Establishing The Biblcal Canon Without Apostolic Authority

[Cobalt-70]

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.

Women are not better than men, and certainly do not receive greater "blessings" than men by any measure. There is nothing that women have, or ever will have, for which there is not an equal or greater male equivalent, except pregnancy and breast feeding--which are hardly blessings. Pregnancy and labor, in fact, are actually curses if you believe the book of Genesis.

It's sounds like we agree that at least when women are anointed to become priestesses in the temple, they have the priesthood at that point. I think the evidence for this is pretty clear for anyone who has been through the temple. Without discussing too much about the temple ceremony, women have the priesthood at the very least by the time they put on their temple robes, which are the symbolic priestly garments of the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods.

I guess you could say that the temple anointing was a "laying on of hands". At least it used to be. But it's not a traditional "laying on of hands" in the same way that en elder or priest would be ordained. I don't think that women being called as temple workers is itself an ordination to the priesthood. I think that they already have the priesthood at that point, and that their setting-apart to be a temple worker is just that--setting apart, like when someone who is already an elder is set apart as the elder's quorum president. They "get the priesthood" when they are endowed. Also, any woman in the 19th century who was endowed--and possibly any Mormon mother, endowed or not--was considered to be able to perform a healing blessing for other women, of for children--and such blessings were routinely given for about a century of Mormon history. The ability of women to perform such ordinances did not require any setting apart.

I haven't really wanted to discuss my personal faith because I don't think you should judge the merits of what someone says based on their faith, particularly in an apologetic/academic context. But I am indeed LDS. I'm multi-generation Mormon, raised in Utah, a return missionary, and a current temple recommend holder. If I don't sound like a traditional Mormon, that's by design, not because of any lack of understanding of Mormon belief or culture. In more academically- or apologetically-minded contexts such as this, Mormons are obligated to speak in a way that will be understood by Protestants, Catholics, and the secular world. However, if you were to hear me give a lesson in church, you'd find my discussion interesting (hopefully), but otherwise pretty conventional. Different contexts call for different language.

[Cobalt-70]

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.

I don't think it's correct to say that there was no legitimate Temple during Jesus' day. Jesus himself certainly considered the temple to be legitimate. However, there is no evidence that any of the ancient temples, including the temples of Solomon, Zerubbabel, or Herod, performed modern Mormon temple ceremonies. There were no endowment rooms, no altars for sealings, and despite there being a large font held up by statues of oxen, this was not actually used for baptisms for the dead--at least, there is no evidence of this either in scripture or archaeology. D&C 132:39 states that Nathan and other prophets gave wives and concubines (the latter not married, but apparently sealed) to David. But that was of course before Solomon built his temple. It is unwarranted, merely from that verse, to assume that there were full-fledged Mormon temple ceremonies in the temple of Solomon or any of the two later temples. That was not why these temples were built.

[mfbukowski]

Women are not better than men, and certainly do not receive greater "blessings" than men by any measure. There is nothing that women have, or ever will have, for which there is not an equal or greater male equivalent, except pregnancy and breast feeding--which are hardly blessings. Pregnancy and labor, in fact, are actually curses if you believe the book of Genesis.

Strongly disagree that pregnancy and breast feeding are "hardly blessings", but I will let a woman comment on that one! In no way are those things "curses".

I didn't mean that women were better than men, but I stand by my statement that they receive superior blessings in the temple.

Sometime if you have a chance, compare the words of the women's washing with those of the men's washing. Maybe ask the temple president to share that with you.

I have no problem with the rest of your post.

Edited September 2, 2011 by mfbukowski

[LeSellers]

I don't think it's correct to say that there was no legitimate Temple during Jesus' day. Jesus himself certainly considered the temple to be legitimate. However, there is no evidence that any of the ancient temples, including the temples of Solomon,

Careful. We don't know what they used it for, but there was a second story in Solomon's Temple. It had two, gold-clad rooms (the same dimensions as the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place). It had a veil.

Even though there is absolutely nothing in the record as what they did upstairs, that fact alone makes implications very interesting: "sacred" not "secret".

performed modern Mormon temple ceremonies.

We don't know that, but we admit there is little evidence of it.

Further, no one is saying they did perform "modern Mormon [sic] Temple ceremonies" in them. First, the Resurrection had not yet happened, so there would have been no proxy work for the dead.

There were no endowment rooms, no altars for sealings, and despite there being a large font held up by statues of oxen, this was not actually used for baptisms for the dead--at least, there is no evidence of this either in scripture or archaeology.

As I said, there were no baptisms (or any other ordiances) for the dead. God had not yet authorized them.

D&C 132:39 states that Nathan and other prophets gave wives and concubines (the latter not married, but apparently sealed) to David. But that was of course before Solomon built his temple. It is unwarranted, merely from that verse, to assume that there were full-fledged Mormon temple ceremonies in the temple of Solomon or any of the two later temples. That was not why these temples were built.

And, because no one has said that, your statement is, itself, unwarranted.

The concubines were wives (married) of a lower caste or class, they were not mistresses.

The fact that Solomon had not yet built God's Temple has nothing to do with any of this, either: there was a “Tentple” in Shiloh. It had been there for centuries.

Solomon's Temple was built primarily (or at least, most notably) for Levitical/Aaronic sacrifices. No one disputes that. But what happened upstairs? Why no mention of the rituals?

I'm not arguing from silence. I'm just pointing out the silence.

I am saying, however, that Eternal Marriage. Priesthood Marriage, either happened among the living or it will happen among them by proxy.

But what did happen upstairs?

Lehi

[mfbukowski]

... I'm multi-generation Mormon, raised in Utah, a return missionary,...

That's ok, I won't hold that against you. There are certain things we just can't help....

[Cobalt-70]

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.

I think the timing of the vision of Moroni had more to do with that night being the autumnal equinox as listed in the local Farmer's Almanac. Smith didn't really become too familiar with Judaism until the 1830s, so I don't see how the timing of Jewish festivals would have motivated him to try to purify himself from sin on that date.

[LeSellers]

I don't think it's correct to say that there was no legitimate Temple during Jesus' day. Jesus himself certainly considered the temple to be legitimate.

Yes, Jesus showed reverence to the Temple. He showed deference to the High Priest, too. But I can't imagine any Christian saying that Caiaphas was a legitimate High Priest.

The Lord h as shown us that He would not accept a Temple that he did not approve.

15 And if my people build it not according to the pattern which I shall show unto their presidency, I will not accept it at their hands.

10 Or will I receive at your hands that which I have not appointed?

Lehi

[mfbukowski]

I don't think it's correct to say that there was no legitimate Temple during Jesus' day. Jesus himself certainly considered the temple to be legitimate. However, there is no evidence that any of the ancient temples, including the temples of Solomon, Zerubbabel, or Herod, performed modern Mormon temple ceremonies. There were no endowment rooms, no altars for sealings, and despite there being a large font held up by statues of oxen, this was not actually used for baptisms for the dead--at least, there is no evidence of this either in scripture or archaeology. D&C 132:39 states that Nathan and other prophets gave wives and concubines (the latter not married, but apparently sealed) to David. But that was of course before Solomon built his temple. It is unwarranted, merely from that verse, to assume that there were full-fledged Mormon temple ceremonies in the temple of Solomon or any of the two later temples. That was not why these temples were built.

What was the purpose of the small rooms in the "upperparts" (or something like that) of the walls of Solomon's temple that Josephus talks about? I can look up the reference if you like- not much time right now, but I am not sure if it is on the internet or not. But I have the book in my library and it's definitely in there.

Edit- sorry- this was posted before I saw the discussion in the thread

Edited September 2, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Lehi- this is getting spooky- we are reading each others minds!

[Kiviuq]

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,

When you say that “we are left with their efforts”, I think we must then disagree on how significant it was that uninspired men made the choices that led to the Bible of today. Not only were they uninspired but they also promoted their particular flavor of Christian beliefs. I think you’re saying that even with the loss of priesthood keys that the doctrine that was promoted and retained in the Bible was not too far off from the original otherwise Joseph Smith would not have included the Bible in the LDS canon.

Given the great variety of groups claiming to be Christian in the first century (most of which did not have their sacred writings preserved), and considering that uninspired men wanted to support their own version of what should be doctrine, I see a very real possibility that the few select books that were preserved do not reflect a pure version of Christ’s original teachings.

Edited September 2, 2011 by Kiviuq

[zerinus]

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. . . .

I am not sure what that really means. The ancient Jewish Church did not have “apostolic authority,” but it certainly did have “authority” of some kind, and it certainly did produce scripture, and lots of it. So I am not really following you on this one.

. . . Yet, the gospels were written after that authority had been taken away from the church.

I don’t think that anyone can say they know for certain when the Gospels were written, or when the "authority" had been "taken away". So I am still not following you.

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

That is probably a valid statement to make.

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?

You are saying they are not authoritative, we don’t. On the contrary, Mormonism accepts the Bible as part of its scriptural canon:

D&C 42

:

12 And again, the elders, priests and teachers of this church shall teach the principles of my gospel, which are in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, in the which is the fulness of the gospel.

The Book of Mormon teaches that although many "plain and precious parts" had been taken away from the New Testament because of the Apostasy, what is left in there is still sacred scripture that for the most part can be trusted to teach correct doctrine.

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?"

You (or whoever you have been talking to) are inventing your own idea of what Mormonism is or teaches (or should teach) which has no relevance to reality, and then knocking it down. I believe in Internet jargon that is called a “straw man” argument. You (or whoever you have been talking to) are creating a false perception of Mormonism, and then attacking it. You are not attacking true Mormonism.

The “authority” for the Bible for Mormonism comes from the Lord’s own declaration (quoted above, and in the Book of Mormon) that it is authoritative, and for the most part teaches correct doctrine.

[zerinus]

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.)

Wrong! That is not “the story of the apostasy from the LDS point of view”.

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.

Again wrong. The Christian church (small “c”) that emerged after the Apostasy was not responsible for that Apostasy, but a victim of it. They had the Spirit of the Lord with them that would enable them to choose right for the most part, and make correct decisions on selecting a canon.

[zerinus]

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?

It does.

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

Well you are "saying" it wrong! They don't. The Book of Mormon tells us that they have managed to remove certain "plain and precious parts" from the Bible; but that what is left in it is still true scripture that can be relied upon for Christian doctrine.

[zerinus]

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.

You just have the wrong idea of what the Apostasy means in Mormonism. You are creating a straw man, and then knocking down the straw man.

[zerinus]

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.

There was an Apostasy in the early Christian Church; that does not mean that all the Christians that followed were "apostates". That just is not what Mormonism teaches. On the contrary, the Book of Mormon teaches that the Christian church or religion that emerged at the end of that Apostasy was recognized by the Lord as His church and had the Holy Spirit.

[zerinus]

By the way, I don't know why some people have jumped on the back of Cobalt-70. He made some valid points. His answers do not provide a complete explanation for the OP; but neither does anybody else's. But most people have made some valid points, including Cobalt.

[mfbukowski]

There was an Apostasy in the early Christian Church; that does not mean that all the Christians that followed were "apostates". That just is not what Mormonism teaches. On the contrary, the Book of Mormon teaches that the Christian church or religion that emerged at the end of that Apostasy was recognized by the Lord as His church and had the Holy Spirit.

Perhaps you should explain that in light of Joseph being told that all other churches were an "abomination".

I am not disagreeing with you- I am just anticipating that question and I would like to hear your answer to that.

[mfbukowski]

By the way, I don't know why some people have jumped on the back of Cobalt-70. He made some valid points. His answers do not provide a complete explanation for the OP; but neither does anybody else's. But most people have made some valid points, including Cobalt.

I think a few of us got a mistaken initial impression and insofar as I contributed to that, I apologize

[zerinus]

Perhaps you should explain that in light of Joseph being told that all other churches were an "abomination".

I don't know of any place that Joseph was told that "all other churches were an 'abomination'".

[volgadon]

I think the timing of the vision of Moroni had more to do with that night being the autumnal equinox as listed in the local Farmer's Almanac. Smith didn't really become too familiar with Judaism until the 1830s, so I don't see how the timing of Jewish festivals would have motivated him to try to purify himself from sin on that date.

Frankly, I don't recall making that sort of argument.

[volgadon]

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

You haven't offended. That being said, I have a hard time as seen your point as significant. The 2nd day of Sukkot isn't that significant religiously as compared to the 1st and last days, in fact, it is not even considered as holy. There also aren't really any correlations btween Moroni's message and the scriptural readings of that day. The calendrical significance of the visit is not in Sukkot, it is in 1827.

[mfbukowski]

There was an Apostasy in the early Christian Church; that does not mean that all the Christians that followed were "apostates". That just is not what Mormonism teaches. On the contrary, the Book of Mormon teaches that the Christian church or religion that emerged at the end of that Apostasy was recognized by the Lord as His church and had the Holy Spirit.

OK You have completely confused my poor little brain.

Here you say that not all Christians who followed the Apostasy were "Apostates". I can't quite figure out the definitions there, but let's ignore that for the time being.

But you also say that " the Christian church or religion that emerged at the end of that Apostasy was recognized by the Lord as His church and had the Holy Spirit."

Then I said:

Perhaps you should explain that in light of Joseph being told that all other churches were an "abomination".

I am not disagreeing with you- I am just anticipating that question and I would like to hear your answer to that.

Then you said:

I don't know of any place that Joseph was told that "all other churches were an 'abomination'".

Seriously?

(Emphasis added)

http://lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1?lang=e

Joseph Smith History I

18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

20 He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time.

So how do you square that underlined portion above with this?

There was an Apostasy in the early Christian Church; that does not mean that all the Christians that followed were "apostates". That just is not what Mormonism teaches. On the contrary, the Book of Mormon teaches that the Christian church or religion that emerged at the end of that Apostasy was recognized by the Lord as His church and had the Holy Spirit.

Please explain- I am very confused!

[zerinus]

OK You have completely confused my poor little brain.

Here you say that not all Christians who followed the Apostasy were "Apostates". I can't quite figure out the definitions there, . . .

But you also say that "the Christian church or religion that emerged at the end of that Apostasy was recognized by the Lord as His church and had the Holy Spirit."

That is right. In the Book of Mormon the Lord makes this declaration about the Christian church or religion that emerged after the Apostasy among the Gentiles nations, and survived during the Middle Ages and beyond:

3 Nephi 16

:

6 And blessed are the Gentiles, because of their belief in me, in and of the Holy Ghost, which witnesses unto them of me and of the Father.

7 Behold, because of their belief in me, saith the Father, and because of the unbelief of you, O house of Israel, in the latter day shall the truth come unto the Gentiles, that the fulness of these things shall be made known unto them.

In other words, the Lord honors the Gentiles because of their “belief in Him,” and gives them the Holy Ghost which bears witness to them of the Father and Him—to the point that the latter-day Restoration is will take place among them rather than among the house of Israel. That means that He regards them as His church. If they believe in Him, by virtue of the Holy Ghost that He has given them, then He loves them, and regards them as His church. In the Doctrine and Covenants too the Lord has said the same thing:

D&C 10

:

53 And for this cause have I said: If this generation harden not their hearts, I will establish my church among them.

54 Now I do not say this to destroy my church, but I say this to build up my church;

55 Therefore, whosoever belongeth to my church need not fear, for such shall inherit the kingdom of heaven.

56 But it is they who do not fear me, neither keep my commandments but build up churches unto themselves to get gain, yea, and all those that do wickedly and build up the kingdom of the devil—yea, verily, verily, I say unto you, that it is they that I will disturb, and cause to tremble and shake to the center.

This revelation was received before the LDS Church was organized. So the Lord recognizes the Christian church that existed at that time as His church. If He recognizes them as His church, then He can’t be considering them as an “abomination” can He? Again, in another scripture in the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord has said:

D&C 18

:

20 Contend against no church, save it be the church of the devil.

So if there is only one church of the devil, and there are thousands of churches around, and we are supposed to contend against the church of the devil only, and leave the rest alone, then they can’t all be church of the devil, can they? Some of them might be, but not all of them would be.

Then you said:

I don't know of any place that Joseph was told that "all other churches were an 'abomination'".

Seriously?

(Emphasis added)

http://lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1?lang=e

Joseph Smith History I

18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

20 He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time.

So how do you square that underlined portion above with this?

Please explain- I am very confused!

Okay, the scriptures you have quoted contain many different elements which need to be understood separately. In that scripture, the Lord severely condemns those whom He calls the “professors,” not necessarily the religion or church as such, or all of its adherents; and the “creeds” He is talking about refers again specifically to those “professors”. The word “creed” has more than one meaning. It doesn’t just mean a “written” creed, such as the Nicene Creed for example. It could mean whatever you believe in or subscribe to. You can even use it in a non-religious sense. You can talk of someone’s “political creed,” meaning whatever political ideology he believes in, not necessarily something that is written down. The Lord is not condemning the Nicene Creed or any of the other early Christian creeds. He is condemning those "professors," and everything they stood for.

The Lord’s commanding Joseph not to join any of the other churches is a different phenomenon still. Joseph Smith was a kind of special case. He was called and appointed to create a new religion; a new gospel dispensation; a new church. It was not compatible with his appointment to join another religion. If another religion was good enough for him to join, why should he want to start a new one? That did not mean that it was inherently wrong to join another Christian church or religion. Another important point to bear in mind is that those church Joseph Smith encountered in that “religious revival” were all radical Protestant churches. They were not Catholic or Orthodox. Would the Lord have been equally scathing of them? I don’t know, but I doubt He would have been.

The Lord actively hates and opposes one church only, and that is the church of the devil; and the church of the devil has distinct identification marks. The clearest ID mark of the church of the devil is that it “fights against Zion” (2 Nephi 10:16). Anybody who fights against Zion is of the church of the devil, regardless of what religion (or non religion) they belong to. But there are some churches who institutionally “fight against Zion”. There are not too many of them do; but the Evangelicals are probably the foremost among them. That identifies the whole religious establishment as the “church of the devil”. But still, it doesn’t mean that every Evangelical if of the church of the devil. I dare say the majority of them aren’t interested in “fighting against Zion,” therefore they do not fall into the category of the Church of the Devil. But their activists, pastors, ministers, religious leaders and prominent theologians for the most part have taken upon themselves to “fight against Zion,” therefore they have squarely positioned themselves within the church of the devil. Anybody who “fights against Zion” is the church of the devil; and that is the only church that the Lord is opposed to. He is not bothered about the rest.

[mfbukowski]

Well I am not quite sure I see it as you do, but an interesting point of view nevertheless.

That is right. In the Book of Mormon the Lord makes this declaration about the Christian church or religion that emerged after the Apostasy among the Gentiles nations, and survived during the Middle Ages and beyond:

3 Nephi 16

:

6 And blessed are the Gentiles, because of their belief in me, in and of the Holy Ghost, which witnesses unto them of me and of the Father.

7 Behold, because of their belief in me, saith the Father, and because of the unbelief of you, O house of Israel, in the latter day shall the truth come unto the Gentiles, that the fulness of these things shall be made known unto them.

In other words, the Lord honors the Gentiles because of their “belief in Him,” and gives them the Holy Ghost which bears witness to them of the Father and Him—to the point that the latter-day Restoration is will take place among them rather than among the house of Israel. That means that He regards them as His church. If they believe in Him, by virtue of the Holy Ghost that He has given them, then He loves them, and regards them as His church.

There is no mention in there of the "church"- only the "gentiles". I take that to mean that the gentiles were blessed for their belief in Christ, and had access to the Holy Ghost- but not that they were a "church" which was not apostate

In your original post which started this you said:

On the contrary, the Book of Mormon teaches that the Christian church or religion that emerged at the end of that Apostasy was recognized by the Lord as His church and had the Holy Spirit.

I think it is important to distinguish between groups of people- like "the gentiles" and any implication that they were part of a "church" because then you get the kind of confusion which started this discussion in the first place.

In the Doctrine and Covenants too the Lord has said the same thing:

D&C 10

:

53 And for this cause have I said: If this generation harden not their hearts, I will establish my church among them.

54 Now I do not say this to destroy my church, but I say this to build up my church;

55 Therefore, whosoever belongeth to my church need not fear, for such shall inherit the kingdom of heaven.

56 But it is they who do not fear me, neither keep my commandments but build up churches unto themselves to get gain, yea, and all those that do wickedly and build up the kingdom of the devil—yea, verily, verily, I say unto you, that it is they that I will disturb, and cause to tremble and shake to the center.

This revelation was received before the LDS Church was organized. So the Lord recognizes the Christian church that existed at that time as His church. If He recognizes them as His church, then He can’t be considering them as an “abomination” can He?

Then why did he? I think this confuses the issue, confusing the people who believed in the Lord with the churches themselves- which he called an "abomination". I can see your point- it's just that I disagree on the use here of the word "church". To me, a church is an organized entity- not "Christianity" as a whole, totally independent from the churches themselves.

I think this is a very nuanced interpretation you have given which is confusing. I would drop the word "church" entirely and perhaps use the word "Christians". The spirit was present among believing Christian people, but not in any "churches"- I think that explains it better.

Again, in another scripture in the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord has said:

D&C 18

:

20 Contend against no church, save it be the church of the devil.

So if there is only one church of the devil, and there are thousands of churches around, and we are supposed to contend against the church of the devil only, and leave the rest alone, then they can’t all be church of the devil, can they? Some of them might be, but not all of them would be.

That is an instruction to us, as members that we should not contend against other churches- it has nothing to do with the correctness of the churches we might be tempted to contend against. That scripture is about how contention is not of the Lord- and has nothing to do with which church is "true".

Okay, the scriptures you have quoted contain many different elements which need to be understood separately. In that scripture, the Lord severely condemns those whom He calls the “professors,” not necessarily the religion or church as such, or all of its adherents; and the “creeds” He is talking about refers again specifically to those “professors”. The word “creed” has more than one meaning. It doesn’t just mean a “written” creed, such as the Nicene Creed for example. It could mean whatever you believe in or subscribe to. You can even use it in a non-religious sense. You can talk of someone’s “political creed,” meaning whatever political ideology he believes in, not necessarily something that is written down. The Lord is not condemning the Nicene Creed or any of the other early Christian creeds. He is condemning those "professors," and everything they stood for.

Let's look at Joseph's actual words:

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

Again I make the distinction between "churches" and people. And I think that word "Creed" DOES apply in the senses you give- but I don't for one minute exclude the Nicene Creed- how could you say that when that Creed derives from pagan Greek philosophy? I don't think you can condemn the "professors" like Aristotle and Plato and then accept their teachings in a Creed- which is precisely what the Nicene Creed is.

The Lord’s commanding Joseph not to join any of the other churches is a different phenomenon still. Joseph Smith was a kind of special case. He was called and appointed to create a new religion; a new gospel dispensation; a new church. It was not compatible with his appointment to join another religion. If another religion was good enough for him to join, why should he want to start a new one? That did not mean that it was inherently wrong to join another Christian church or religion. Another important point to bear in mind is that those church Joseph Smith encountered in that “religious revival” were all radical Protestant churches. They were not Catholic or Orthodox. Would the Lord have been equally scathing of them? I don’t know, but I doubt He would have been.

Disagree quite strongly. Catholicism was the origination of all the "professors" (look up "scholastic") and "Creeds". That argument might work to be politically correct on Catholic boards, but I certainly disagree with it. All those Protestant churches still followed the Nicene Creed, and even today it is often looked at as what defines a church as being "Christian"- accept the creed and you are in the club; reject it as we do and you are out.

The Lord actively hates and opposes one church only, and that is the church of the devil; and the church of the devil has distinct identification marks. The clearest ID mark of the church of the devil is that it “fights against Zion” (2 Nephi 10:16). Anybody who fights against Zion is of the church of the devil, regardless of what religion (or non religion) they belong to. But there are some churches who institutionally “fight against Zion”. There are not too many of them do; but the Evangelicals are probably the foremost among them. That identifies the whole religious establishment as the “church of the devil”. But still, it doesn’t mean that every Evangelical if of the church of the devil. I dare say the majority of them aren’t interested in “fighting against Zion,” therefore they do not fall into the category of the Church of the Devil. But their activists, pastors, ministers, religious leaders and prominent theologians for the most part have taken upon themselves to “fight against Zion,” therefore they have squarely positioned themselves within the church of the devil. Anybody who “fights against Zion” is the church of the devil; and that is the only church that the Lord is opposed to. He is not bothered about the rest.

Really over the top in my opinion. I agree that those who actively oppose Zion are the church of the devil- but linking this to one church, is in my opinion, far beyond what is right.

[zerinus]

There is no mention in there of the "church"- only the "gentiles". I take that to mean that the gentiles were blessed for their belief in Christ, and had access to the Holy Ghost- but not that they were a "church" which was not apostate

D&C 10:53-56 quoted further down makes it clear that the Lord regards the “believing Gentiles” as His “Church”. Evidently you did not read that passage very carefully. I suggest you read posts properly before replying.

Then why did he? I think this confuses the issue, confusing the people who believed in the Lord with the churches themselves- which he called an "abomination".

I think this is a very nuanced interpretation you have given which is confusing. I would drop the word "church" entirely and perhaps use the word "Christians". The spirit was present among believing Christian people, but not in any "churches"- I think that explains it better.

See above. You are talking nonsense now. I showed you that the Lord did not call a particular “church” an “abomination”.

That is an instruction to us, as members that we should not contend against other churches- it has nothing to do with the correctness of the churches we might be tempted to contend against. That scripture is about how contention is not of the Lord- and has nothing to do with which church is "true".

Again, you are not reading what the scripture says. It says, “Contend against no church save it be the church of the devil.” That is another way of saying, “Contend against the church of the devil.” You “contend against the church of the devil” by opposing wickedness of any description wherever it might be found. The church of the devil is composed of the wicked. You contend against that church by opposing wickedness of whatever kind there might be.

Again I make the distinction between "churches" and people. And I think that word "Creed" DOES apply in the senses you give- but I don't for one minute exclude the Nicene Creed- how could you say that when that Creed derives from pagan Greek philosophy? I don't think you can condemn the "professors" like Aristotle and Plato and then accept their teachings in a Creed- which is precisely what the Nicene Creed is.

I think you are just arguing for its own sake, not knowing what you are talking about. By the “professors” in that scriptures is meant the religious ministers of the day whom Joseph Smith encountered in that “religious revival,” who later became his greatest opponents and persecutors. It doesn’t mean Plato and Aristotle. It doesn’t mean “professors” like “university professors” either. The Evangelical pastors, ministers, and activists of today are their closest modern equivalents. They have picked up the mantle of those “professors” whom the Lord condemns in that scripture you cited.

Disagree quite strongly. Catholicism was the origination of all the "professors" (look up "scholastic") and "Creeds". That argument might work to be politically correct on Catholic boards, but I certainly disagree with it. All those Protestant churches still followed the Nicene Creed, and even today it is often looked at as what defines a church as being "Christian"- accept the creed and you are in the club; reject it as we do and you are out

Sorry mfb, you just don’t know what you are talking about. No further reply needed.

Edited September 3, 2011 by zerinus