Establishing The Biblcal Canon Without Apostolic Authority

[Cobalt-70]

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 ?

The laying on of hands is not the only way that priesthood is given in the LDS Church. Mormons used to believe (and Mormon feminists still do) that women receive Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthood power during the endowment ceremony. Only a few of women nowadays, such as temple workers, receive any particular usable priesthood keys, and none of them are ordained to a priesthood office. But they have priesthood power. Though not ordained to the keys of any office, you could say they "have the priesthood" just as much as men. In the 19th century women used their priesthood power to perform blessing ordinances on other women, in addition to their officiating in temple ordinances for women.

[volgadon]

Details!

Lehi

Details on what, specifically.

[thesometimesaint]

HeatherAnn:

Just giving you a hard time.

[TAO]

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.

CFR means 'call for reference', although in this case, I think he is asking you to prove it. In other words, he doesn't believe your opinion is correct, and is challenging you to show it is... or to back down on the opinion, sorta.

Best Wishes,

-TAO

[mfbukowski]

The laying on of hands is not the only way that priesthood is given in the LDS Church. Mormons used to believe (and Mormon feminists still do) that women receive Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthood power during the endowment ceremony. Only a few of women nowadays, such as temple workers, receive any particular usable priesthood keys, and none of them are ordained to a priesthood office. But they have priesthood power. Though not ordained to the keys of any office, you could say they "have the priesthood" just as much as men. In the 19th century women used their priesthood power to perform blessing ordinances on other women, in addition to their officiating in temple ordinances for women.

Temple workers who are female are set apart just as temple workers who are male, by "the laying on of hands" and are specifically given the ability to perform these ordinances.

It is not just Mormon "feminists" who believe that women participate in the priesthood; all women who are endowed should believe that, because it is clearly stated in the endowment. In fact the annointings women receive imply that they are "better" than men, and exceed the blessings given to men.

Are you LDS? There seem to be many gaps between what you say and a full doctrinal understanding.

I apologize for thinking you were Rob, but you sound a lot like him.

I would love to see one instance of anyone receiving the priesthood without laying on of hands in the fully restored church.

We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.

Edited September 1, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Ares]

HeatherAnn:

Just giving you a hard time.

Do you need us to smack him around and scare him a bit HeatherAnn?

[LeSellers]

Details on what, specifically.

It wasn't a question or request.

I was saying that what I said was true, but the details you provided as corrections were, well, details.

Lehi

[volgadon]

It wasn't a question or request.

I was saying that what I said was true, but the details you provided as corrections were, well, details.

Lehi

What you said though wasn't true. In 1823 the first of Tishrei (Rosh Hashanah AKA the Feast of Trumpets) was on the 6th of September, not the 21st. This is more than a mere detail. Two weeks after the holiday had ended cannot be considered as during that holiday. As soon as I'm done with my critique of Rob Bowman's blogpost I'll post on Joseph's prophetic ministry & the Jewish calendar.

Edited September 2, 2011 by volgadon

[Mudcat]

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

I would agree with you 100%.

Everything pertaining to LDS doctrine could certainly be taught without the Bible.

edit add .. oops I suppose James 1:5 actually is important. Not to mention the background knowledge of your first Prophet.

Edited September 2, 2011 by Mudcat

[mfbukowski]

I would agree with you 100%.

Everything pertaining to LDS doctrine could certainly be taught without the Bible.

edit add .. oops I suppose James 1:5 actually is important. Not to mention the background knowledge of your first Prophet.

Agreed of course.

I know many Protestants would find that indicting. "What you ADMIT your church is un- Biblical?" Of course that is not the point- the point is that the Bible taken on its own is insufficient to teach all of Mormon doctrine, but I think there are few if any beliefs which are not at least alluded to in the Bible.

In my opinion I see what is taught in the Bible as a subset of what Mormonism teaches. In my opinion, all that is in the Bible is in Mormonism, but all that is in Mormonism is not in the Bible. If we were representing this idea as two circles one of which represents what is in the Bible and the other representing what is in Mormonism, the circle representing the Bible would be wholly inside of the circle representing Mormonism.

But of course you would disagree.

But that quote from James may be the "exception that proves the rule" now that I think of it- it is the basis of all of Mormonism really. If there is no personal revelation, then there is no testimony, no continuing revelation, no restoration.

[Mudcat]

Agreed of course.

I know many Protestants would find that indicting. "What you ADMIT your church is un- Biblical?" Of course that is not the point- the point is that the Bible taken on its own is insufficient to teach all of Mormon doctrine, but I think there are few if any beliefs which are not at least alluded to in the Bible.

Bold mine. You have my agreement again.

In my opinion I see what is taught in the Bible as a subset of what Mormonism teaches. In my opinion, all that is in the Bible is in Mormonism, but all that is in Mormonism is not in the Bible. If we were representing this idea as two circles one of which represents what is in the Bible and the other representing what is in Mormonism, the circle representing the Bible would be wholly inside of the circle representing Mormonism.

Bold mine. You would be wrong for thinking such Bukowski. You would have to interpolate external literature to enforce the point which IMO would also invalidate the point. But if you want to make your case without such, feel free.

The fact that all of Mormonism is not in the Bible is something we agree on. No arguments there.

But of course you would disagree.

That was a real good guess on your part.

But that quote from James may be the "exception that proves the rule" now that I think of it- it is the basis of all of Mormonism really. If there is no personal revelation, then there is no testimony, no continuing revelation, no restoration.

Though I am not LDS, I thought it was quite a stinger to your original position.

[LeSellers]

What you said though wasn't true. In 1823 the first of Tishrei (Rosh Hashanah AKA the Feast of Trumpets) was on the 6th of September, not the 21st. This is more than a mere detail. Two weeks after the holiday had ended cannot be considered as during that holiday. As soon as I'm done with my critique of Rob Bowman's blogpost I'll post on Joseph's prophetic ministry & the Jewish calendar.

My point, details aside, was that Moroni's appearance in 1823 coincided with a major Jewish festival; one with significant religious import.

Sorry if I offended you. I look forward to the new information.

Lehi

Edited September 2, 2011 by LeSellers

[thesometimesaint]

Mudcat:

I can't think of anything in Mormonism that is not at least alluded to in the Bible.

[HeatherAnn]

Do you need us to smack him around and scare him a bit HeatherAnn?

Ares, God of War,

You're so kind to offer your cyber battle services,

However, I can hold my own, when it's one on one.

(I love these emoticons! ha!)

[HeatherAnn]

Mudcat:

I can't think of anything in Mormonism that is not at least alluded to in the Bible.

Well, I could think of a few things, but I agree that most of Mormonism is alluded to in the Bible.

And of course, some is almost word for word - like 2nd Nephi & Isaiah (of course it's clearly indicating the reference).

I've read - some King James Bible Version translation errors are also in the Book of Mormon.

Still... Bottom line is... that the Book of Mormon and Bible have lots of good, uplifting messages.

Yeah, there might be some things that make absolutely no sense, & may have been misinterpreted.

Yet, I see no reason to throw it all out... It's not black or white, true or false, but rather a shade in between.

[Mudcat]

Mudcat:

I can't think of anything in Mormonism that is not at least alluded to in the Bible.

Temple Marriage?

[LeSellers]

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.

You start off on the wrong foot, and go further off the track from there.

The Apostasy was not about doctrine, per se (although that was a major casualty), but the loss of Priesthood keys.

With the Apostles and prophets gone, there were not keys to choose and ordain "replacements". It was this loss of keys that made a functioning Church, one that could aminister salvific ordinances, evaporate from the earth.

James (or John, I won't look it up right now) relates how this happened when someone refused to acknowledge him as a Special Witness of Christ with the keys that went with that office. The apostasy was not inflicted on the Church, it was fostered from within.

The loss of sound doctrine was a marker, if you will, for tracing the decline of the Church, but the Apostasy was the loss of Priesthood, and, in particular, of Priesthood keys.

Even loss of much of what should have been scripture (and the inclusion of things that should not have been canonized) was a result of the loss of keys. Had there been legitimate Apostles and prophets at the head of the Chruch, the Bible would have been pure. But uninspired men made those choices (even though their work was nudged far enough for the Bible to retain enough truth that it remains among the Standard Works today). We are left with their efforts.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

[is the LDS doctrine of] Temple Marriage [at least alluded to in the Bible]?

Yes, it is.

Jesus points to eternal marriage when He told the Sadducees that the woman, who was "among [them]", would not be married to any of her seven husbands/brothers because "they" were neither married nor given in marriage by the power of God, which neither the Sadducees nor their fellow conspirators, the Pharisees knew.

[BTW, their question allows only one reasonable deduction: Jesus had been preaching eternal marriage (no record of this teaching exists as far as we know), otherwise, the Saducees (who rejected resurrection, and believed in no "heaven") would not have been able to ask this question at all. They were taunting Him with the question, because as "everyone" knew there was not only no marriage in heaven, there was no heaven to be married in.]

It's a bit more esoteric, but the story of Job points to it, too:

Job, aftter his trial got twice as much of everything to replace his lost wealth, twice as much of everything except children, of whom he got the same number (seven, as I recall). But, with Eternal Marriage, those who had died at the oldest brother's house were still his children and he would get them again in the Celestial kingdom.

Paul reminds us that there is neither man without the woman nor woman with the man in the Lord.

"What God has joined, let no man put assunder" (not even by death).

The very first marriage, that between Adam and Eve, was eternal, as neither of them was, at the time God joined them, subject to death, their not having partaken of the forbidden fruit at that point.

Lehi

Edited September 2, 2011 by LeSellers

[Mudcat]

Yes, it is.

No it isn't. Your misunderstanding my point, I think.

The issue isn't the length of the marriage, rather that the notion that the Temple is a place for marriage is not to be found in the Bible.

[LeSellers]

The issue isn't the length of the marriage, rather that the notion that the Temple is a place for marriage is not to be found in the Bible.

I could very well have mistaken your point. However, there is no substantive difference between "Temple Marriage" and "Eternal Marriage".

Whether the ordinance takes place on a mountain, in a (dedicated) upper floor of a dry goods store, in a temporary structure, or in a Temple, as long as the Priesthood power that officiates is valid, the marriage will be, too.

It's the Priesthood, as Jesus alluded to with the Sadducees, and the nature of the rite that make the difference.

In the example of Job's marriage, we see that there are important connections (we Saints call them "sealings") that exist beyond he11*. They extend into eternity and, ultimately, connect us to God and His family.

* I'm using the word in its biblical sense of "the tomb" or "grave".

Lehi

Edited September 2, 2011 by LeSellers

[Mudcat]

I could very well have mistaken your point. However, there is no substantive difference between "Temple Marriage" and "Eternal Marriage".

I may be wrong, but I thought LDS marriages that were conducted in the Temple could either be for time, time and eternity, or for eternity.

[HeatherAnn]

The issue isn't the length of the marriage, rather that the notion that the Temple is a place for marriage is not to be found in the Bible.

I hadn't considered that.

Although, I have issues with the temple, I do see it as a good place for weddings in a way.

It gives an extra commitment - so when the marital commitment lacks, the temple/God covenants maintain the marriage.

I see Mormonism (esp. the pure, basic, non culturally influenced Mormonism)... as taking Christianity a step further.

Marriage between a man & woman "until death do you part" is fine, but extending that to eternity (even in concept) is a bigger comittment.

I'm beginning to rethink the notion of marriage...

It's written Jesus said, "For then they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven." - Mark 12:25

Not very hopeful, for 2 people who love each other & want to be together forever.

Yet, it's also not very hopeful to consider eternal marriage with someone you're miserable with.

I believe that it's a mix of both... We don't own anyone, especially spiritually. I don't think we have "claim" on anyone in spirit - unless they want us to.

Either you like someone or you don't - either you relate to them or you don't.. & visa versa.

Spiritually, I believe we are naturally drawn to what we want & to similar spiritual energy.

Someone mentioned how a temple marriage is a blueprint of intent... but faith without works is dead.

That's why I think authority is not so much about societal positions or even laying on of hands... but more of spiritual development & intent.

When that authority is acted on - with the right reason & spirit - then a higher help is experienced.

Edited September 2, 2011 by HeatherAnn

[mfbukowski]

I may be wrong, but I thought LDS marriages that were conducted in the Temple could either be for time, time and eternity, or for eternity.

The proper term of course is "sealing". Once one is sealed it is both for this life and for eternity. Such ceremonies can be performed after one is dead or before depending on circumstances.

On very rare occasions, when the participants spouses have died, and the two being married do not desire to be sealed to each other necessarily ( think two octogenarians who just want the each other's companionship after their spouses have died) a regular "wedding" which is exactly the same as would be performed outside the temple- except in this case it is done inside the building.

This is not a "sealing"

"Temple Marriage" as a term is synonymous with "sealing" regardless of where it happens- as Lehi has said, and would not include a regular marriage even if this marriage is actually done inside the temple. Such a wedding would be termed as being "for time" - or until death of one of the parties.

I know - I am very sure it is quite confusing!

Edited September 2, 2011 by mfbukowski

[LeSellers]

I may be wrong, but I thought LDS marriages that were conducted in the Temple could either be for time, time and eternity, or for eternity.

Nowadays, yes. The only place God has authorized us to perform Eternal Marriages (better named "sealings" of husband and wife) is in the Temple. But each of those places I named have seen such valid sealings performed in the past.

My point was not that Temples are not needed, but that it's the Priesthood power that validates them. That's what Jesus was referring to with the Sadducees. We call them "Temple Marriages" only as a convenience: they are "Priesthood Marriages".

As far as I can tell, there was no legitimate Temple during Jesus' day (or those of the Apostles). The Temple of Herod was not commissioned by God (Herod did to to endear himself to the Jews and to claim descent from Levi or Judah). It had not been dedicateed because not complete in any case. And I don't know if there was, as in Solomon's Temple, an upper story in which to consecrate such marriages/sealings anyway. By that time, the Jews had lost the higher Priesthood, and could not perform these ordinances validly.

Lehi

Edited September 2, 2011 by LeSellers

[Kiviuq]

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

Thanks for the good information. I don’t necessarily disagree. Help me with a good choice of words. All I am saying about “the apostates” is this: After the time of Christ there was an apostasy. I was including everyone living from the 2nd century to the restoration as being in a state of apostasy from Christ’s original gospel. It was those people, in a general sense, that saw to the creation of the books we now have in the Bible.