Restoring The Ancient Church?-Ancient Lds Church?

[Robert F. Smith]

Hello Robert F. Smith,

Thanks for your reply.

My short reply isn't an indicator that I'm not widely read. It is an indicator I've lost interest in the apologetic discussion, both Mormon and Catholic. I've come to a point where I just don't care.

ChristKnight asked me to participate in this thread, which I did with hesitation, telling him I would participate if there was something Catholic. I get sucked into Mormon claims that are nonsense to me, which, is why I was hesitant in the first place. You believe what you want to believe, no amount of my reading or posting is going to change that.

I will say, I will also never understand Mormons who say they defend Catholicism while all the while are fighting against her. Joyous at her sons and daughters who leave.

So, I have nothing to say or add and wish you a blessed Palm Sunday.

Rebecca

Thank you, Rebecca,

And to you a blessed Holy Week.

I have never attempted to convert a Roman Catholic to Mormonism, and have always held my sincere Catholic friends as worthy of attention and deep respect. I always hope that Roman Catholics will practice mutual respect.

Instead of being upset, you should recognize that I was merely replying to your false claims about a religion in which I am a high priest and a temple worker. And I don't believe that you are going to hell for not being a Mormon. God is not that narrow and superficial. His mercy extends to all.

[saemo]

Thank you, Rebecca,

And to you a blessed Holy Week.

I have never attempted to convert a Roman Catholic to Mormonism, and have always held my sincere Catholic friends as worthy of attention and deep respect. I always hope that Roman Catholics will practice mutual respect.

Instead of being upset, you should recognize that I was merely replying to your false claims about a religion in which I am a high priest and a temple worker. And I don't believe that you are going to hell for not being a Mormon. God is not that narrow and superficial. His mercy extends to all.

Thanks, I'm not offended. Just as I said apologetics has lost it's interest for me. I prefer to center on Jesus Christ, and of late forum exchanges on religious topics seem to be anywhere but where I want to be, and lead me away from where I want to be. My own fault.

Thanks for the good wishes.

[coolrok7]

Chris Knight (post #1):

One of the things that I've always had difficulty with accepting is the belief in the apostasy of the New Testament Church, the loss of God's priesthood on earth, along with the changing of various doctrines and practices. . .just my thoughts lately, guess I'm trying to understand how these things are supposed to support the LDS claim to restoring an ancient Church of Jesus Christ, a unified, cohesive organization (since we accept that Christ only established one Church, not multiple churches with varying doctrines)

I think you hit the nail on the head with the premise of your thread op Chris. Through Paul, the Holy Spirit says (there is a major difference between complete and some):

But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, . . .In pointing out these things to the brethren, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, constantly nourished on the words of the faith and of the sound doctrine which you have been following. (1 Timothy 4:1-2, 6)

Nothing less than a complete apostasy from the Christian religion would warrant the establishment of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (Documentary History of the Church, Introduction, xl)

The essential point to be made is that Christian teaching/doctrine is taken from the pages of Biblical Scripture (the various families of extant manuscripts which all translations come from, not from any particular individual’s internal witness unless it is recorded in Scripture and compatible with valid teaching):

We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2 Peter 1:19-21)

But either Jesus Christ—and the disciples touched and inspired by His spirit—spoke the truth or they did not. We believe that they spoke the truth, and that the truth they spoke was the Word of God. (Mormon Church Readers Digest Christmas advertisement, 1972)

In fact, the New Testament contains. . .teachings. . .of. . .the Man of Galilee. This book, therefore will be our standard of judgment or the norm by which we measure the Gospel truths of all the dispensations. (The Gospel through the Ages, Milton R. Hunter, p.91)

We appeal to the Bible to prove. . .truths received through the restoration. . .are in accord with its teachings. (A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, LeGrand Richards, p.1)

The KJV (based on the Textus Receptus) is the translation used by the Mormon Church:

. . .Many versions of the Bible are available today. Unfortunately, no original manuscripts of any portion of the Bible are available for comparison to determine the most accurate version. However, the Lord has revealed clearly the doctrines of the gospel in these latter-days. The most reliable way to measure the accuracy of any biblical passage is not by comparing different texts, but by comparison with the Book of Mormon and modern-day revelations.

While other Bible versions may be easier to read than the King James Version, in doctrinal matters latter-day revelation supports the King James Version in preference to other English translations. All of the Presidents of the Church, beginning with the Prophet Joseph Smith, have supported the King James Version by encouraging its continued use in the Church. In light of all the above, it is the English language Bible used by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. . . .

Sincerely your brethren,

Ezra Taft Benson

Gordon B. Hinckley

Thomas S. Monson (First Presidency Statement on the King James Version of the Bible, Ensign, Aug. 1992, 80)

The proper response to the distortions of Biblical teaching down through history I believe has to be dealt with in a Biblical way: test all things, hold fast to that which is good”. Not the reversal of the process by using so-called modern revelation.

[MormonMason]

...

Through Paul, the Holy Spirit says (there is a major difference between complete and some):

It is interesting that you would choose the passage that you did. You were aware that the Greek of the passage (pertaining to the relative number of individuals) is ambiguous, weren't you? The Greek word can also include a considerable number or any amount that is unspecified. Most would translate as "some" but the word also can mean, when using the plural (which the passage does), "many a one or thing."

Here is the opening gloss from the 2nd Edition of the standard lexicon on the subject (I'd use the 3rd and current edition but this one is all I have access to for the moment until I am back with my own library at home):

τὶς, τὶ, gen. τινός, dat. τινί, acc. τινά, τὶ (Hom.+; inscr., pap., LXX, En., Ep.Arist., Philo, Joseph.) enclitic, indefinite pronoun (W-S.§26, 1-4;Bl-D. §301 al.; Rob.741-4) anyone, anything; someone, something; many a one or thing.

(Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2nd Edition [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958], 982)

Literally, it means "certain (ones)" but the number is left open to interpretation and context. It is not the slam dunk you think it is. It also can make allowance for a far greater number than a mere few or some. With that understanding we can render "in the latter times (it means anytime in the coming, even near, future to the person making the statement)" many a one will apostatize from the faith."

Interestingly enough, Matthew Henry's commentary for this same passage states in no uncertain terms that the apostasy happened and that it was Catholicism that is prophesied of here.

...

The proper response to the distortions of Biblical teaching down through history I believe has to be dealt with in a Biblical way: test all things, hold fast to that which is good”. Not the reversal of the process by using so-called modern revelation.

I am sure that many ancient Jews felt the same way when the New Testament began to be added when they already had the scriptures and the Law. But, before any of these new scriptures were committed to writing the Church was being led by revelation outside the scripture.

Edited March 25, 2013 by MormonMason

[MormonMason]

I should probably point out that the Lexicon I cited was an electronic copy of the text and that the pagination may not match the actual printed text's pagination (but that is what I am stuck with at the moment). See the text, here, however: http://www.scribd.com/doc/52343287/Greek-Lexicon#page=982

[ChristKnight]

Matthew Henry's commentary for the passage was...interesting:

Beloved, believe not every spirit, every one who pretends to the Spirit. Now here observe,1. One of the great instances of the apostasy, namely, giving heed to doctrines of demons, or concerning demons; that is, those doctrines which teach the worship of saints and angels, as a middle sort of deities, between the immortal God and mortal men, such as the heathen called demons, and worshipped under that notion. Now this plainly agrees to the church of Rome, and it was one of the first steps towards that great apostasy, the enshrining of the relics of martyrs, paying divine honours to them, erecting altars, burning incense, consecrating images and temples, and making prayers and praises to the honour of saints departed. This demon-worship is paganism revived, the image of the first beast.

[saemo]

Matthew Henry's commentary for the passage was...interesting:

Beloved, believe not every spirit, every one who pretends to the Spirit. Now here observe,1. One of the great instances of the apostasy, namely, giving heed to doctrines of demons, or concerning demons; that is, those doctrines which teach the worship of saints and angels, as a middle sort of deities, between the immortal God and mortal men, such as the heathen called demons, and worshipped under that notion. Now this plainly agrees to the church of Rome, and it was one of the first steps towards that great apostasy, the enshrining of the relics of martyrs, paying divine honours to them, erecting altars, burning incense, consecrating images and temples, and making prayers and praises to the honour of saints departed. This demon-worship is paganism revived, the image of the first beast.

I've read similar at the RC forum at CARM.

[Ahab]

For starters, see the primary definition of the Greek word for 'light' in Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon. The relevant line of text within the primary definition is:

Additionally, one can read other pieces of relevant literature discussing the appearances of angels and how light is associated with these appearances. Paul and his readers would know full well what he meant by the term. Greek has terms for both "angel of light" and "messenger of truth" even with the overlap of the first word in the vocabulary. One should take literally unless the text is structured in such a way as to admit otherwise. 2 Corinthians 11:14 is not so structured as to allow for interpreting light abstractly such as would be the case to translate "light" as "truth" here. Oddly enough, you ended up doing precisely what you thought you were avoiding doing with this text.

The reasoning behind the passage relates to how Satan counterfeits by imitating the appearance of angels such as bring revelations from God. The people to whom Paul was addressing his remarks understood full well that angels who bring revelations from God are accompanied by the appearance of light. Satan himself knows this and seeks to imitate this so as to deceive more effectively.

You're not following my line of thought, though. I was asking what it is about the text that leads you to believe the text can't be interpreted to mean: And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as a messenger of truth. I know the text reads "an angel of light", but the way the text is to be understood is that he's not an angel of truth even though he might appear to be by what is generally understood to be associated with a messenger of truth.

What is light is truth, except that some things can appear to be light and not be true. Seems to me like you're somewhat understanding how the text is to be interpreted but you're still missing or not acknowledging the main message Paul was trying to convey. He "masquerades" as an angel of light, but in truth the message he shares is not light.

[MormonMason]

I've read similar at the RC forum at CARM.

Where do you think they get it from? Well, it's this and that Hislop 'stuff'....

[MormonMason]

You're not following my line of thought, though. I was asking what it is about the text that leads you to believe the text can't be interpreted to mean: And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as a messenger of truth. I know the text reads "an angel of light", but the way the text is to be understood is that he's not an angel of truth even though he might appear to be by what is generally understood to be associated with a messenger of truth.

What is light is truth, except that some things can appear to be light and not be true. Seems to me like you're somewhat understanding how the text is to be interpreted but you're still missing or not acknowledging the main message Paul was trying to convey. He "masquerades" as an angel of light, but in truth the message he shares is not light.

I told you and gave you my reasons, as well as cited from a Greek-English lexicon. I understand why you want to interpret this passage but why interpret it at all? But, the text gives no inkling for the need, speaks literally, uses no symbolic or hyperbolic language or structure, the ancients understood it quite literally, and the context is clear what Paul's intent is in the passage.

Read the surrounding context. It is talking about Satan disguising himself and masquerading as an angel of light--appearing to be something he is not--and so his ministers make themselves appear as ministers of righteousness. It has precious little to do with "messengers of truth" coming from the heavens, and how that not all that appear to be messengers of truth are messengers of truth, or the need to interpret it into something like that for whatever need.

Paul is talking about false apostles and how they make themselves appear to be real apostles. Paul's mention of Satan being able to disguise himself to look like an angel of light is incidental but shows how it is that false apostles can make themselves seem like true apostles and mislead others. And, indeed, even in the case of Joseph Smith, he himself admitted that he was being deceived by Satan appearing like an angel of light when Michael appeared and detected him to Joseph. (Doctrine and Covenants 128:20). Had it not been for Michael he would have been deceived. I dare say that even Joseph Smith, a modern prophet, knew what an angel of light looked like after seeing them so many times.

"Angel of light" is a technical term referring to an actual thing in existence, so far as the persons living in Paul's day understood it. Why not take it as such rather than trying to read something else into it, or make it more complicated than it has to be? I find that the best way to approach any ancient text is to read it as it was intended to be read. That means shedding preconceptions and influences on us outside of the text. That is a very difficult proposition, particularly for many, but it is attainable with effort. It is not always possible but I highly recommend that you at least try to take that kind of approach. The text pretty much speaks for itself. There are no layers or abstruse symbolisms for us to dig through here.

[Ahab]

I told you and gave you my reasons, as well as cited from a Greek-English lexicon. I understand why you want to interpret this passage but why interpret it at all?

To get at the meaning Paul intends to convey. Go ahead and take it literally, as long as you arrive at the correct meaning.

But, the text gives no inkling for the need, speaks literally, uses no symbolic or hyperbolic language or structure, the ancients understood it quite literally, and the context is clear what Paul's intent is in the passage.

Okay, so what did he mean? That he "masquerades" as an angel of light, which is an angel from God who actually is a messenger of truth. So does that mean since Satan masquerades as an angel of light that he really is one? No, which means he is not a messenger of truth, after all.

Read the surrounding context. It is talking about Satan disguising himself and masquerading as an angel of light--appearing to be something he is not--and so his ministers make themselves appear as ministers of righteousness. It has precious little to do with "messengers of truth" coming from the heavens, and how that not all that appear to be messengers of truth are messengers of truth, or the need to interpret it into something like that for whatever need.

Paul is talking about false apostles and how they make themselves appear to be real apostles. Paul's mention of Satan being able to disguise himself to look like an angel of light is incidental but shows how it is that false apostles can make themselves seem like true apostles and mislead others. And, indeed, even in the case of Joseph Smith, he himself admitted that he was being deceived by Satan appearing like an angel of light when Michael appeared and detected him to Joseph. (Doctrine and Covenants 128:20). Had it not been for Michael he would have been deceived. I dare say that even Joseph Smith, a modern prophet, knew what an angel of light looked like after seeing them so many times.

He did learn than someone who "masquerades" as an angel of light isn't actually a messenger of truth, though, didn't he.

"Angel of light" is a technical term referring to an actual thing in existence, so far as the persons living in Paul's day understood it. Why not take it as such rather than trying to read something else into it, or make it more complicated than it has to be? I find that the best way to approach any ancient text is to read it as it was intended to be read. That means shedding preconceptions and influences on us outside of the text. That is a very difficult proposition, particularly for many, but it is attainable with effort. It is not always possible but I highly recommend that you at least try to take that kind of approach. The text pretty much speaks for itself. There are no layers or abstruse symbolisms for us to dig through here.

I think we're pretty much in agreement in how we interpret the text, so it's kinda funny to me that you can't see an "angel of light" as being the same thing as a "messenger of truth". That is what they are. I know there are other messengers of truth that do not appear or masquerade as angels of light but those that do are whether or not they appear that way.

[MormonMason]

Technical terms should be translated as their nearest equivalents in the target language. "Angel of light" works in English so I will stick with that. The meaning refers to angels who shine forth light from and around their bodies, for that is the range of meaning from the technical term. In the case of a technical term that is how it is intended and refers to how they look not to what they disseminate. You, of course, can continue interpreting the text as you see fit while I will continue to prefer the closest, most literal meaning.

Edited March 26, 2013 by MormonMason

[coolrok7]

The choosing of the specific verse goes to the point being made. It is not correct to use the terms “complete” “total” in the verse I cited (to make my point). It is this specific verse Mormons ignore in making their arguments:

It is interesting that you would choose the passage that you did. You were aware that the Greek of the passage (pertaining to the relative number of individuals) is ambiguous, weren't you? The Greek word can also include a considerable number or any amount that is unspecified. Most would translate as "some" but the word also can mean, when using the plural (which the passage does), "many a one or thing."

The KJV translates it as “some” which is not “complete” “total”. These terms “complete” “total” used in Mormonism as the basis for their existing do not equate to the list you cited (anyone, anything; someone, something; many a one or thing.).

That the Jews felt a particular way concerning the New Testament, an integral part of God’s Revelation recorded in the Bible (the Scripture along with the Old Testament for Christians, Jews and Gentiles), is not the same as the Mormon claim for their attempted adding to what was already the Scriptural cannon (way before Mormonism came along which is not justified because their other so-called “Scripture” distorts already established Biblical teaching):

I am sure that many ancient Jews felt the same way when the New Testament began to be added when they already had the scriptures and the Law. But, before any of these new scriptures were committed to writing the Church was being led by revelation outside the scripture.

As Latter-day Saints we accept the following scriptures as the standard works of the Church: the Bible (consisting of the Old Testament and the New Testament), the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, and official statements made by our leaders. Regarding the Bible: There is a misconception that the Bible is one book instead of a collection of sixty-six books, thirty-nine of which comprise the Old Testament and twenty-seven of which constitute the New Testament. (The Ensign, Church magazine—contains official statements of leaders, Church Conference, Elder Henry D. Taylor, Nov. 1976, p.63)

But either Jesus Christ—and the disciples touched and inspired by His spirit—spoke the truth or they did not. We believe that they spoke the truth, and that the truth they spoke was the Word of God. (Mormon Church Readers Digest Christmas advertisement, 1972)

In fact, the New Testament contains. . .teachings. . .of. . .the Man of Galilee. This book, therefore will be our standard of judgment or the norm by which we measure the Gospel truths of all the dispensations. (The Gospel through the Ages, Milton R. Hunter, p.91)

We appeal to the Bible to prove. . .truths received through the restoration. . .are in accord with its teachings. (A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, LeGrand Richards, p.1)

[Ahab]

Technical terms should be translated as their nearest equivalents in the target language. "Angel of light" works in English so I will stick with that. The meaning refers to angels who shine forth light from and around their bodies, for that is the range of meaning from the technical term. In the case of a technical term that is how it is intended and refers to how they look not to what they disseminate. You, of course, can continue interpreting the text as you see fit while I will continue to prefer the closest, most literal meaning.

Just one more attempt to help you see what I see, and then I'll let it rest. I'll try to get to it by asking you a question.

When Satan or one of his messengers "masquerades" as an angel of light, he looks like an angel, although some might prefer to refer to him as a demon or a demonic angel or a dark angel or something like that, and he also "shines forth light from and around his body", doesn't he? So what is the real difference between him and other angels who appear in that way? Are you thinking he's not really an "angel", or that he's not really "shining forth light from and around his body"? You do realize the (dum dum dum) "dark side" has angels too, don't cha?

As I've been saying, the main difference is that one is a messenger of truth, and the other is not, even though the other can appear to be that kind of an angel.

[3DOP]

Hi CK. Since you live out there in the big city, I would try to acquaint you with where I had to go yesterday. Back and forth across the Coast Range of Southern Oregon. Motel in Roseburg. Stops in the small coastal towns of Coquille and Bandon, backtracking to Myrtle Point because the stop wasn't open yet when I went through the first time, and Coos Bay. Then I had to chug to Portland by way of Reedsport and Drain, all in under fourteen hours to be legal. Thirteen stops and 396 miles mostly on two lane roads. Crazy busy. I was thinking of my counterparts in urban areas who never get out in the country. It would probably seem kind of refreshing if there wasn't so little time. Anyhow, I am so happy to be home.

ChristKnight

Thanks for pointing me to that post. I do find your argument of the replacement of Judas' "bishopric" compelling. Do you believe that 1 Clement 44 is talking about the bishops as successors to the apostles. Perhaps I'm getting a little confused with all of the "these", "them", and "they"s, but who is "fall[ing] asleep" and who is the "them" that are being succeeded in ministry?

3DOP

I Clement 44 is a little difficult with the pronouns. If only he had posted it on the internet and looked at it again, I am sure he would have used the edit function as I am currently doing. I think we can see what he must have meant though.

Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry.

Just as there was strife in Israel under Moses about the priesthood (see ch. 43), so under the New Law there would be contention about the episcopate. Knowing this, the apostles appointed ministers already mentioned:

...thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture in a certain place, I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.

---ch. 42

This passage tells us that the aforementioned appointees were bishops and deacons. So the apostles had fore-knowledge and appointed bishops and deacons. As I read it, the plan according to this passage, would be that when those already appointed bishops by the Apostles should die (those that should "fall asleep") that other bishops should continue to succeed them. It appears that in Corinth, there were those who had been lawfully appointed and who performed their ministries well, but were being deposed in that city:

We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry...But we see that you have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour.

---ch. 44

We can only speculate why the Corinthians were opposed to those who had been appointed by those who had been appointed by apostles. It seems possible that a pretext for their deposition would be that those removed, even though of "excellent behaviour" were not ordained by an apostle.

I seem to recall that his quote from Scripture ("many ages before") regarding bishops and deacons is unable to be found. It appears that Clement was attempting to persuade the Corinthians that the plan from the beginning was that apostolic bishops would ordain non-apostolic bishops who would continue to ordain, and that this is what he understood when he affirms that "other bishops should succeed them."

ChristKnight

So your argument is the apostles are bishops that have met certain characteristics as we see with the selection of Matthias, and that "apostle" is not a priesthood office, as bishop is. Does the Catholic Church teach that the apostles had certain charisms or apostolic gifts that were/are or were/are not given to bishops in general (the "signs that characterize the apostle", as you mention)?

3DOP

I do not think the Church has formally taught this distinction of between apostles and bishops as regards "signs that characterize the apostle". That being so, I can make a case that there is such a distinction in Scripture. Our Lord gave the Apostles authority over all demons and to cure diseases in Luke 9:1. It doesn't seem like they would lose this later. Acts 2:43 says that the Apostles worked great signs and wonders in Jerusalem. So great were their works that we are told that those with physical ailments were lining up so that the shadows of the Apostles might pass over them.

It would seem that as far as authority over all demons, only those duly appointed by the bishop can do exorcisms. In some respect, one could argue that this stems from the Apostles, but again, I don't think there is anything formal. The demon said to the seven sons of Sceva, "Jesus I know and Paul I know but who are you?" In some respects, the reality of our ancient enemy and the records of the exorcists are faith affirming to a Catholic like me. But never without a priest appointed by the local bishop. It is a little bit of an obscure study. I presume LDS have some procedure too? Presumably one must be duly appointed?

There are certain prerogatives that apostles had which bishops lack that the Church does recognize. One of the most important is that the Apostles travelled extensively and had jurisdiction wheresoever they went. A bishop's authority was within a certain geographical boundary. This is what is remarkable about St. Clement's letter to Corinth. What right does the Roman bishop have to impose his will on the Corinthians? Of course, one need not see this as prescriptive of what ought to have happened. But obviously Catholics have seen in this a prerogative accorded to one bishop that no others would take. St. Irenaeus points to it as a precursor to the development of the doctrine of the primacy of the Roman bishop. Of course non-Catholics can plausibly argue that Clement was out of line and Irenaeus was messed up, but it is what a Catholic would need to see. We can't just have the papacy or any doctrine just pop out of nowhere.

ChristKnight

Somewhat related to this is the issue of revelation. In "restoring the ancient Church", LDS believe that an important principle is that of revelation, and that the apostles, as general authorities of the Church, were entitled to receive Divine guidance to lead the Church of Jesus Christ, and revelation is absolutely needed in the true Church to guide it, as we see in the NT. How is the Catholic view similar or dissimilar to that? What is meant by "public revelation", and it ending?

3DOP

Another prerogative of the Apostle closely follows that of jurisidiction. He has universal teaching authority that did not extend to his successors. This is why there are no extant writings known to be written by an apostle which are non-canonical. With regards to matters of doctrine, public revelation ceased when the last Apostle died. We believe they were divinely inspired (infallible) to provide all of the revelation we need for dogmatic purposes. There is still a lot of data that remains to be defined. With regard to practical matters, the prudential authority to bind and loose does extend to the bishops. A reason for this is that even the Apostles could err in matters non-dogmatic. We do not believe that seminary formation, liturgical laws, or obligatory penances are matters of dogma but of practice. But we are obligated to acknowledge the authority of the Apostolic successors even if we think a given practice is imprudent. Rather than direct revelation from God, the gifts of the Spirit should guide God's leaders in these practical areas.

Much of the confusion between LDS and Catholics about revelation occurs because Catholics draw a sharp distinction between dogmatic revelation and practical wisdom. Both involve necessary gifts from God if we would know the truth and do the good. But here is the difference. Supernatural revelation, the things that we need to know by faith, are always beyond the powers of reason. No amount of character building or habits of virtue enable one to get supernatural revelation. But prudence and wisdom are different in that by grace we can develop habits that enhance these virtues. We are supposed to be wise. By cooperation, God promises wisdom (James 5). Wisdom is a high form of knowledge that all of us lack at times. It can seem inspired. It can seem like revelation when we observe wisdom in action. But it is not the same as when God revealed truths published by the Apostles that was otherwise unknowable. We are obligated to get the wisdom we need. But we cannot be "guilty" of failing to be a prophet. I think sometimes wisdom that comes from God gets confused with revelation that comes from God.

Of course the Church needs "continuing revelation" if it is understood as the need for God's wisdom. But this is now promised to all who pray for it. I see the parallel with apostolic revelation, but wisdom is not and never can be public revelation, which is so-called because it is binding on all the faithful.

But St. Paul also says to "despise not prophesying." The Church has had prophets down through the centuries that have foretold the future with great accuracy. Private revelation is very important in the life of the Church and is as remarkable in its source as public revelation. As in the first century, our doctrine about apostolic foundations and public revelation sometimes leads even Catholics to fail to appreciate the value of private revelation. It is no wonder if Mormons pooh pooh private revelation when sadly, Catholics don't always recognize its value. Private revelation cannot have the kind of universal authority we give to the apostolic doctrine. If there is a question of dogma, we will always adhere to the Apostles' teaching, but we Catholics are fools if because we understand public revelation we despise prophecy approved by the Church that gives us timely knowledge from heaven applicable to our time and place in history.

The Church today lives in the light of the private revelation of the Blessed Virgin Mary to the Children of Fatima. Paul gave his warning because people like me would be inclined to ignore such private revelations as this otherwise. We ignore private revelation to our peril. Our Lady told Sister Lucy that popes would fail to heed her message and foretold the truly tragic consequences for both the Church and the world. It is very consoling to reflect on how God has foretold and prepared us for these times of crisis, with promises of a swift restoration of all things in Christ when we finally obey the simple request of Our Lady of Fatima.

Regards,

3DOP

PS: An interesting news blip which makes Fatima and its promises concerning Russia relevant. The Russian Orthodox Church today "de-canonized about three dozen saints who were martyred in the Communist persecution of the last century.

Rome has tried to convince the faithful that they have complied with the request to consecrate Russia to our Lady's Immaculate Heart, but they never do it in the way they were asked according to the message. They haven't wanted to single out Russia. First it was because they wanted the Orthodox at Vatican II and they didn't want to make them upset. That isn't dogma. The Church is not protected from making those kinds of mistake. That's about wisdom or lack thereof. I say...lack thereof...human wisdom...despising prophecy. Now they don't consecrate, in my opinion, because they are committed to the Vatican II initiatives for dialogue. Who needs dialogue? Consecrate Russia! Obey the prophet! Russia alone. Not the world. With the bishops. They remind you of that general from Syria who Elisha instructed to go jump in the Jordan to cure his leprosy. Too easy. But he didn't want to do it either. The promise is that Russia will convert when this happens. The latest news just seems to me like more of the politicization of the Russian Church that occurred in the last century.

Anyway...thanks a million if anybody has read all this on an LDS board

Edited March 28, 2013 by 3DOP

[MormonMason]

Acts 1: 21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,

22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

Lays out the qualifications for an Apostle, which, no one has claim to today.

...

Do tell how that applied to Paul and to James the Lord's brother? James was an unbeliever at the time of most of Jesus' ministry and certainly was not with them "from the time of the baptism of John to the day that he was taken up from us."

Paul the apostle also was an unbeliever even after Jesus was crucified and ascended to heaven. He did not become a believer until he was accosted by the resurrected Jesus in the middle of a desert.

So, neither of these two met the requirements that people often foist upon us and, yet, they were apostles with full authority as such. The reality is that these requirements only applied to the direct replacement of Judas Iscariot and were not requirements for later apostles.

Edited March 28, 2013 by MormonMason

[MormonMason]

What I am referring are the academics, historians...especially those independents....wjho troop to a mentioned discovery...that proves a Biblical event, place. But I have not seen any rush for any Mormon archaeological discovery....now, can you explain why is that?

When Yigael Yadin, a well-known Jewish archaeologist, found the name Alma as a male Hebrew name, in a land deed, he grew very excited and actually telephoned Hugh Nibley (a "Mormon" scholar) about it to tell him the exciting news. For years the only text that contained that name as a male name was the Book of Mormon, and critics were using that as an attack point against the ancient authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Years later it has been added to one of the latest Hebrew Lexicons, The Concise Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. The name can be seen on page 21.

This same Hebrew Lexicon has also had another, previously Book of Mormon name added to it. That name is Ani, the same that occurs in the compound name Ani-Anti. It can be seen on page 26. This is also an Egyptian name, by the way, and a "Book of the Dead" in the British Museum bears that name.

[MormonMason]

The choosing of the specific verse goes to the point being made. It is not correct to use the terms “complete” “total” in the verse I cited (to make my point). It is this specific verse Mormons ignore in making their arguments:

The KJV translates it as “some” which is not “complete” “total”. These terms “complete” “total” used in Mormonism as the basis for their existing do not equate to the list you cited (anyone, anything; someone, something; many a one or thing.).

...

I couldn't care less what the KJV states. I know what the Greek allows and that is good enough for me. From the standpoint of the Greek of the passage, Paul's statement was intended to be the near future to him so I would not expect total apostasy at that time. That did not come until many years later. But it was well under way in even Paul's day, when the writer of the Pastorals had all the men of Asia Minor forsake Paul and had it bad enough for him complain about it.

Edited March 28, 2013 by MormonMason

[Anakin7]

I couldn't care less what the KJV states. I know what the Greek allows and that is good enough for me. From the standpoint of the Greek of the passage, Paul's statement was intended to be the near future to him so I would not expect total apostasy at that time. That did not come until many years later. But it was well under way in even Paul's day, when the writer of the Pastorals had all the men of Asia Minor forsake Paul and had it bad enough for him complain about it.

I agree, as for coolroks statement does he not see that others outside the LDS Faith/Church see his faith/church [Lutheranism] as part of the Great/small apostacy within christianity ?.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[coolrok7]

I couldn't care less what the KJV states. I know what the Greek allows and that is good enough for me. . . .

From the list of terms you offered it still doesn’t allow for “complete” “total”. That is the issue directly dealing with the Mormon claim for the “restoration” (which by the way is still future) as taught by the “MORMON CHURCH”.

You ignore this authoritative statement of the First Presidency:

. . .Many versions of the Bible are available today. Unfortunately, no original manuscripts of any portion of the Bible are available for comparison to determine the most accurate version. However, the Lord has revealed clearly the doctrines of the gospel in these latter-days. The most reliable way to measure the accuracy of any biblical passage is not by comparing different texts, but by comparison with the Book of Mormon and modern-day revelations.

While other Bible versions may be easier to read than the King James Version, in doctrinal matters latter-day revelation supports the King James Version in preference to other English translations. All of the Presidents of the Church, beginning with the Prophet Joseph Smith, have supported the King James Version by encouraging its continued use in the Church. In light of all the above, it is the English language Bible used by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. . . .

Sincerely your brethren,

Ezra Taft Benson

Gordon B. Hinckley

Thomas S. Monson (First Presidency Statement on the King James Version of the Bible, Ensign, Aug. 1992, 80)

[volgadon]

You ignore this authoritative statement of the First Presidency:

To use the biblical idiom, it is called searching the scriptures. Paul commended people for such an approach.

[coolrok7]

He didn’t commend them to “twist the Scriptures” which Peter warned about. You also ignore the First Presidency plus the verse which says “some” not “complete” “total” in the KJV and which is not justified in the list provided:

Here is the opening gloss from the 2nd Edition of the standard lexicon on the subject (I'd use the 3rd and current edition but this one is all I have access to for the moment until I am back with my own library at home). . .

τὶς, τὶ, gen. τινός, dat. τινί, acc. τινά, τὶ (Hom.+; inscr., pap., LXX, En., Ep.Arist., Philo, Joseph.) enclitic, indefinite pronoun (W-S.§26, 1-4;Bl-D. §301 al.; Rob.741-4) anyone, anything; someone, something; many a one or thing. (Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2nd Edition [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958], 982)

The following statement was contained in an in-house letter of correction to Eugene England (February 19, 1981), a professor at BYU (now deceased), who had been instructing certain things in relation to the concept of God always increasing in knowledge. In response, writing as an LDS apostle, Elder McConkie was in disagreement with that idea. I think it is instructive in how the recognized leadership of the Church views their authority in establishing what doctrine the Church teaches:

Dear Brother England: This may well be the most important letter you have or will receive (p.1). . . .It is not in your province to set in order the Church or to determine what its doctrines shall be. . . .This means, among other things, that it is my province to teach to the Church what the doctrine is. You do not have a divine commission to correct me or any of the Brethren. The Lord does not operate that way. If I lead the Church astray, that is my responsibility, but the fact remains that I am the one appointed with all the rest involved so to do. The appointment is not given to the faculty at Brigham Young University or to any of the members of the Church. . . .And those at (p.eight the head of the Church have the obligation to teach that which is in harmony with the Standard Works (p.9). . . .

[volgadon]

He didn’t commend them to “twist the Scriptures” which Peter warned about.

Yet that is exactly what it would have looked like to anyone familiar with the Hebrew Bible.

[coolrok7]

The New Testament extant manuscripts are in Greek not Hebrew.

[saemo]

Do tell how that applied to Paul and to James the Lord's brother? James was an unbeliever at the time of most of Jesus' ministry and certainly was not with them "from the time of the baptism of John to the day that he was taken up from us."

Paul the apostle also was an unbeliever even after Jesus was crucified and ascended to heaven. He did not become a believer until he was accosted by the resurrected Jesus in the middle of a desert.

So, neither of these two met the requirements that people often foist upon us and, yet, they were apostles with full authority as such. The reality is that these requirements only applied to the direct replacement of Judas Iscariot and were not requirements for later apostles.

Paul was not one of the Twelve.

As far as I know the James who is called "James the brother of Jesus" and "James the Just", was one of the Seventy, who were also called apostles, ie, "one who is sent". This James was later appointed as the first Bishop of Jerusalem.

The two James' who are listed as members of the Twelve Apostles were James the brother of John, and James the son of Alphaeus, who are also called respectively, "James the Great" and "James the Lesser". Neither of these two are the same person that is called "James the brother of Jesus".

At any rate, there isn't anything known about the life of "James the brother of Jesus", ie, when, how or why he started following Jesus as a disciple.

1 Cor 15

3

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4

And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

5

And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

6

After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

7

After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

8

And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

As you can see, Jesus appeared first to the Twelve, then about 500 brethren, then James, and then "all of the apostles". This group of apostles who saw Jesus after James were the Seventy.

Hope that helps.

Edited March 28, 2013 by saemo