Establishing The Biblcal Canon Without Apostolic Authority

[LeSellers]

As an active Mormon ...

"Active" ≠ "Believing". Whether you are a "believing Saint" or not, or even active, I can only offer the evidence you've placed on the table here. From my vantage point, it don't look good.

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.

But, as Joseph had been an Apostle of Jesus Christ since March or April of 1820, this is immaterial. His ordination wasn't until May or June, 1829, but his authority was bestowed nearly a decade earlier.

Their point is moot, since they don't believe in Apostles anyway, and reject the work would give us. Luke was not an Apostle, nor was Mark. That they wrote important parts of the Bible seems to indicate that scripture itself does not require Apostolic involvement (although both were "disciples" of Apostles: Luke of Paul and Mark of Peter).

The issue is whether God commissioned the writing or other action that resulted in scripture. If He did, it's valid, if not, then it's not. Many of the modern Apostles have written books. Few of them are scripture. It takes more than writing by a specific person to make scripture.

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.

You're citing Philo Dibble here, I believe, but your conclusion is based on a faulty premise: that the 1830 Colesville trial was the only time Joseph was in the town under charges. While you're right, that it's not clear, the fact is that many prophets and Apostles have said that Joseph and Oliver received the Melchizedek Priesthood within a few weeks of 15 May 1829. If the historical record is silent or muted, I prefer taking the words of men of God over interpretations of writings from long after the fact, your "contemporary statements" assertion notwithstanding. I've never seen one from earlier than the mid 1800s.

The fact that Joseph had received revelations before his formal ordination does not mean he was acting without divine authorization to do so. Even if (a point I do not concede) he didn't receive the Melchizedek Priesthood until 1830, as you claim, he was still the only Priesthood holder on the planet (John and the Three Nephites being the exceptions) and so was the ranking officer in the Kingdom. Since he had seen Jesus Christ, alive and in the flesh, he had the witness required to be an Apostle.

Finally, we do not know very much about what happened that Easter morning. The account we have takes a few seconds to read, and could have been no more than three minutes in the Grove. Yet we see a pattern: When Moroni came, we again have a fragmentary account of the message given (three visits sere insufficient, as recorded, to take the whole of the night). What else happened when Joseph viewed the Father and the Son? We do not know, and any speculation is worth what one is willing to assign it.

My speculation is that Joseph was ordained at that point. What he got in May/June 1829 were the keys of the Presidency. If we accept that many spiritual experiences ought not be revealed willy-nilly to the world, as I hope you do, then it is reasonable to assume that what happened that morning had far more import than the bit of dialogue we have in JS—H relates.

Lehi

[Kiviuq]

Shortly after the time of Jesus there were many diverse groups claiming to be Christian. Beliefs were quite varied. The Ebionites insisted on the necessity of following Jewish religious law and regarded Jesus as the Messiah but not as divine. They rejected Paul and his teachings. Some would say that Pauline Christianity, with its distinctive theology, was a separate sect. The Marcionites rejected all things Jewish, including the Jewish God. The wide range of Gnostic religions are particularly interesting with their numerous gods in the divine realm and their belief that some humans have a divine spark within them. None of these second century groups established itself as dominant in the religion of Christianity at that time.

The story of the apostasy from the LDS point of view is that the true knowledge and authority of the gospel died with the original twelve apostles (or very soon afterwards.) The curious thing about this simplistic story is that assumes that the apostate group that became the Catholics was more correct than the other Christian groups. This group eventually controlled what was to become scripture, ensuring that other sacred writings (that they didn’t agree with) would not be passed down.

In essence, Latter-day Saints claim that the New Testament contains the word of God but at the same time contend that the group that preserved these writings were apostate. In other words, they preserved only the writings that supported their beliefs but their beliefs were already apostate.

So in order for the LDS story of the apostasy to work, we must conclude that the proto-orthodox form of Christianity that became the Catholic Church was closer to the “truth” than any of the other forms of Christianity that existed in the second century. Otherwise, the writings retained by them would carry no more weight than any number of religious texts not canonized in anyone’s version of the Bible.

For example, we now have a gospel called the Secret Book of John, discovered, along with the Gospel of Thomas, in the Gnostic writings known as the Nag Hammadi library. Had the apostate Gnostics became the dominant form of Christianity then I posit that we would be studying their preserved writings as inspired texts rather than the writings of the apostate proto-orthodox group (that we cherish as our current Bible).

My personal view is that the writings attributed to Paul are at odds with the early church in Jerusalem. It seems to me that the group of followers who knew Jesus personally would have a better handle on His true doctrine. Yet it seems very important to the Catholic Church and its offspring and also the LDS church to share the opinion that Paul was inspired and his writings hence represent the word of God.

The LDS view thus is a very delicate balance between claiming complete apostasy by the second century and also claiming that the writings of one particular apostate group are inspired and more valid than the writings of all the other apostate groups at the time.

[mfbukowski]

The LDS view thus is a very delicate balance between claiming complete apostasy by the second century and also claiming that the writings of one particular apostate group are inspired and more valid than the writings of all the other apostate groups at the time.

Nah.

Can you show me one doctrine which is purely Biblical?

I'm not saying there aren't any, because I have not really thought about it, but I am pretty sure that all our doctrines derives from latter-day revelation.

Obviously the core of the atonement etc- the gospels themselves- as a set of beliefs would be the first place one would go to prove your position, but the reality is all of that is "verified" by latter-day revelation.

Let's consider a hypothetical: Suppose we threw out the Bible completely as a source of revelation- we decide tomorrow it is not inspired and is just literature, but of course kept the doctrines which were in both latter-day revelation AND the Bible.

What would we be missing?

[thesometimesaint]

Kiviuq:

I don't believe the Catholics were any more correct than any other "Christian" religion of the time. Maybe SOME of their ideas were a little less apostate, but that's about it. To me the authority was gone and over with two centuries before Catholics existed.

Actually we believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. See Articles of Fiith.

I believe the Catholics did the best job, with few exceptions, they could under the circumstances. But that does not infer inerrancy or infallibility of any man or man made thing/idea.

The LDS do not claim their authority comes from the Bible, or from any Scripture for that mattter. We value the Bible, as with all Scripture, but giving authority No.

I eagerly await more Scripture added to Canon. I don't know about you however. Further we believe that God has more to reveal to us. See Articles of Faith. Hopefully much more.

There has always been that tension. Who decided what as in what version of the Bible. They're not all the same. We LDS in English speaking countries use the KJV for reasons of commonality, not because we see it as inerrant.

Edited August 31, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[Hestia]

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

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

Lehi, this is uncalled for. Knock it off.

[Hestia]

Everyone cut the personal remarks!

[Kiviuq]

Let's consider a hypothetical: Suppose we threw out the Bible completely as a source of revelation- we decide tomorrow it is not inspired and is just literature, but of course kept the doctrines which were in both latter-day revelation AND the Bible.

I see what you’re saying. But the point is that LDS do believe that the Bible is inspired text. I have presented reasons why I believe that position to be problematic. The Bible may not be necessary for the LDS position but as long as it is in the canon then it’s not too useful to consider your hypothetical scenario.

The claim of the Church is that it is a restoration of the gospel as taught by Christ. Does the Bible reflect that gospel in some form or not? I still say you can’t let the apostates determine what is in the canon.

[thesometimesaint]

Kiviuq:

Inspired it is. Inspiration from God comes in many forms and is not limited to just Scripture.

We use the Bible, believe its message, and try to follow Christs perfect example.

Truth is truth where ever you find it.

[mfbukowski]

The claim of the Church is that it is a restoration of the gospel as taught by Christ.

Yep

Does the Bible reflect that gospel in some form or not?

An apostate form perhaps- that's we we who are LDS (I can see why some think you may not be)- believe the Bible to be true insofar as it is translated correctly.

Your argument is found repeatedly on Catholic boards, which I used to visit. It's one of the "old saws" they always hit us with. You have twisted it a tad to include "Protestants" which is a category "Protestants" in my experience seldom use, they may say something like Christian denominations" or something like that- but Catholics use it a lot. You are sounding quite Catholic to me, actually.

You could address this of course and just get it over with.

I still say you can’t let the apostates determine what is in the canon.

It's not like we had a choice in the matter- what the Bible did was spread the message of Christ throughout the world, and for that we are grateful. At least when the missionaries knock on the door now, and say they are bringing "Another Testament of Christ" people don't say "WHO??"

If Joseph had totally thrown out the Bible it would have been so completely "politically incorrect" that the church would never have prospered.

I see the Bible mostly as a confirmation source for what Joseph revealed- for example the doctrine of premortal life - an important LDS doctrine only found in fragments in the Bible- but it's there!

Melchizadek Priesthood- pretty vague in the Bible, but it's strongly implied and not contradicted

Council in Heaven- just snippets in the Bible but scholars like David Bokovoy follow those traces to the source and show them to be rich veins of gold for the restored gospel

Temple ceremonies- many many references to the Endowment if you have the eyes to see them.

Exaltation- many many Biblical references, but we seem to be the only group who believe what they actually say.

Those are really the reasons I find the Bible valuable- and frankly I think I value the Gnostics and Apocrypha about equally to most of the Bible- except for the Gospels themselves- now those are some amazing writings!

Yep, I think I could throw most of it out from being Canon without a problem except the gospels.

Edited August 31, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Incidentally, there are members who post on this board who do throw out portions of the Bible on a personal basis, especially Paul.

One can just as easily get a Temple recommend NOT believing portions of the Bible- or I would guess the entire Bible itself, as believing it. There is no question about the Bible on the interview, but one must affirm the "restoration".

The Bible has not been "restored" and strictly speaking, other than that article of faith, is not very relevant to us doctrinally. I could be wrong on this, and if anyone wants to show that I am, I will be glad to admit it, but that's the way it seems to me at the moment

Edited August 31, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Vance]

I still say you can’t let the apostates determine what is in the canon.

We don't!

The BoM, D&C and PoGP are in our canon IN-SPITE of the apostates.

[Cobalt-70]

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.

I don't disagree with the general statement that the Melchizedek priesthood was restored some time while the Book of Mormon was being translated. But it's a more complicated issue than most of us Mormons think.

1. It is clear that Smith, Cowdery, and the other 12 witnesses of the Book of Mormon believed they had an apostolic power in the summer of 1829. The only clearly-established origin for this power, however, is early Mormon scripture itself (see D&C 18, for example), which states that at least two of the Three Witnesses had the apostolic power of Paul. That doesn't mean that Paul (or Peter) actually came and laid his hands on their head, however. But if a revelation says they had the apostolic power of Paul, then who were Cowdery and Whitmer to argue with that? David Whitmer, moreover, never claimed that Peter, James, and John visited him. This apostolic power of Paul was apparently a power that came directly from the revelation of D&C 18. Thus, in this sense, the Twelve Witnesses (Smith included) had a type of Melchizedek power, yet there is no evidence that they yet had the specific "keys of the kingdom" that were later given them by Peter, James, and John.

2. At the organization of the church on April 6, 1830, several of the men were ordained as apostles. However, at this point in Mormon history, the term "apostle" was synonymous with the term "elder." Every elder was an apostle, and every apostle was an elder. Nobody at that point understood that there was a distinction between Aaronic offices and Melchizedek offices.

3. In late June or early July 1830, Smith and Cowdery fled Colesville along the bank of the Susquehanna River toward Harmony, and it was there that they most likely heard the voice of Peter, James, and John (see D&C 128) giving them the keys to the kingdom. At this point they were not just apostles in the sense of being "elders," but they also had been ordained with the power of Peter.

4. In the June 1831 General Conference, the "high priesthood" was introduced and the first high priests were ordained. As Mormons at the time understood it, it was at this conference that "the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood was manifested and conferred for the first time upon several of the Elders." (DHC 1:175-76), although the power of a high priesthood had been discussed in the book of Alma. This power was distinguished from the lesser priesthood in that it included a power to seal things on earth and in heaven.

5. In 1834-35, the D&C was revised to make it clear, for the first time, what was the difference between Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods. It became clear that high priests shared their high priesthood with elders. (Which made sense, given that Elders were different from other "lesser" priesthood offices in that they had always had the power to confirm.)

6. In 1836, Smith and Cowdery had their vision of Elijah, which provided them the ultimate heavenly power.

So the restoration of the Melchizedek priesthood was an ongoing process that was not well understood except in retrospect. You can't just say that one instant it was absent, and the next instant Peter, James, and John appeared and Smith had the full power of Melchizedek.

[Kiviuq]

Your argument is found repeatedly on Catholic boards, which I used to visit. It's one of the "old saws" they always hit us with. You have twisted it a tad to include "Protestants" which is a category "Protestants" in my experience seldom use, they may say something like Christian denominations" or something like that- but Catholics use it a lot. You are sounding quite Catholic to me, actually.

Let me try to summarize my question.

If the Gnostic form of Christianity had won after the apostasy after the time of Christ then I submit that the “Bible” of today would be very different. Do you think the LDS Church would have this hypothetical Gnostic Bible in their canon of scripture? Or in other words, would one apostate group’s bible be any better than another apostate group’s bible? Actually, I guess you already answered that.

...I think I value the Gnostics and Apocrypha about equally to most of the Bible- except for the Gospels themselves- now those are some amazing writings!

Thanks for your comments.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So the restoration of the Melchizedek priesthood was an ongoing process that was not well understood except in retrospect. You can't just say that one instant it was absent, and the next instant Peter, James, and John appeared and Smith had the full power of Melchizedek.

I think that is exactly what happened. The difference here is that I don't think they had all of the knowledge to use it once they had it.

I maintain that one does not need the Melchizedek priesthood to receive revelation. That seems to be a red herring.

[Vance]

So the restoration of the Melchizedek priesthood was an ongoing process that was not well understood except in retrospect.

So, is that how a person gets it today? Through a process?

Do you understand the difference between having the priesthood and having priesthood keys?

You can't just say that one instant it was absent, and the next instant Peter, James, and John appeared and Smith had the full power of Melchizedek.

So, it was different for them than for everyone else? Is that your argument?

And still using anti-Mormon shibboleths I see.

You still have two CFRs outstanding in this thread alone.

[Vance]

CFR

CFR

Still waiting for these to be addressed.

[Cobalt-70]

The Bible has not been "restored" and strictly speaking, other than that article of faith, is not very relevant to us doctrinally. I could be wrong on this, and if anyone wants to show that I am, I will be glad to admit it, but that's the way it seems to me at the moment

If the Bible is not relevant to us doctrinally, then neither is the Book of Mormon, because the Book of Mormon is far more Biblical than standard Mormonism as believed by most Mormons today. The Book of Mormon could almost pass for a Methodist tract, except for a few elements of quasi-Calvinism and quasi-evangelicalism thrown in. How many Mormons realize that the Book of Mormon teaches original sin, or predestination? It's easier to understand the Book of Mormon if you also understand Protestantism. Apart from native Americans, the Book of Mormon was written to a Protestant audience who was very familiar with the Bible.

[Vance]

If the Bible is not relevant to us doctrinally, then neither is the Book of Mormon, because the Book of Mormon is far more Biblical than standard Mormonism as believed by most Mormons today. The Book of Mormon could almost pass for a Methodist tract, except for a few elements of quasi-Calvinism and quasi-evangelicalism thrown in. How many Mormons realize that the Book of Mormon teaches original sin, or predestination? It's easier to understand the Book of Mormon if you also understand Protestantism. Apart from native Americans, the Book of Mormon was written to a Protestant audience who was very familiar with the Bible.

And you still want us to believe you are a believing member?

[Cobalt-70]

The fact that Joseph had received revelations before his formal ordination does not mean he was acting without divine authorization to do so. Even if (a point I do not concede) he didn't receive the Melchizedek Priesthood until 1830, as you claim, he was still the only Priesthood holder on the planet (John and the Three Nephites being the exceptions) and so was the ranking officer in the Kingdom. Since he had seen Jesus Christ, alive and in the flesh, he had the witness required to be an Apostle.

Finally, we do not know very much about what happened that Easter morning. The account we have takes a few seconds to read, and could have been no more than three minutes in the Grove. Yet we see a pattern: When Moroni came, we again have a fragmentary account of the message given (three visits sere insufficient, as recorded, to take the whole of the night). What else happened when Joseph viewed the Father and the Son? We do not know, and any speculation is worth what one is willing to assign it.

My speculation is that Joseph was ordained at that point. What he got in May/June 1829 were the keys of the Presidency. If we accept that many spiritual experiences ought not be revealed willy-nilly to the world, as I hope you do, then it is reasonable to assume that what happened that morning had far more import than the bit of dialogue we have in JS—H relates.

You misunderstand what I wrote. I didn't say that Smith had no authority to give revelation prior to his ordination. I said exactly the opposite--that he had prophetic authority even before he had priestly authority. He was a prophet before he was a priest.

There is no reason to think, or evidence, or support among Mormon or non-Mormon scholars, that Joseph Smith was ordained to the priesthood in 1820 or 1823. If he had been, why didn't he ever say that he was, despite having every motivation (particularly during times when his friends doubted his authority) to recount every single time that he had been given heavenly authority in a vision? For example, surely he would have included that in D&C 20. All he says about the First Vision there is that he received a remission of his sins. All he says about the visions of Moroni is that Moroni gave him power (i.e., the Urim and Thummim) to translate. It doesn't say he received the priesthood.

[Cobalt-70]

Do you understand the difference between having the priesthood and having priesthood keys?

...

You still have two CFRs outstanding in this thread alone.

As to the first question, the answer is yes I do. I'm saying that the Twelve Witnesses (including Smith) had Melchizedek priesthood by virtue of revelation first (and some keys, such as the power to baptize, confirm, and ordain), before the voice of Peter, James, and John came in the summer of 1830 to ordain Smith and Cowdery with the "keys to the kingdom, and of the dispensation of the fulness of times" (D&C 128). I don't know how you can confuse me with an anti-Mormon, because I don't know any anti-Mormons who would ever claim (1) that the Twelve Witnesses received authority through revelation, or (2) that Smith and Cowdery had a vision of Peter, James, and John.

As to the second question, I have to confess I don't know what "CFR" stands for. I guess that's just my noobieness showing. I thought that the comments you are referring to were discussed in the original post.

[mfbukowski]

If the Bible is not relevant to us doctrinally, then neither is the Book of Mormon, because the Book of Mormon is far more Biblical than standard Mormonism as believed by most Mormons today. The Book of Mormon could almost pass for a Methodist tract, except for a few elements of quasi-Calvinism and quasi-evangelicalism thrown in. How many Mormons realize that the Book of Mormon teaches original sin, or predestination? It's easier to understand the Book of Mormon if you also understand Protestantism. Apart from native Americans, the Book of Mormon was written to a Protestant audience who was very familiar with the Bible.

You are of course conveniently forgetting the very LDS doctrines found in the BOM, Rob.

Oh my- did I say that??

Cobalt is not Rob - play nice. - Ares

[mfbukowski]

As to the first question, the answer is yes I do. I'm saying that the Twelve Witnesses (including Smith) had Melchizedek priesthood by virtue of revelation first (and some keys, such as the power to baptize, confirm, and ordain), before the voice of Peter, James, and John came in the summer of 1830 to ordain Smith and Cowdery with the "keys to the kingdom, and of the dispensation of the fulness of times" (D&C 128). I don't know how you can confuse me with an anti-Mormon, because I don't know any anti-Mormons who would ever claim (1) that the Twelve Witnesses received authority through revelation, or (2) that Smith and Cowdery had a vision of Peter, James, and John.

Maybe because other Christian denominations believe in the Melchizadek Priesthood as being the "priesthood of all believers", not unlike you, while we believe in the laying on of hands to receive the priesthood?

Maybe also because you seem to deny that one must be called of God as Aaron was to receive the priesthood- and don't understand that it is not received by "revelation", but by the laying on of hands ?

Maybe also because of your insistence on our doctrine being Biblically based when in fact very little of it actually is?

Also because you seem to have "book knowledge" about our church, but a basic unfamiliarity about how we speak and think and understand these things?

Your style of argument also reminds me VERY much of another poster here named "Rob" who is.... well, not exactly liked. Why are you unwilling to address these issues?

[HeatherAnn]

I still say you can’t let the apostates determine what is in the canon.

In this forum, I've noticed a tendency to "not like" those who want to openly discuss traditional Mormon beliefs.

I believe God is about the search & process of truth, not hiding from it. It's ironic in the name-calling of "the apostates."

Apostate is: A person who renounces a religious or political belief or principle.

Jesus was apostate.

Joseph Smith was apostate.

Mormons were persecuted for being "apostate."

"I do not know a worse degree of slavery than to be afraid to think for yourself & speak what you believe." - George Teasdale

Jesus also wrote about not being "luke warm" or else you'll be spit out (rephrasing). lol

I think what he meant is to never be static - but to ALWAYS be learning - & not to be too afraid to fail, or to be wrong.

"An open-minded search for truth requires courage, constancy, & humiliy." - H.B. Brown

"If we value house, if we value lands, if we value good name, if we value even life itself more than we do the truth we are unworthy of the truth." - G.Q. Cannon

I think this is why "wide is the gate, & broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, & many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, & narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, & few there be that find it." - Matt 7:13-14

Joseph Smith wrote something applicable to all scripture, & to everything really...

"There are many things contained therein that are true, & that are not true... Therefore, whose readeth it, let him understand, for the Spirit manifesteth truth; & whoso is enlightened by the Spirit shall obtain benefit there-from." - D&C 91:1,2,4-5

Edited September 1, 2011 by HeatherAnn

[thesometimesaint]

HeatherAnn:

We have no record of Jesus writing anything. Some recorded the words of Jesus, but writings of Jesus? No.

[HeatherAnn]

HeatherAnn:

We have no record of Jesus writing anything. Some recorded the words of Jesus, but writings of Jesus? No.

You know what I meant, SometimesSaint.

But for you, I'll clarify...

It is written that Jesus said those things.

Better?

BTW - I really like what you wrote here...

Kiviuq:

Inspired it is. Inspiration from God comes in many forms and is not limited to just Scripture.

We use the Bible, believe its message, and try to follow Christs perfect example.

Truth is truth where ever you find it.

Edited September 1, 2011 by HeatherAnn