Bill “Papa” Lee Posted October 26, 2011 Author Posted October 26, 2011 Of course they can, and do. However, unless they are claiming a New Revelation on the subject, we're okay with recognizing that it is most likely being stated it based on tradition, and that they aren't making dogmatic assertions of which agreement with them is intended to be a test of faithfulness to the Church, or its leaders status as prophetic leaders.Or inspiration...
David T Posted October 26, 2011 Posted October 26, 2011 Or inspiration...As I said, "Of course they can, and do. However, unless they are claiming a New Revelation on the subject, ..."
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted October 26, 2011 Author Posted October 26, 2011 As I said, "Of course they can, and do. However, unless they are claiming a New Revelation on the subject, ..."We do sustain them as "Seers", inspiration is not necessarily revelation; though closely married.
David T Posted October 26, 2011 Posted October 26, 2011 (edited) inspiration is not necessarily revelation; though closely married.I don't think there's a substantial, practical difference. I think it's a semantic level of degree. Both practically refer to outside divine knowledge being communicated influencing one's understanding or way of thinking. Edited October 26, 2011 by nackhadlow
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted October 26, 2011 Author Posted October 26, 2011 (edited) I don't think there's a substantial, practical difference. I think it's a semantic level of degree. Both practically refer to outside divine knowledge being communicated influencing one's understanding or way of thinking.Not to make light of scholars, but they have a different goal in mind. Christ thought little of the scriptural scholars of his day. What if “Scholarly pursuits” had them at odds with the words “Christ” attributed to others than did Christ himself. Edited October 27, 2011 by Bill “Papa” Lee
Cobalt-70 Posted October 26, 2011 Posted October 26, 2011 To me it is this simple...all of our scripture (all the Standard Works) are written by Apostles and Prophets, or men called directly of God. Not joe from the third row back in Sacrament meeting.What about the book of Omni? Omni probably didn't even go to Sacrament meeting at all.
David T Posted October 26, 2011 Posted October 26, 2011 (edited) Not to make light of scholars, but they have a different goal in mind. Christ though little of the scriptural scholars of his day. What if “Scholarly pursuits” had them at odds with the words “Christ” attributed to others than did Christ himself.The scriptural scholars Christ lambasted were also religious/political leaders.Serious biblical scholarship today tries extremely hard to separate "religious significance" from their attempts to express, to the best of their highly informed ability, the context and original literary content of the texts. Secular scholars are not dogmatic. There is a separation of powers between Church and Scholarship However, I feel the Catholics have the right idea (at least in past decades) of using that scholarship to update their official English translation of the scriptures (from an Ecumenical translation team) from time to time, based improvements in not-just-in-house scholarship. A New edition of the NAB was just released this past year.I don't know why there's so much opposition today for a Church to be informed by living science in addition to living divine revelation, as Parley Pratt expressed quite strongly (as in my sig) that it should be.My position is that we have nothing to lose, and everything to gain from engaging the scholarship, and taking it seriously.EDIT: Something also sort of nifty that Catholics do that I think would nice policy wise for us to take a note from is, in addition to having their 'Official' translation for use in Church, there is also a list of translations that have an 'imprimatur', or are marked as being useful or beneficial or recommended for Catholics to use in their own study. For example, while not the 'official' Catholic english Bible, the NRSV and the New Jersualem bibles have the imprimatur. I think that's a great model. Edited October 26, 2011 by nackhadlow
Log Posted October 26, 2011 Posted October 26, 2011 EDIT: Something also sort of nifty that Catholics do that I think would nice policy wise for us to take a note from is, in addition to having their 'Official' translation for use in Church, there is also a list of translations that have an 'imprimatur', or are marked as being useful or beneficial or recommended for Catholics to use in their own study. For example, while not the 'official' Catholic english Bible, the NRSV and the New Jersualem bibles have the imprimatur. I think that's a great model.And wouldn't you know it, but that is also the policy of the Church. Ref: http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/91.3?lang=eng
Ron Beron Posted October 27, 2011 Posted October 27, 2011 Meditating on this thread has lead me to these questions.Is it really important who wrote it but rather was/is it inspired by and approved of God? Does the Holy Ghost testify to me that it is true doctrine? How does it better my life?Now you have to define under what criteria is an "approval of God" meant. I would stick with the Holy Ghost instead of a political board convened by a pagan emperor in the 4th century. For the record the following corpus of scripture while considered canon was originally considered spurious.Hebrews: no clear author made the document suspicious.James: Early church not certain James was the apostle.2 Peter: highly debated because of stylistic differences.2,3 John: was doubted because of vagueness of who the ‘elder' was and limited circulation.Jude: questioned because of reference to Book of Enoch (14-5) which was not inspired.Revelation: Author and subject area was debated especially by Eusebius et al.Philemon, 1 Peter and 1 John
diglot Posted October 27, 2011 Posted October 27, 2011 Now you have to define under what criteria is an "approval of God" meant. I would stick with the Holy Ghost instead of a political board convened by a pagan emperor in the 4th century. Oh dear Lord, please don't tell me you just attributed the formation of the New Testament canon to Constantine.
Ron Beron Posted October 27, 2011 Posted October 27, 2011 Oh dear Lord, please don't tell me you just attributed the formation of the New Testament canon to Constantine.No, just to doctrinal issues brought about by the Nicean Council which was headed by Constantine. But the Council of Carthage was what I specifically was talking about. My point was that specifically the NT canon was chosen over a period of time by men. These men while ostensibly operating under a kind of spiritual aegis also sought to promote their own beliefs at the expense of others. It would be hard to state that the excluded books in their entirety were without merit.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted October 27, 2011 Author Posted October 27, 2011 What about the book of Omni? Omni probably didn't even go to Sacrament meeting at all.But wrote it as commanded by his father…no doctrine that I remember? This is why it is so short…kind of like a book report given to someone who did not want to write it. This is a little like splitting hairs is it not? Hebrews is filled with doctrine and favored a lot by LDS.
diglot Posted October 27, 2011 Posted October 27, 2011 (edited) No, just to doctrinal issues brought about by the Nicean Council which was headed by Constantine. But the Council of Carthage was what I specifically was talking about.Oh ok, thanks. Sorry for jumping to conclusions. I have seen quite a few Mormons claim that it was Constantine and the Council of Nicaea who determined what would be in the New Testament. I remember one Mormon missionary tried telling me that the Bible was first put together by King James!Also, I don't really think it is accurate to say that the Council of Carthage (397) determined what would be in the Bible. It was a local North African council, which certainly was not seen as decisively determining the extent of the biblical canon for all of Christendom. Funnily enough, the canon put forth at Carthage is rejected by all of Protestantism (as the Protestant Bible does not include 1 & 2 Maccabees).My point was that specifically the NT canon was chosen over a period of time by men. These men while ostensibly operating under a kind of spiritual aegis also sought to promote their own beliefs at the expense of others. It would be hard to state that the excluded books in their entirety were without merit.I would agree with that. Edited October 27, 2011 by diglot
mfbukowski Posted October 27, 2011 Posted October 27, 2011 Oh ok, thanks. Sorry for jumping to conclusions. I have seen quite a few Mormons claim that it was Constantine and the Council of Nicaea who determined what would be in the New Testament. I remember one Mormon missionary tried telling me that the Bible was first put together by King James!Also, I don't really think it is accurate to say that the Council of Carthage (397) determined what would be in the Bible. It was a local North African council, which certainly was not seen as decisively determining the extent of the biblical canon for all of Christendom. Funnily enough, the canon put forth at Carthage is rejected by all of Protestantism (as the Protestant Bible does not include 1 & 2 Maccabees).I would agree with that.I personally think that all Constantine cared about was avoiding a war between the factions.He didn't care what the Council agreed on- all he wanted was agreement. The purpose of the original Council in 325 was to avoid war. 3
mfbukowski Posted October 27, 2011 Posted October 27, 2011 Funnily enough, the canon put forth at Carthage is rejected by all of Protestantism (as the Protestant Bible does not include 1 & 2 Maccabees).Golly you mean that the Protestant Bible was put together by Protestants?That poor missionary was not that far off after all, was he?
diglot Posted October 27, 2011 Posted October 27, 2011 I personally think that all Constantine cared about was avoiding a war between the factions.He didn't care what the Council agreed on- all he wanted was agreement. The purpose of the original Council in 325 was to avoid war.I would agree with that. The people in the Council of Nicaea cared about the theological issues, but I am skeptical as to whether Constantine really did. I think he just wanted an end to the bickering and to more fully consolidate power and cohesiveness across the empire.
maklelan Posted October 27, 2011 Posted October 27, 2011 I would agree with that. The people in the Council of Nicaea cared about the theological issues, but I am skeptical as to whether Constantine really did. I think he just wanted an end to the bickering and to more fully consolidate power and cohesiveness across the empire.I think putting an end to the bickering was the main concern, but this article provides some interesting ideas about Constantine's theological propensities.
diglot Posted October 27, 2011 Posted October 27, 2011 (edited) Golly you mean that the Protestant Bible was put together by Protestants?That poor missionary was not that far off after all, was he?Well, he was wrong in saying that King James put together the Bible, but I see what you are saying.Personally, I think it's so strange that Evangelicalism is overly obsessed with having people hold to the inerrancy and inspiration of the Bible when there simply isn't some sort of indisputable canon that you can definitively label as "the Bible".I mean, the Catholic Church has their biblical canon, the Protestant stream has a different canon, and then the Eastern Orthodox church has a different canon too.The only thing these three main streams of Christianity have in common regarding the Bible is the contents of the New Testament. But then there is the Nestorian church and the Coptic church which have different New Testament canons. Edited October 27, 2011 by diglot
diglot Posted October 27, 2011 Posted October 27, 2011 I think putting an end to the bickering was the main concern, but this article provides some interesting ideas about Constantine's theological propensities.Thanks. I have access to that journal so I will give it a read.
Ron Beron Posted October 28, 2011 Posted October 28, 2011 Oh ok, thanks. Sorry for jumping to conclusions. I have seen quite a few Mormons claim that it was Constantine and the Council of Nicaea who determined what would be in the New Testament. I remember one Mormon missionary tried telling me that the Bible was first put together by King James!Also, I don't really think it is accurate to say that the Council of Carthage (397) determined what would be in the Bible. It was a local North African council, which certainly was not seen as decisively determining the extent of the biblical canon for all of Christendom. Funnily enough, the canon put forth at Carthage is rejected by all of Protestantism (as the Protestant Bible does not include 1 & 2 Maccabees).I would agree with that.You're correct. The Council at Carthage was only a culmination of many councils that took three hundred years to formulate a creed. My consternation exists because many fine texts were excluded simply because they didn't fit into the current political framework.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted October 28, 2011 Author Posted October 28, 2011 As I said, "Of course they can, and do. However, unless they are claiming a New Revelation on the subject, ..."Then would you believe?
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted October 28, 2011 Author Posted October 28, 2011 I personally think that all Constantine cared about was avoiding a war between the factions.He didn't care what the Council agreed on- all he wanted was agreement. The purpose of the original Council in 325 was to avoid war.I must agree.
Recommended Posts