Establishing The Biblcal Canon Without Apostolic Authority

[Calm]

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.

Your opinion on the matter is noted and promptly ignored by this woman who has been through both pregnancy and breastfeeding.

Pregnancy and , in fact, are actually curses if you believe the book of Genesis.

Genesis does not claim that pregnancy is a curse, only that labour is...and I've known a few women that manage to enjoy even that. Edited September 3, 2011 by calmoriah

[Calm]

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.

There is the issue of priesthood authority that is confused if one uses the term "church" to describe those who are Christians as at least most LDS view "church" as a formal organization.

OTOH, zerinus seems to indicate that "church" does not have to be a formal organization in order to qualify, then he turns around and insists that a formal organization is what is meant for the "church of the devil". Seems an inconsistent application.

This is a pretty strong statement that the Church of God in an organized sense was not found on earth at the time:

I found [by searching the scriptures] that mankind did not come unto the Lord but that they had apostatized from the true and living faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the New Testament.

Even if Joseph only applied it to the faiths he was familiar with at the time (which is how I interpret it), he states later on that it was confirmed for all the faiths.

It would also seem this is how it was interpreted by those around Joseph:

Elder Pratt reports, “He then reflected upon the immense number of doctrines now in the world which had given rise to many hundreds of different denominations. The great question to be decided in his mind was—if any one of these denominations be the Church of Christ, which one is it?” This expansive view is reflected in the Prophet’s 1838 account. There he states, “My object in going to enquire 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.”

http://pt.fairmormon...ches_were_wrong

If the Catholic or Orthodox organizations were the Church of God, then why wasn't Joseph told to join one of them? I find it very hard to believe that there were no Catholics at least around available for him to join.

Joseph was told not to join other churches because they were "wrong", not because God simply wanted him to do something new.

And LDS church leaders have condemned the Nicene Creed, I believe, in the past quite strongly...at least certain aspects of it.(for example, here: http://lds.org/gener...h-sent?lang=eng )

"Professors" does not just have to refer to the teachers of that day, but any that "profess" the correctness of the creeds which were an abomination in the Lord's eyes. (I do agree that it was not the churches that were the abomination, but the creeds, but I really don't agree that the creeds that are most well known among Christians were not included in the Lord's condemnation).

PS: I would be a Catholic if I was not LDS and I find the term "abominations" troubling and find it overly harsh....except then I see how some have used the Nicene Creed and others to condemn the LDS as nonChristian with all the implications and effects that arise from that accusation....and I wonder if that is why creeds are considered such in the Lord's eyes.

Edited September 3, 2011 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

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....

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

Your arrogance knows no bounds does it?

Of course I read the entire section INCLUDING THE INTRODUCTION which you apparently did not.

The section is about saving the "church" which Joseph was about to found and the fact that it was nearly "lost" because of the Anthon affair.

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

Here the Lord is saying that he did not make these stolen pages to have them "destroy my church", but that the revelations were made to "build up his church", that is, the church Joseph was about to found.

I will go over the entire section if you like- it is clear the Lord is talking about the "part " that was lost and the "part" that contains the full gospel- the Plates of Nephi on which he repeats the information which was apparently lost.

I really don't care anymore how you interpret it. The meaning is clear to me.

[mfbukowski]

"Professors" does not just have to refer to the teachers of that day, but any that "profess" the correctness of the creeds which were an abomination in the Lord's eyes. (I do agree that it was not the churches that were the abomination, but the creeds, but I really don't agree that the creeds that are most well known among Christians were not included in the Lord's condemnation).

The entire notions of "being" and "substance" mentioned in the opening of the Nicene Creed have nothing to do with the gospel, and are not even Biblical.

These concepts are pure Neoplatonic philosophy.

[Calm]

The entire notions of "being" and "substance" mentioned in the opening of the Nicene Creed have nothing to do with the gospel, and are not even Biblical.

These concepts are pure Neoplatonic philosophy.

Agree with you on this.

[Calm]

cloned

Edited September 4, 2011 by calmoriah

[zerinus]

Your arrogance knows no bounds does it?

Proverbs 14

:

7 Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge.

Have a nice day.

[HeatherAnn]

Listening to U2's "In the Name of Love" got me thinking about religious authority.

God is love... though often love & God are both incorrectly defined.

Consider some of what's been done in the name of God...

Genocides (including those written in the scriptures)

Roman Persecution of Christians

The Inquisition - Torcher authorized by Pope - Organization is still active today under, "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith."

Human Sacrifices... India's Thugee murders, Buddhist Burma, Aztecs (a belief in the need for Jesus being sacrificed is related)

Witch Hunts - 1600's

Mormon Persecutions & Killings

Mountain Meadows Masacre

Islamic Jihad

Prejudice - including that of denying Blacks Priesthood

Arranged marriages of teenage girls to much older men

Spiritual authority is the power of the spirit, nothing more, nothing less.

To give another one's power of free agency, or belief is not what Christ taught.

"Things of God... are spiritually discerned." - 1Cor. 2:14

"Whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do good is of me." -Ether 4:12

What is good... is found by active faith & both intellect & spirit.

[zerinus]

There is the issue of priesthood authority that is confused if one uses the term "church" to describe those who are Christians as at least most LDS view "church" as a formal organization.

Go and tell that to the Lord, Who in D&C 10 uses the word “church” in a sense meaning something that does not have a “formal organization”. Obviously, the word church has more than one meaning. A visit to the dictionary might be helpful (emphasis added) :

From The Free Dictionary:

1. A building for public, especially Christian worship.
   
   
2. often Church
   
   
   • The company of all Christians regarded as a spiritual body.
     
     
   • A specified Christian denomination:
     the Presbyterian Church.
     
     
   • A congregation.

[*]

Public divine worship in a church; a religious service:

goes to church at Christmas and Easter.

[*]

The clerical profession; clergy.

[*]

Ecclesiastical power as distinguished from the secular:

the separation of church and state.

From Dictionary.com:

1. a building for public Christian worship.
   
   
2. public worship of God or a religious service in such a building:
   to attend church regularly.
   
   
3. (
   sometimes initial capital letter
   )
   the whole body of Christian believers; Christendom.
   
   
4. (
   sometimes initial capital letter
   ) any division of this body professing the same creed and acknowledging the same ecclesiastical authority; a Christian denomination:
   the Methodist Church.
   
   
5. that part of the whole Christian body, or of a particular denomination, belonging to the same city, country, nation, etc.
   
   

And I don’t think you can limit the Lord as to which definition of the word “church” He wishes to use. In D&C 10, He has used the word with the dictionary definition highlighted in the above references; and whatever the Lord does or says, becomes official and standard. A “church” doesn’t have to have the “priesthood” to be called “church”. The church of the devil doesn’t have no priesthood, but it is called “church”. In D&C 10:54-55 the Lord uses the word church to describe all of the true believers in Him among the Gentiles, regardless of which denomination they belong to (and without a true priesthood); just as He has used the same word in D&C 18:20 to refer to all the wicked people of the world who choose to follow Satan rather than God. The word ekklesia in Greek simply means a congregation, not even a religious congregation. The Lord has the right to use whatever word with whatever dictionary definition He chooses to. We have no right dictate to Him what word He should use, and what dictionary definition He should apply.

OTOH, zerinus seems to indicate that "church" does not have to be a formal organization in order to qualify, . . .

Qualify for what? To be called a “church”? Evidently not!—at least not in the Lord’s mind. I don’t know about somebody else’s mind.

. . . then he turns around and insists that a formal organization is what is meant for the "church of the devil". Seems an inconsistent application.

I did not say that. I said that the church of the devil consists of all the wicked people of the world, regardless of what religion or ideology they belong to. That is how scripture defines “church of the devil”. However, if there is a “formal organization” that “institutionally” or “organizationally” acts in a way that identifies it as belonging to the church of the devil, then it is justifiable to recognize that “formal organization” as being part of the church of the devil. It is not the whole of the church of the devil, but a part of the bigger whole.

Edited September 4, 2011 by zerinus

[thesometimesaint]

HeatherAnn:

MMM was against what the Church taught.

Islamic Jihad is against what Muhammad taught.

Actually our western world ideas of romantic love are more closely tied to the ancient Greek God Eros.

Edited September 4, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[HeatherAnn]

HeatherAnn:

MMM was against what thge Church taught.

Islamic Jihad is against what Muhammad taught.

Actually our western world ideas of romantic love are more closely tied to the ancient Greek God Eros.

Yeah, I realize that. Yet, it was still done as a religious group.

Yeah, probably Eros is becoming more & more worshiped, knowingly or not.

Yet, I'd say, God is often defined as a shaming, scarey punisher, who'd kick us when we're down.

If not, then why would we need a Savior?

How we define God is SO important because it's how we define ourselves & others.

[thesometimesaint]

HeatherAnn:

I don't see either as a religious group. I'm trying not to violate Godwins rule here. However there are plenty of despicable acts to go around for ALL to have a share.

While I don't believe in the ancient Greek Gods, those ancient Greeks knew a thing or two about the human condition.

Sure. But I believe that we are our own worst critics, and that Jesus will make up the difference if we truly repent.

I need one, what I'm not into is claiming that any certain individual, or group, needs him any more than I do.

True, and our actions speak so much louder than our words.

Edited September 4, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[HeatherAnn]

HeatherAnn:

I don't see either as a religious group. I'm trying not to violate Godwins rule here. However there are plenty of despicable acts to go around for ALL to have a share.

While I don't believe in the ancient Greek Gods, those ancient Greeks knew a thing or two about the human condition.

Sure. But I believe that we are our own worst critics, and that Jesus will make up the difference if we truly repent.

I need one, what I'm not into is claiming that any certain individual, or group, needs him any more than I do.

True, and our actions speak so much louder than our words.

My point was not about condemning groups... but more about the incredible influence one's definition of God has.

On a more subtle level, we all define love (God) & act on that definition - based on what we think is right - which is often not right. lol

It's not always extreme - though it could be... anything from the obvious - adultury, lying, etc.... to giving the wrong gift to someone, or helping in an unhelpful way.

Love (which is God) is hoping & striving for what's best, through trial & error (active faith).

Doesn't it seem strange to consider anyone authority over our lives & our thoughts (which determine who we are)?

Believing God is a meanie requires someone to save us - yet God is in our image of God... "The kingdom (experience & interpretation) of God is within you."

How can anyone save you from your thoughts? Nobody can repent for you...

IMO, Jesus has become a scapegoat more than an ideal to follow.

Still, I understand, like the tradition of Santa, it's more "personal" to resonate with a person, than a Spirit.

And I do believe strongly that there are those (both body & spirit) who love & watch out for us - who help save us in some ways.

And I respect that some prefer to call them, "Jesus."

I agree that we (our ego/lower conscious selves) are our own worst critics because God is love.

When we feel the spirit, we're not being critical.

And all of those criticisms we accumulate go straight to the subconsious, believed without filter... & affects us emotionally, behaviorally, spiritually & physically.

We are the only one's who have the authority to correct our thoughts... to love ourselves better, & then we can also love others better.

Edited September 4, 2011 by HeatherAnn

[volgadon]

I'm not sure that what you mean by love really has much to do with the older concept as found in the scriptures.

[volgadon]

Human Sacrifices... India's Thugee murders, Buddhist Burma, Aztecs (a belief in the need for Jesus being sacrificed is related)

The irony of this statement from you is that human sacrifice is closely related to the concept of love.

[thesometimesaint]

volgadon:

All of Christianity believes in human Blood Sacrifice, but only one some 2000 years ago in Jerusalem was necessarty.

Edited September 5, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[randyj]

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.

"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,"

Just my observation on why I suspect you're not a "believing LDS". In my 44 yrs in the church I have yet to encounter one "believing" LDS who ever referred to the Prophet Joseph Smith simply as "Smith". Yes, I acknowledge it's a subtle hint...but from my side of the fence a pretty strong hint.

[randyj]

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.

"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,"

Just my observation on why I suspect you're not a "believing LDS". In my 44 yrs in the church I have yet to encounter one "believing" LDS who ever referred to the Prophet Joseph Smith simply as "Smith". Yes, I acknowledge it's a subtle hint...but from my side of the fence a pretty strong hint.

[HeatherAnn]

The irony of this statement from you is that human sacrifice is closely related to the concept of love.

Yes, in a strange, twisted way.

My concept, & your concept of love is nothing close to God's concept of love (God IS love - unconditional & all-knowing).

We just try the best we can. Love is striving for what's best, through trial & error (active faith).

What is best is taking responsibility for our thoughts, associated feelings & actions & not using a scapegoat, & human sacrifice.

Why would God say "Thou shalt not kill" - then require human sacrifice?

And why would God, who is love, punish us beyond the consequences of our sins?

What, exactly, do you think Jesus can save us from - in this life, now? (Or do you believe in Heaven's reward fallacy?)

Besides crucial interventions, if you saved your child every time they did something they shouldn't do, would they learn anything?

While I understand that sometimes killing is necessary & the best thing for all... (IE When you overcame a sickness, many little organisms died/were sacrificed so you could heal).

Yet, I doubt Christians would support the killing of another human being sacrificed/killed to appease God - conducted today. At least LDS people probably wouldn't hang miniature electric chairs around their necks.

They just paint white images of Jesus being killed, & sing songs of his grusome death, to enhance worship.

Those who have authority, legally don't require a personal relationship, but spiritually it's ALL about relationship.

A relationship is only as good as its communication.

Since, we don't communicate with Jesus, directly, how can we relate to him?

Sometimes, I consider the concept of Jesus to be our higher selves... as in an lds book, about maintaining your first estate.

And I think that's true Christianity - "The kingdom of God is within you." (& among - spiritually, God is in all).

Edited September 7, 2011 by HeatherAnn

[elguanteloko]

none

Edited September 7, 2011 by elguanteloko

[HeatherAnn]

Trusting in authority for our spirituality, may partly be a crutch for establishing our self-direction or self-esteem.

Am I worthy of dying for?

Yet, that does not dictate worth.

2 things dictate our worth...

1. Realizing our worth as spirits & as live human beings - unconditional worth.

2. Living up to our personal potential - becoming valuable - in how we take care of our body, mind & soul, how we contribute to the community, our career, etc.

Again, Christ is not Jesus' last name, but what he became & tried to show us how to become.

We have saviors - in body & spirit - but nobody will think, feel or act (or correct such) for us.

To believe otherwise gives up our free agency & spiritual power.

That's not to say we will ever "arrive" at perfection in this life... but as we're taught - that's God's plan.... to spiritually develop human becomings.

Edited September 7, 2011 by HeatherAnn

[Katzpur]

Tell your friend that the Bible just is not that important to us...

You've got to be kidding.

[Katzpur]

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.

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.

That is probably a valid statement to make.

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.

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, I'm not sure if your remarks were directed at me or at the person who questioned me on another forum. I've got to say, though, that it appears to me as if you are judged me unfairly in your response and I find that highly offensive. You say that I'm "inventing an idea of what Mormonism teaches" or at the very least that I have been mislead by someone to "create a false perception of Mormonism." You then claim that I am "not attacking true Mormonism." I'm not attacking Mormonism at all. I'm a temple-recommend-holding member of the Church who was asked a question I wasn't sure how to answer. Not only was your response not helpful in the slightest, it was inappropriate and uncalled for.

(I have not responded to this thread until now because I have been out of town. I appreciate all of the on-topic replies. The off-topic ones I just skipped over. )

Edited September 14, 2011 by Katzpur

[altersteve]

You've got to be kidding.

I think he was kidding.

[zerinus]

Zerinus, I'm not sure if your remarks were directed at me or at the person who questioned me on another forum. I've got to say, though, that it appears to me as if you are judged me unfairly in your response and I find that highly offensive. You say that I'm "inventing an idea of what Mormonism teaches" or at the very least that I have been mislead by someone to "create a false perception of Mormonism." You then claim that I am "not attacking true Mormonism." I'm not attacking Mormonism at all. I'm a temple-recommend-holding member of the Church who was asked a question I wasn't sure how to answer. Not only was your response not helpful in the slightest, it was inappropriate and uncalled for.

(I have not responded to this thread until now because I have been out of town. I appreciate all of the on-topic replies. The off-topic ones I just skipped over. )

If my response was not helpful then it was addressed to you. That is the only way that it could not have been helpful.