dead to them. All believe in the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is only something LDS believe about others. What we do believe, is found in Hebrews 1:1-2...

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Christ is the definitive Word, revealed to the entire world. In this respect, there is no more to be said until He comes again. Until that time, He sent us the gift of the Holy Spirit, who reveals to the heart the Son, and guides all to Him.

The Bible, containing the word of God, testifies with the Holy Spirit the same revelation, given to all, on the Cross.

This is another great example of how important the spirit is to biblical interpretation - he says "hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son" - this couldn't be clearer to me. A prophet was unnecessary while Christ was walking with them, as he had been doing. This doesn't seem to be any indication to me that he meant for all time, hence the words THESE last days, rather than THE last days. In other words, over the last few years, Christ was here so we listened directly to him.

While you may disagree with my interpretation, I think it is quite clear, and at least as valid as yours. So what determines whose interpretation is correct?

[blooit]

Hi,

You might show these two Bible scriptures to your neighbor:

Does not this scripture clearly teach that more will be given through the Spirit of truth, also known as the Holy Ghost? But notice that the Bible itself came through men inspired by the Holy Ghost:

So John 16:12-13 is teaching that MANY THINGS will come forth, when men are ready, through the SAME SPIRITUAL GIFT by which the Bible was given.

Would it not be valid for a Bible believer to pray and ask God if the Book of Mormon was part of the MANY THINGS that is promised to come forth?

Richard

Great stuff erichard - those are a couple I really haven't focused on.

[saemo]

As has been pointed out, the scriptures show clearly that there were in fact prophets other than Jesus active after Jesus' resurrection.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. When I said "required", I meant in the sense that LDS say a prophet is required.

I don't know any Christians who do not believe in the gift of prophecy. LDS go beyond this, making a claim that a selected prophet is required at the head of Christ's Church.

Jesus Himself heads His Church, being our Prophet, Priest and King.

[saemo]

Try discussing my point with me, rather than simply throwing a label on it because you don't agree with it.

Discuss what, that you don't believe a non-LDS person does not or will not go to God to answer prayers? First, you'd have to come to accept that this is not a true belief or statement about non-LDS.

[Jason]

Jesus Himself heads His Church, being our Prophet, Priest and King.

And what was Peter then? Or what is the Pope today?

[saemo]

And what was Peter then? Or what is the Pope today?

The Pope is the Bishop of Rome, who is the successor to St. Peter, who was an Apostle.

[Jason]

The Pope is the Bishop of Rome, who is the successor to St. Peter, who was an Apostle.

And don't both claim to be the head of Christ's church on Earth?

How is that fundamentally different from the LDS prophet?

[Ahab]

Discuss what, that you don't believe a non-LDS person does not or will not go to God to answer prayers? First, you'd have to come to accept that this is not a true belief or statement about non-LDS.

My point was that a person must have faith both in and from God to recognize personal revelation from God, and the default position for a person who doesn't have faith both in and from God is such that he/she won't recognize personal revelation from God even when it is has been presented to him/her.

If you'd like to discuss that issue, I am open for discussion about that. If not, it's no biggie to me, personally, but please do me the favor of not throwing out the word "strawman" just because you don't agree with my claim.

[Ahab]

And don't both claim to be the head of Christ's church on Earth?

How is that fundamentally different from the LDS prophet?

I can answer those questions.

1) Yes, under the personal direction of Jesus Christ.

2) saemo is claiming the Pope is the Bishop of Rome, who is the successor to St. Peter, who was an Apostle, but he didn't clarify whether he also claims the Pope is also an Apostle in the same way the original 12 Apostles were Apostles, and if he doesn't, that is one difference. There is also a difference in the matter of truth, because while both may claim to be true Apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ and under his personal direction the head of Christ's church on Earth, one actually is and the other one isn't, even though the one who isn't is claiming to be.