What would you consider to be the most "complete" source in the LDS cannon?

[Jane_Doe]

1 hour ago, snowflake said:

From direct observers of the risen Lord through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, sure.

The Holy Spirit's guidance is how scripture continues to be received today.  It does not stop.

1 hour ago, snowflake said:

When was the last time the LDS announced new scripture? Not even the manifesto is considered scripture correct? Christopher Namelka has claimed to have translated the sealed portion, his followers believe in an open cannon and communication with God, do you consider that scripture?

I feel like you're trying to do a red herring here.  LDS embrace an open cannon, versus majority of Christendom dismiss such on principle.  

 

 

[cinepro]

23 hours ago, snowflake said:

So what would you consider to be the most complete source?

Thoughts?

I think Bruce R. McConkie had the same observation you did and thought he could help out by writing a single compendium that would serve as a one-stop shop for all things Mormon Doctrine.

Considering how that turned out, it's probably best to say that there isn't a good "single" source, and the Mormon canon can only be found through interpreting the scriptures in accordance with the teachings of modern Apostles and Prophets and what the PR department finds least embarrassing.

Edited April 28, 2017 by cinepro

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Should I include the Koran and Hadith, the Vedas and the Sealed Portion as God's given work too?

Far more than that.  There is no end.  But, we can't get to it all.  We are human after all, and we have only so much time.  Plus there's tons of other stuff we must do besides read.  So, do your best...let it happen. 

[thesometimesaint]

The Catholic Bible wasn't established until the 4tth Century CE, and the Protestant Bible until the 17th Century CE. Books missing from the Bible.

SEE https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/lost-books?lang=eng

The so-called lost books of the Bible are those documents that are mentioned in the Bible in such a way that it is evident they were considered authentic and valuable but that are not found in the Bible today. Sometimes called missing scripture, they consist of at least the following: book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21:14); book of Jasher (Josh. 10:13; 2 Sam. 1:18); book of the acts of Solomon (1 Kgs. 11:41); book of Samuel the seer (1 Chr. 29:29); book of Gad the seer (1 Chr. 29:29); book of Nathan the prophet (1 Chr. 29:29; 2 Chr. 9:29); prophecy of Ahijah (2 Chr. 9:29); visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chr. 9:29; 12:15; 13:22); book of Shemaiah (2 Chr. 12:15); book of Jehu (2 Chr. 20:34); sayings of the seers (2 Chr. 33:19); an epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, earlier than our present 1 Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:9); possibly an earlier epistle to the Ephesians (Eph. 3:3); an epistle to the Church at Laodicea (Col. 4:16); and some prophecies of Enoch, known to Jude (Jude 1:14). To these rather clear references to inspired writings other than our current Bible may be added another list that has allusions to writings that may or may not be contained within our present text but may perhaps be known by a different title; for example, the book of the covenant (Ex. 24:7), which may or may not be included in the current book of Exodus; the manner of the kingdom, written by Samuel (1 Sam. 10:25); the rest of the acts of Uzziah written by Isaiah (2 Chr. 26:22).

The foregoing items attest to the fact that our present Bible does not contain all of the word of the Lord that He gave to His people in former times and remind us that the Bible, in its present form, is rather incomplete.

Matthew’s reference to a prophecy that Jesus would be a Nazarene (2:23) is interesting when it is considered that our present Old Testament seems to have no statement as such. There is a possibility, however, that Matthew alluded to Isa. 11:1, which prophesies of the Messiah as a Branch from the root of Jesse, the father of David. The Hebrew word for branch in this case is netzer, the source word of Nazarene and Nazareth. Additional references to the Branch as the Savior and Messiah are found in Jer. 23:5; 33:15; Zech. 3:8; 6:12; these use a synonymous Hebrew word for branch, tzemakh.

[snowflake]

20 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The interpretation of course.
The Trinity doctrine didn't even appear in Christ or the Apostles lifetime and wasn't formally accepted until even later.  There is zero evidence that Christ or the Apostles either taught or believed what later became the Trinity.
So where did it come from?  Misinterpreting the words of the Apostles in the Bible.

The trinity is in the BOM!

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, snowflake said:

The trinity is in the BOM!

No, it's not.
Not unless you use the same misreading applied to the NT.

[thesometimesaint]

The Trinity is not in the Book of Mormon.

SEE https://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/bickmore-book-of-mormon-trinitarianism-or-modalism.pdf

[snowflake]

28 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

No, it's not.
Not unless you use the same misreading applied to the NT.

Of course it is,  the original BOM teaches that Jesus is God. Just like the book of John. Not Jesus is A God, but that Jesus is God. Two scriptures here for you.

2 Nephi 11: 7 For if there be no Christ there be no God; and if there be no God we are not, for there could have been no creation. But there is a God, and he is Christ, and he cometh in the fullness of his own time.

This scripture throws a monkey wrench into the whole pre-mortal nonsense that Jesus is our spirit brother, because the BOM teaches he is our creator.

2 Nephi 31:21  And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.

The trinity in the BOM, pretty clear to me or am I misreading?

Now lets look at 2 John

2 John 9 which reads:

“Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.”

JHLPROF, do you abideth in the doctrine of Christ or not?

[JLHPROF]

55 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Of course it is,  the original BOM teaches that Jesus is God. Just like the book of John. Not Jesus is A God, but that Jesus is God. Two scriptures here for you.

2 Nephi 11: 7 For if there be no Christ there be no God; and if there be no God we are not, for there could have been no creation. But there is a God, and he is Christ, and he cometh in the fullness of his own time.

This scripture throws a monkey wrench into the whole pre-mortal nonsense that Jesus is our spirit brother, because the BOM teaches he is our creator.

2 Nephi 31:21  And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.

The trinity in the BOM, pretty clear to me or am I misreading?

Now lets look at 2 John

2 John 9 which reads:

“Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.”

JHLPROF, do you abideth in the doctrine of Christ or not?

You are misreading.
And I marked the part that is being misinterpreted.
A Bishop and his two counselors are one Bishopric.  Doesn't make them three manifestations of the same being.

I abide in the TRUE doctrine of Christ (which I marked in red for you), not a metaphysical fairytale made up by a second century cleric.
 

Edited April 28, 2017 by JLHPROF

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

The Trinity is not in the Book of Mormon.

SEE https://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/bickmore-book-of-mormon-trinitarianism-or-modalism.pdf

I'm really sympathetic to Bickmore's point - particularly in terms of how pre-Utah Mormons viewed the Trinity. In particular I think the popular proof text of Mosiah 15 should instead be read in terms of Merkebah mysticism where figures like Enoch/Metatron are the lesser YHWH. Even if Vogel and company don't like the idea of supporting actual ancient ideas in the Book of Mormon they could presumably point to similar hermetic ideas that ultimately trace back to those mystic texts. Those most definitely were available. So even from a naturalistic perspective I find the modalism angle deeply problematic.

The Trinity though is a different matter. First I think Bickmore raises an excellent point by looking at what early members thought of the Trinity and whether they defended it. (They didn't) However if we just consider the doctrine in the somewhat vague form it takes in the Bible it seems to me the Book of Mormon is just as good. Arguably passages such as 2 Nephi 31:21 are far more explicit than anything in the Bible in terms of how they could be read to support the formal doctrine of the Trinity. "the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end." Now of course that could be applied to modalism too. The main difference between modalism is the idea that the Father is not the Son and so on. The main Biblical argument against modalism that trinitarians use are unsurprisingly Jesus' cry on the cross to the Father and the Father announcing the Son at his baptism. But frankly you get the same sort of thing in 3 Nephi 11.

The main problem is that most people can't distinguish the trinity from modalism. So when they think they're attacking the trinity they're actually attacking modalism. (And frankly when you hear a lot of trinitarian defenders their explanations are modalism not trinitarianism) If the trinity is just three persons and one substance then there's really nothing in the Book of Mormon at odds with that and a lot to support it. I'd go so far as to say there's not a lot of conflict between Mormonism and the Trinity. Orson Pratt's theology of the spiritual aether is basically just the doctrine of the trinity given a materialistic interpretation ala Tertullian with his Stoic rather than Platonic beliefs.

Now Mormons can and often do reject the trinity proper. The main question is whether the unity of the godhead is substantial or nominalistic (name only). Most 20th century figures are only willing to say they are one to the degree they have the same mental states. i.e. they don't truly have a shared mind ala Pratt but just shared ideas, desires, wills and so forth. But there's no great reason against seeing a more substantial unity. Again that's Pratt's view and was very influential.

Edited April 28, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Jane_Doe]

2 hours ago, snowflake said:

Of course it is,  the original BOM teaches that Jesus is God. Just like the book of John. Not Jesus is A God, but that Jesus is God. Two scriptures here for you.

2 Nephi 11: 7 For if there be no Christ there be no God; and if there be no God we are not, for there could have been no creation. But there is a God, and he is Christ, and he cometh in the fullness of his own time.

This scripture throws a monkey wrench into the whole pre-mortal nonsense that Jesus is our spirit brother, because the BOM teaches he is our creator.

2 Nephi 31:21  And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.

The trinity in the BOM, pretty clear to me or am I misreading?

Now lets look at 2 John

2 John 9 which reads:

“Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.”

JHLPROF, do you abideth in the doctrine of Christ or not?

The idea of consubstantiality (the crux of the Trinity) is not found in these statements, nor anywhere in the Bible.  LDS have no problems agreeing to the divinity of Christ, or that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one God-- those ideas are Biblical and True.  But those aren't consubstantiality.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm really sympathetic to Bickmore's point - particularly in terms of how pre-Utah Mormons viewed the Trinity. In particular I think the popular proof text of Mosiah 15 should instead be read in terms of Merkebah mysticism where figures like Enoch/Metatron are the lesser YHWH. Even if Vogel and company don't like the idea of supporting actual ancient ideas in the Book of Mormon they could presumably point to similar hermetic ideas that ultimately trace back to those mystic texts. Those most definitely were available. So even from a naturalistic perspective I find the modalism angle deeply problematic.

The Trinity though is a different matter. First I think Bickmore raises an excellent point by looking at what early members thought of the Trinity and whether they defended it. (They didn't) However if we just consider the doctrine in the somewhat vague form it takes in the Bible it seems to me the Book of Mormon is just as good. Arguably passages such as 2 Nephi 31:21 are far more explicit than anything in the Bible in terms of how they could be read to support the formal doctrine of the Trinity. "the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end." Now of course that could be applied to modalism too. The main difference between modalism is the idea that the Father is not the Son and so on. The main Biblical argument against modalism that trinitarians use are unsurprisingly Jesus' cry on the cross to the Father and the Father announcing the Son at his baptism. But frankly you get the same sort of thing in 3 Nephi 11.

The main problem is that most people can't distinguish the trinity from modalism. So when they think they're attacking the trinity they're actually attacking modalism. (And frankly when you hear a lot of trinitarian defenders their explanations are modalism not trinitarianism) If the trinity is just three persons and one substance then there's really nothing in the Book of Mormon at odds with that and a lot to support it. I'd go so far as to say there's not a lot of conflict between Mormonism and the Trinity. Orson Pratt's theology of the spiritual aether is basically just the doctrine of the trinity given a materialistic interpretation ala Tertullian with his Stoic rather than Platonic beliefs.

Now Mormons can and often do reject the trinity proper. The main question is whether the unity of the godhead is substantial or nominalistic (name only). Most 20th century figures are only willing to say they are one to the degree they have the same mental states. i.e. they don't truly have a shared mind ala Pratt but just shared ideas, desires, wills and so forth. But there's no great reason against seeing a more substantial unity. Again that's Pratt's view and was very influential.

I've had conversations with Evangelicals where even they didn't know there was a difference between modalism and trinitarianism. I had to explain to them that what they were describing was generally seen as a heresy.

But YES!  99% of the time when a member goes off on trinitarianism it's modalism that they are explaining away.  It's very frustrating.

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

The idea of consubstantiality (the crux of the Trinity) is not found in these statements, nor anywhere in the Bible.  LDS have no problems agreeing to the divinity of Christ, or that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one God-- those ideas are Biblical and True.  But those aren't consubstantiality.

The main Biblical prooftext is John 14:9 but 3 Nephi 11:27 says much the same thing as does 3 Nephi 9:15. Indeed the translation for those verses appears to be quoting John 14:9. I'd argue that even if you don't read Mosiah 15 as merkebah that it naturally leads to a consubtaintiality of the spirit akin to Orson Pratt. "The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—and they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth. And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God."

That's not to deny all these can't be read more nominalistically too. But the reason for the consubstantiality, beyond John 14:9, is the need to say there is one god and not three. Which is what the Book of Mormon teaches too.

But you're completely right that consubstantiality isn't found in an unambiguous fashion in the Bible.

[Jane_Doe]

52 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The main Biblical prooftext is John 14:9 but 3 Nephi 11:27 says much the same thing as does 3 Nephi 9:15. Indeed the translation for those verses appears to be quoting John 14:9. I'd argue that even if you don't read Mosiah 15 as merkebah that it naturally leads to a consubtaintiality of the spirit akin to Orson Pratt. "The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—and they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth. And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God."

That's not to deny all these can't be read more nominalistically too. But the reason for the consubstantiality, beyond John 14:9, is the need to say there is one god and not three. Which is what the Book of Mormon teaches too.

But you're completely right that consubstantiality isn't found in an unambiguous fashion in the Bible.

Exactly.  

[rpn]

Even the bible talks about joining the stick of Judah and the stick of Ephraim.   Seems to me that is recognition that they are best consumed together.

[RevTestament]

21 hours ago, snowflake said:

When I look at the BOM it is the one canonized LDS publication that I would consider might be from God (at one time I considered it possible).  It really doesn't stray that far from the Bible IMHO, especially when comparing the original BOM produced by the church before the major doctrinal changes.  

The bible has been the Christian's standard since the first century, so when one comes along almost 1700 years after the fact and makes claims that don't agree with what has been considered scripture by the Christians, I find that extremely suspect.  The BOA, D&C and LDS prophets teach doctrine contradictory to the Prophets and Apostles in Bible. Joseph claimed that those contradictions are due to "the bible being corrupted by man". This is where I have my biggest problem with the LDS church. Joseph came along after the fact and starts making claims that are unbiblical, I simply don't accept his claims because they pervert the biblical message.

You can stop having this "problem" snowflake because the Bible was corrupted by man, just like the BoM says. That is not a perversion of the Biblical message. Why do we have a KJV? Why did the English start making new versions of the Bible? Why didn't they just translate the Latin versions from their Catholic parishes? Read up on your history snowflake, and you will find out why - because a certain Church had changed the Bible in numerous places. Therefore, the Protestants didn't trust the Bible. So they went back to the most original Hebrew Masoretic text they could find and the Greek NT rather than the Latin, and printed new versions of the Bible. I will be glad to discuss these Latin changes - they started under the pen of Jerome. The old Latin before Jerome was quite different. It was a much more literal translation. You may recall the JS prayed about using the KJV and was told it could be used. I don't believe the JST makes any changes to it so great that they make manifest intentional changes by the "great and abominable church."  However, when comparing say the Douay-Rhiems to the original Hebrew, Greek and Syriac Peshitta, these changes become quite evident.

[RevTestament]

22 hours ago, snowflake said:

When Christ ascended, he had the Apostles and believers wait for the comforter,  who has been here on the earth since his departure. We communicate with God through Jesus and the comforter. Do you honestly believe the LDS are the only group privy to the Holy Spirit and the only group who can communicate with God?

No, as you know the Holy Spirit does communicate from time to time with all Christians who are trying to follow Christ. He manifests to them what is true, etc. However, only members of the LDS Church will receive additional scripture from the Lord from the time the priesthood was restored through Joseph Smith. The two witnesses of Rev 11 will be LDS, and hated by the world and Hebrews because they will teach the oracles of God, which will seem blasphemous to the world. 

[RevTestament]

21 hours ago, snowflake said:

Men throughout history have been martyred for their testimony of Jesus, since the Apostles in the first century.

I don't believe Joseph's story about being a direct observer of the risen Lord, and I'm not convinced he was martyred, (although he was undoubtedly unjustly murdered).

He was killed because he restored the principle of polygamy, and other Christian concepts which were considered contemptible by other so-called Christians of the area, and for his part in destroying their press which LDS considered a nuisance. I believe Joseph was on the wrong side of that action, but anyway, that did not warrant his murder. He was definitely killed because of what he stood for, which in my way of thinking completely made him a martyr. 

Quote

 

I do not agree with your statement that God quit interacting with his people, believers have communicated with him through Jesus and the Holy Spirit since the first century. As I understand it, it is the LDS stance is that God did not communicate with man do that for almost 1700 years. The LDS appear to deny Jesus and scripture when they convince themselves of the "great apostasy".

 

The apostasy does not mean that God stopped communicating with men. It means that the priesthood and authority of God was lost, and that men became lost. The church began to teach many false doctrines not found in the Bible or do you believe in consubstantiation, indulgences, Mary as mediatrix, etc? To me those are clearly apostate teachings.

Quote

Matt 16: And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

There are numerous scriptures which teach man will go astray. Christ Himself said when the sign of the son of man appears, that men will be selfish, lovers of themselves, and wicked. Jesus said He was the chief cornerstone. That stone is evident in the gospels and the BoM. Peter was a lesser stone to be built on the foundational stone of Yeshua, but his testimony is a foundation for Christ's kingdom. Christ's kingdom is not an earthly church. The earthly church had to be restored. The foundation of the stone of Peter is: "another shall gird thee and carriest thou where thy would not; this spake He concerning by what death he should glorify God." No, no earthly church can take that away from Peter. Let's be clear about that.

[RevTestament]

21 hours ago, snowflake said:

The trinity is in the BOM!

The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one elohim/family/house. However, that is still far from what the doctrine of the trinity teaches. The Bible too teaches that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the Godhead - the head of the Elohim, and everyone else. But if you believe this means the BoM adopts the doctrine of the trinity, you need to study up on the doctrine of the trinity. It goes well beyond what the scriptures teach. Saying things like the Son was begotten before all ages/worlds, while the Bible teaches the Son was begotten when another said to Him: "thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee." If you want to be biblical, you cannot be "trinitarian."

20 hours ago, snowflake said:

Of course it is,  the original BOM teaches that Jesus is God. Just like the book of John. Not Jesus is A God, but that Jesus is God. Two scriptures here for you.

2 Nephi 11: 7 For if there be no Christ there be no God; and if there be no God we are not, for there could have been no creation. But there is a God, and he is Christ, and he cometh in the fullness of his own time.

This scripture throws a monkey wrench into the whole pre-mortal nonsense that Jesus is our spirit brother, because the BOM teaches he is our creator.

2 Nephi 31:21  And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.

The trinity in the BOM, pretty clear to me or am I misreading?

Now lets look at 2 John

2 John 9 which reads:

“Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.”

JHLPROF, do you abideth in the doctrine of Christ or not?

There would be no Elohim without Christ because Heavenly Father is El Elyon - the Most High Power. Elohim is plural, and refers to the House/family of God. So can there be a family without a Son? I pose to you no, there cannot. No Son, no house, no family. But as our fellow Spirit, Yeshua took upon Himself to make or keep us the family of the Father. Thus, He is our Father because He is Christ's Father. As Jesus said: "My Father and your Father." Without Jesus we would be lost to the Father, and would not be able to inherit what the Father hath.

Edited April 29, 2017 by RevTestament

[mnn727]

The most complete source? The Gospel Principles Manuel

 

[JLHPROF]

5 hours ago, mnn727 said:

The most complete source? The Gospel Principles Manuel

 

- that's funny!

[mnn727]

13 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

- that's funny!

Why? its the Truth. If you want to find out what we believe, Read the Gospel Principles manual, and search out the references in it.

When I give away the BoM to someone outside the Church, I always give a G.P. manual with it.

Edited April 30, 2017 by mnn727

[thesometimesaint]

The best source for what I believe is me.

[JLHPROF]

5 hours ago, mnn727 said:

Why? its the Truth. If you want to find out what we believe, Read the Gospel Principles manual, and search out the references in it.

When I give away the BoM to someone outside the Church, I always give a G.P. manual with it.

It may contain our beliefs, but the words "most complete" hardly apply.  There is barely 10% of the doctrine in there.  They may even be the most important but they are not complete.

[mnn727]

14 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

It may contain our beliefs, but the words "most complete" hardly apply.  There is barely 10% of the doctrine in there.  They may even be the most important but they are not complete.

Whats not mentioned in it?