Establishing The Biblcal Canon Without Apostolic Authority

[Katzpur]

I could use some help with a question opposed to me by a respectful but persistent critic of my faith. Here's what he has asked me:

"There is a discrepancy between what is authoritative for you and what is not. You claim that apostolic authority is the only valid church authority. Yet, the gospels were written after that authority had been taken away from the church. Further, the canonized scriptures were settled long after that authority had been taken away. How, then, can you place any trust in those "unauthorized" texts? How can you even trust in the gospel message, details of Jesus' life, or details of how he may have organized the church, if the texts, themselves, are not authoritative?

How do you resolve the discrepancy that you're basing authority on something that, for you, is not authoritative, according to the rules of authority that are in place for you?"

I've never really given this all that much thought before, and I can't actually even recall having seen it addressed. Any insights would be greatly appreciated. I'm not often asked questions I feel totally unprepared to respond to, but this is such an instance.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I could use some help with a question opposed to me by a respectful but persistent critic of my faith. Here's what he has asked me:

"There is a discrepancy between what is authoritative for you and what is not. You claim that apostolic authority is the only valid church authority. Yet, the gospels were written after that authority had been taken away from the church. Further, the canonized scriptures were settled long after that authority had been taken away. How, then, can you place any trust in those "unauthorized" texts? How can you even trust in the gospel message, details of Jesus' life, or details of how he may have organized the church, if the texts, themselves, are not authoritative?

Lets look at this. I am not aware of anything in our church that states "Yet, the gospels were written after that authority had been taken away from the church" This is false/asserted. Can he substantiate this beyond mere assertion? I have no idea when the authority was actually lost. Our text are authorized because the Prophet of the church has authorized them.

How do you resolve the discrepancy that you're basing authority on something that, for you, is not authoritative, according to the rules of authority that are in place for you?"

I don't think this has been established. IT has only been asserted. Since we have always used the KJV of the bible and JS said that the only thing that is not inspired is the SoS I trust that this book, which is the bible is authoritative.

I've never really given this all that much thought before, and I can't actually even recall having seen it addressed. Any insights would be greatly appreciated. I'm not often asked questions I feel totally unprepared to respond to, but this is such an instance.

Hopefully this helps you a bit. I really think this is a non issue. And am having difficulty in seeing the issue. I guess if I accept his premise then yeah there is an issue, but I reject the premise.

[LeSellers]

There is a discrepancy between what is authoritative for you and what is not.

Absolutely true, if by "discrepancy", he means a gulf between the two as he verbalized it.

You claim that apostolic authority is the only valid church authority. Yet, the gospels were written after that authority had been taken away from the church.

Not true. The Gospels were written during the period when there were living Apostles. Most agree that the Gospels were written by ad 75 or 80. The Apostles were still around after.

Further, the canonized scriptures were settled long after that authority had been taken away.

Indeed. That is why those who base their faith solely on the Bible have no basis for doing so. Those who composed the canon were not formally authorized by God to do it. That does not mean they were not inspired to do so, however. They didn't ask for, nor did they receive a formal calling for this work, but they could still have been, and were, in my opinion, chosen and inspired to complete it (just as Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison and the others were called to establish and design the federal government in USmerica without the Priesthood, or Luther and the Reformers were called to undermine the church in Rome). There would have been a much better selection had the Priesthood been involved.

We're not in the position many other Christians are in.

How, then, can you place any trust in those "unauthorized" texts? How can you even trust in the gospel message, details of Jesus' life, or details of how he may have organized the church, if the texts, themselves, are not authoritative?

Like most Christians, we believe that God wanted His word preserved in the Bible. It was, after all, the impetus for Joseph to go into the woods that Easter morning. There is a huge amount of truth in the Bible, even as it stands today. There is nothing, or almost nothing, that is false in it. There are a lot of plain and precious truths missing. Those are not the same concept.

In addition, even though we claim that the Bible is not complete, it is also true that we accept what is in the Bible is good. The position we hold is that there were things lost from the Bible, not that what is there is not valuable, and authoritative.

What we have today may not be a completely accurate rendition of their words, but that does not make them worthless.

Further, it is not on the Bible (or the Book of Mormon or the Doctrine and Covenants, or the Pearl of Great price) that we base our doctrine. They are canon, but they are not the ultimate source of knowledge about God and our relationship to Him. That comes from revelation, both to living prophets and personal revelation.

How do you resolve the discrepancy that you're basing authority on something that, for you, is not authoritative, according to the rules of authority that are in place for you?

The final point I'd make is that God, through His prophets, has given His approval for what we have. But He did (and continues to) give us a great deal more than what is in the Bible.

We do not need a "new Bible". We have the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ in the combination of the Bible and the other Standard Works. We do not need to canonize the book of Jasher nor any of the other hundreds of books that could have been included, had those who selected the canon been directly inspired (I believe they were indirectly inspired, however, even if they never claimed it for themselves). We have what is important in those books. We have it elsewhere.

We honor the Bible, but we do not believe it is the be-all-andend-all of scripture. But scripture it is.

Lehi

Edited August 30, 2011 by LeSellers

[Katzpur]

Lets look at this. I am not aware of anything in our church that states "Yet, the gospels were written after that authority had been taken away from the church" This is false/asserted. Can he substantiate this beyond mere assertion?

I'm really not sure. I'm of the opinion that most scholars believe that Mark was the first of the gospels to be written, probably in the late 60s or early 70s (CE). I know that several of the Apostles had been martyred by that time and I believe that almost all of them had been martyred before the other gospels were written. It's not just a matter of when they were written, either, but a matter of when and how the New Testament canon was compiled. He also raised a question about the gospel of Thomas, which I've heard of but don't know a lot about. Even though we can't conclusively date when the apostasy took place, I believe most LDS scholars would agree (as would the Church's leadership) that by the time the canon was "officially" closed, the apostasy was complete. The heavens had, for all intents and purposes, been sealed for quite some time and no one was receiving revelation for and in behalf of the Church any longer. So that raises the question about how the books that would comprise the canon would have been determined to be "inspired." Is there any reason, for instance, to assume that Thomas' gospel should not be in our Bibles today? If the Catholic Church did not have the authority to make these determinations, how do we as Latter-day Saints know that the books that were included in the New Testament were the ones God specifically wanted to be included. How do we know that the compilers of the cannon "guessed right"? Or at least made a correct choice -- a choice that would have had to be based on logic and scholarship as opposed to revelation?

Our text are authorized because the Prophet of the church has authorized them.

I suppose this might end up being the answer I have to give him. Obviously, I don't think he's going to find it to be adequate. I suspect that he might even ask me for a statement by Joseph Smith stating that the Bible canon used by most Protestant Churches today contains the books it's supposed to contain and that all of the writers (even those who were not Apostles) were inspired and authorized to write what they did. I'm still hoping to come up with something a little more specific. I had had Catholics ask me a similar question: If you believe an apostasy took place prior to the establishment of the canon, who do you believe held the authority to determine what should and should not be included in it? And why do you trust their decisions at all?

Since we have always used the KJV of the bible and JS said that the only thing that is not inspired is the SoS I trust that this book, which is the bible is authoritative.

The SoS? What is that? (I know when you answer, I'm going to be a bit embarrassed, but I'm wracking my brain and can't come up with anything, except maybe the Song of Solomon.)

Hopefully this helps you a bit. I really think this is a non issue. And am having difficulty in seeing the issue. I guess if I accept his premise then yeah there is an issue, but I reject the premise.

Thanks for your input. I appreciate it and will watch for further comments. I know he's not going to let it drop and I'd like to be able to do more than say, "Joseph Smith said so; that's why."

Edited August 30, 2011 by Katzpur

[Katzpur]

The Gospels were written during the period when there were living Apostles. Most agree that the Gospels were written by ad 75 or 80. The Apostles were still around after.

I have seen estimated dates of when several of them died, but there are several whose dates of death appear to be unknown. Do you know where I could find reliable information on when the gospels were written? I've seen dates ranging from around 50 CE to 70 CE and much later.

Indeed. That is why those who base their faith solely on the Bible have no basis for doing so.

Well, you definitely don't need to convince me of that!

Those who composed the canon were not formally authorized by God to do it. That does not mean they were not inspired to do so, however. They didn't ask for, nor did they receive a formal calling for this work, but they could still have been, and were, in my opinion, chosen and inspired to complete it (just as Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison and the others were called to establish and design the federal government in USmerica without the Priesthood, or Luther and the Reformers were called to undermine the church in Rome). There would have been a much better selection had the Priesthood been involved.

I like that premise. Still, we're pretty much basing our acceptance of their "inspiration" on faith, aren't we?

It was, after all, the impetus for Joseph to go into the woods that Easter morning.

Just curious... Why did you say "Easter"?

What we have today may not be a completely accurate rendition of their words, but that does not make them worthless.

I don't think the person I'm talking to is questioning that we do value the biblical writings. I just think he's wondering why we do, in light of the fact that we believe an apostasy had taken place prior to their (i.e. the gospels) having been written (and as you pointed out, we don't necessarily agree with the timeline he proposed).

Edited August 31, 2011 by Katzpur

[altersteve]

Just curious... Why did you say "Easter"?

The First Vision occurred on Easter morning.

[HeatherAnn]

How do you resolve the discrepancy that you're basing authority on something that, for you, is not authoritative, according to the rules of authority that are in place for you?"

Hi Katzpur,

That is a good point, especially since the church (& Book of Mormon) is largely based on biblical canon.

The bible has been through a lot historically & sifted through many people - some with ill intent (considering how some were persecuted & killed for translating it).

God gave me a brain to use... to discern between what is right & wrong. As Proverbs says, "the simple believe every word."

So, I take the scriptures with the grain of salt - symbolically - not literally... how does it help me spiritually, socially, etc.?

I believe Joseph when he explained how he was only revealing a part of what was revealed to him.

I also think that some of what Joseph taught has been twisted over the years... you know - like the telephone/gossip game - the story changes with each telling.

Yet, I think Joseph shed light on scriptures... enhancing understanding... Like in the scripture about Jesus being born... it read "there was no room in the inn."

Joseph translated, "there was no one to give them room in the inn." It wasn't about space, but about heart & intent.

He also taught more along the lines of Jesus... seeming to renew some of his teachings... like the kingdom of God within & personal revelation.

So, again, I don't automatically believe everything written - whether it's been around for 1700 years, or for 6 months...

But I try to screen it through both intellect & the spirit.

[LeSellers]

Why did you say "Easter"?

It's a bit complicated.

Joseph's account tells us that it was a beautiful, clear morning, early in the Spring of 1820. There was a USmerican military station a few dozen miles from Palmyra, and the records exist for that year. There were very few "clear" and reasonably warm days that Spring. One was Easter, 28 March (on the Julian calendar, used in much of USmerica until a few years later).

"Mother Smith" (Lucy Mack) tells us that the family produced a half-ton of maple sugar that spring. This means they harvested a huge amount of sap, boiled it until the product was dry. That takes two kinds of work. It also takes a certain temperature. Too warm, and the sap doesn't flow. Too cold, and it freezes. Maple sap "sours" if it is left too long, so they had to boil it immediately or lose the sticky stuff.

By eliminating the dates when there was no chance of getting (and then boiling) the sap, we arrive at the conclusion that the only date that meets the weather requirement along with all the other criteria is Easter.

What better day?

BTW, Moroni came during the "Feast of Trumpets" in 1823.

Lehi

[Katzpur]

The First Vision occurred on Easter morning.

And we know this how?

[Katzpur]

It's a bit complicated.

Joseph's account tells us that it was a beautiful, clear morning, early in the Spring of 1820. There was a USmerican military station a few dozen miles from Palmyra, and the records exist for that year. There were very few "clear" and reasonably warm days that Spring. One was Easter, 28 March (on the Julian calendar, used in much of USmerica until a few years later).

"Mother Smith" (Lucy Mack) tells us that the family produced a half-ton of maple sugar that spring. This means they harvested a huge amount of sap, boiled it until the product was dry. That takes two kinds of work. It also takes a certain temperature. Too warm, and the sap doesn't flow. Too cold, and it freezes. Maple sap "sours" if it is left too long, so they had to boil it immediately or lose the sticky stuff.

By eliminating the dates when there was no chance of getting (and then boiling) the sap, we arrive at the conclusion that the only date that meets the weather requirement along with all the other criteria is Easter.

What better day?

BTW, Moroni came during the "Feast of Trumpets" in 1823.

Lehi

Okay, well that's interesting... Makes sense, too. But not really critical to know, in my opinion.

[LeSellers]

Okay, well that's interesting... Makes sense, too. But not really critical to know, in my opinion.

I have never claimed it was "critical".

Lehi

[Cobalt-70]

"There is a discrepancy between what is authoritative for you and what is not. You claim that apostolic authority is the only valid church authority. Yet, the gospels were written after that authority had been taken away from the church. Further, the canonized scriptures were settled long after that authority had been taken away. How, then, can you place any trust in those "unauthorized" texts? How can you even trust in the gospel message, details of Jesus' life, or details of how he may have organized the church, if the texts, themselves, are not authoritative?

I think the premise of the question is false. Mormons do not believe that apostolic authority is the only valid church authority. Joseph Smith was a prophet based on his "charismatic authority" (a sociology term) before he was ever an apostle. His prophethood came from seeing angels and his ability to translate. Many of his revelations came before he could conceivably be considered to have priesthood, let alone be an apostle. Likewise, not everyone who wrote parts of the Bible was an apostle. Some of them were poets. Some were scribes writing oral histories. Some were compilers of earlier traditions. So apostolic authority is not what makes the Bible "the Bible".

[LeSellers]

I think the premise of the question is false. Mormons do not believe that apostolic authority is the only valid church authority.

Well, no. You are wholly wrong in this.

Joseph Smith was a prophet based on his "charismatic authority" (a sociology term) before he was ever an apostle. His prophethood came from seeing angels and his ability to translate. Many of his revelations came before he could conceivably be considered to have priesthood, let alone be an apostle.

And he did very little (nothing official) before becoming an ordained Apostle in 1829.

Likewise, not everyone who wrote parts of the Bible was an apostle. Some of them were poets. Some were scribes writing oral histories. Some were compilers of earlier traditions. So apostolic authority is not what makes the Bible "the Bible".

"Apostolic" is a synonym for "Priesthood" in this case.

They were all called by God, and were witnesses to His glory. That's more than close enough.

BTW, WARNING!!! Colbalt-70 is radio active.

He is not a believing Saint; may not be a Saint at all.

Lehi

Edited August 31, 2011 by LeSellers

[volgadon]

BTW, Moroni came during the "Feast of Trumpets" in 1823.

No, he came on the 2nd day of Sukkot. Joseph recieved the plates on the 1st day of Rosh Hashanah.

[Vance]

I think the premise of the question is false. Mormons do not believe that apostolic authority is the only valid church authority. Joseph Smith was a prophet based on his "charismatic authority" (a sociology term) before he was ever an apostle. His prophethood came from seeing angels and his ability to translate. Many of his revelations came before he could conceivably be considered to have priesthood, let alone be an apostle. Likewise, not everyone who wrote parts of the Bible was an apostle. Some of them were poets. Some were scribes writing oral histories. Some were compilers of earlier traditions. So apostolic authority is not what makes the Bible "the Bible".

You have this nasty habit of throwing out BALD assertions that you can't back up.

[mfbukowski]

Joseph's authority did not arise from Biblical sources- that is why we call it a "Restoration". He received the authority directly from those who held the keys- the Bible is irrelevant to his authority.

We accept the Bible insofar as it is "translated correctly"- in my understanding that would include "transmitted correctly" from the "original sources" whatever that means. I don't want to get into the whole Book of Abraham thing- but remember, in that case the whole line of transmission from Abraham to Joseph was rather tenuous if you use the usual sense of the word "translation"- I would suggest that the same concept applies to the Bible.

The reality is that there is no way we can accept any document whatsoever- latter day or "former day" as doctrinal without a testimony of its truthfulness- there is nothing in the Bible which can be "proven" to be true regardless of when it was written.

You cannot prove that Jesus was the Christ or that he was the Son of God or the savior of the world because it is in the Bible- the only way you can know that is by testimony- in a sense your own private "restoration" of truth which occurs in every person who has a testimony.

In my opinion, relying on the Bible exclusively for anything doctrinal is not too wise. I am wondering now that I think about it if anything we believe doctrinally is based soley on the Bible- can't think of anything at the moment!

Tell your friend that the Bible just is not that important to us, and that we place far more import on latter day revelation, and testimony.

Remember he has no basis for believing the Bible is true other than testimony either- who ever heard of a man coming back to life- or being able to take away the sins of all mankind just by dying?

None of it makes any sense unless you have a testimony!

Edited August 31, 2011 by mfbukowski

[altersteve]

And we know this how?

My bishop told me so.

It's just something that I've kind of grown up believing, I guess. I've never thought about looking up the source.

Edited August 31, 2011 by altersteve

[LeSellers]

No, he came on the 2nd day of Sukkot. Joseph recieved the plates on the 1st day of Rosh Hashanah.

Details!

Lehi

[Cobalt-70]

And he did very little (nothing official) before becoming an ordained Apostle in 1829.

Let me make a few observations: (1) most of the Book of Mormon was translated before Smith had even the Aaronic Priesthood, but we still regard it as canon. (2) several sections of the D&C are dated prior to Smith's ordination by John the Baptist and/or Peter/James/John, and we regard those as scripture. The point is that scripture--whether Mormon scripture or the Bible--does not solely or perhaps even primarily--hinge upon apostolic authority. Thus, when a Protestant claims that the Mormon view of the Bible is incompatible with the supposed Mormon view that all scripture has to be based on apostolic authority, that question is based on a false premise.

Second, it's not clear that Smith and Cowdery were ordained apostles by Peter, James and John in 1829. Based on D&C 128:20 and contemporary statements, it would have to have been in the summer of 1830, along the banks of the Susquehanna River, when Smith and Cowdery were escaping from Colesville to Harmony after Colesville residents chased them from the city. By that time, Smith had given dozens of revelations. But so what? He didn't need Peter's authority before he could give revelations. Smith had prophetic authority prior to, and independently of, his priestly authority.

Edited August 31, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[cinepro]

And we know this how?

It was March 26, 1820:

Combining all of this evidence, there were three days of early spring on which the weather qualified as being possible for the First Vision. On the first two of them the Smith family would almost certainly have been totally occupied in producing maple sugar. On the third of those days, there would have been no more work to do in producing maple sugar, and it would have been a day of rest. That day coincided with Sunday, the weekly Sabbath. Thus it is one day which is indicated as being far more likely than any other for the First Vision. It must have been on the morning of Sunday, March 26, 1820, that Joseph Smith reached out to God and the glorious response changed the course of history. The brief statement that the marvelous event occurred "on the morning of a beautiful, clear day, early in the spring" of 1820 was enough to pinpoint the very day it occurred.

[Cobalt-70]

You have this nasty habit of throwing out BALD assertions that you can't back up.

This is easily backed up. Just open your copy of the D&C, and you will see that the first 10 sections of the D&C (minus the first, which is out of order) are dated before the vision of John the Baptist by which we Mormons date the restoration of the Aaronic priesthood. Joseph Smith had no priestly authority when these revelations were given. But he had prophetic authority, which is why these sections are canonized.

Edited August 31, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[Vance]

Let me make a few observations: (1) most of the Book of Mormon was translated before Smith had even the Aaronic Priesthood, but we still regard it as canon. (2) several sections of the D&C are dated prior to Smith's ordination by John the Baptist and/or Peter/James/John, and we regard those as scripture. The point is that scripture--whether Mormon scripture or the Bible--does not solely or perhaps even primarily--hinge upon apostolic authority. Thus, when a Protestant claims that the Mormon view of the Bible is incompatible with the supposed Mormon view that all scripture has to be based on apostolic authority, that question is based on a false premise.

Second, it's not clear that Smith and Cowdery were ordained apostles by Peter, James and John in 1829. Based on D&C 128:20 and contemporary statements, it would have to have been in the summer of 1830, along the banks of the Susquehanna River, when Smith and Cowdery were escaping from Colesville to Harmony after Colesville residents chased them from the city. By that time, Smith had given dozens of revelations. But so what? He didn't need Peter's authority before he could give revelations. Smith had prophetic authority prior to, and independently of, his priestly authority.

So, you have edited your post to remove your claim of being a Mormon, how interesting.

[Cobalt-70]

So, you have edited your post to remove your claim of being a Mormon, how interesting.

I removed the statement about my personal faith because I expect that the earlier post will be censored for violating the Board Guidelines, as probably this one will be too. This whole personal discussion is irrelevant and improper.

Edited August 31, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[Vance]

I removed the statement about my personal faith because I expect that the earlier post will be censored for violating the Board Guidelines, as probably this one will be too. This whole personal discussion is irrelevant and improper.

Well, IF you are a Mormon, then you would not be making contrary statements to the official LDS position that the Melchizedek Priesthood was restored in the Spring of 1829.

Nor would you be using anti-Mormon shibboleths.

So, what are we to make of such things?

[Vance]

Mormons do not believe that apostolic authority is the only valid church authority.

CFR

Joseph Smith was a prophet based on his "charismatic authority" (a sociology term) before he was ever an apostle.

CFR

His prophethood came from seeing angels and his ability to translate.

So, having a personal visit from God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ doesn't count?

Many of his revelations came before he could conceivably be considered to have priesthood, let alone be an apostle.

Many? So 9 out of over 120 is considered "many of his revelations"?