Is New Revelation Necessary/Scriptural


masterlee
 Share

Recommended Posts

My opinion is yes, they are both necessary and scriptrural. This, to me, is at the heart of the LDS question; that being, who of all the churches have authority to teach. Wherever the vestitures of priesthood are, this principle governs: God speaks in these latter Days, he has not forsaken his people. Our God is in our midst, and reveals himself to his faithful. Every occasion we speak, it is to be with His words placed in our mouths, or else we are without the Power of God behind our words. Scripture has never indicated otherwise, though some have decieved themselves otherwise. If any has any doubt, look at these fools first line of defense--they quote the Book of Revelations, as written by John on the Isle of Patmos: "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophesy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." {Revelation 22:18-19.} Now, I ask, which book is John referring to? It couldn't mean the Bible, since the book we all now acknowledge as the Bible did not then exist at the time of it was written. If we are to acknowledge the book written of in this passage, then how did our ancestors determine which, of all the thousands of manuscripts, were of God and which ones were not? How did the compilers of the Bible know they even found every book of inspired origin in their search? What about the several books mentioned by name in the scriptures that were considered sacred by the apostles but are lost to us. What of the Books of Enoch, the Book of Iddo the Seer, the book of Nathan the prophet, Epistles written by the hand of Paul, and dozens of other books we do not have in our collection? Wouldn't these be just as sacred? So what, I ask, is the book we should neither add nor diminish? It is "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto...his servant John." {Rev. 1:1.}

The fact that our decietful friends include such a flimsy argument as their sole reasoning, shows that they have no better argument to substantiate their claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Masterlee - I like how you articulated that point.

Even more simple, when we pray for answers, guidance, instruction and insight we are asking God for revelation about our lives. We are imploring to our father to Reveal His hidden purposes and meaning for action in our everyday lives.

I am expecting Him to point me in the right direction in my business, with my family, my calling in the priesthood and just about every aspect of my existence. In fact, I totally depend on him for insight in how to conduct myself according to His will.

So yes, those in authority ask for revelation in order to do and act in His stead, according to and in sync with His will as to the affairs of His church and kingdom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If any has any doubt, look at these fools first line of defense--they quote the Book of Revelations, as written by John on the Isle of Patmos: "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophesy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." {Revelation 22:18-19.} Now, I ask, which book is John referring to? It couldn't mean the Bible, since the book we all now acknowledge as the Bible did not then exist at the time of it was written.

Deut 4:2 and 12:32 say the same thing about Torah and Prov 30:5-6 reflects the same (among other places).

What about the several books mentioned by name in the scriptures that were considered sacred by the apostles but are lost to us.

What about them? How do you know they were considered sacred? Simply quoting another source doesn't mean you think it's sacred.

What of the Books of Enoch,

What about it? I have a copy.

the Book of Iddo the Seer, the book of Nathan the prophet, Epistles written by the hand of Paul, and dozens of other books we do not have in our collection?

What about them?

Wouldn't these be just as sacred?

Why? Just because they are mentioned?

So what, I ask, is the book we should neither add nor diminish? It is "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto...his servant John." {Rev. 1:1.}

The fact that our decietful friends include such a flimsy argument as their sole reasoning, shows that they have no better argument to substantiate their claims.

Oh, whew. I'm not a deceitful "friend". I never use that verse from Rev. as an argument outside of the Book of Revelation itself.

If you want to discuss specific passages that you think have problems, I'm up for it or if you have a good reason for me to good look for the book of Gad the Seer (1 Chr 29:29) I'll go start digging. Simply pointing out that Gad the Seer wrote a book and it was mentioned in 1 Chr 29 doesn't give me good reason to go look for it or worry about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does little to have G-d in our midst and then to act like the rest of the world. It matters little to have revelation if our marriages continue to fail and our children are not taught to live the gospel of Christ. 1Cor 13 would indicate that having many spiritual gifts are of little benefit if one lacks charity or the love of others as demonstrated by Christ.

I have always been put off by those that claim to have spiritual gifts but fail to take the responsibility that comes with such things. If the world has nothing but our claim to go by then our claim is empty – just like those that have to say they have a personal relationship with Christ before anyone could otherwise come to that conclusion.

It is better that others wonder why we are so kind and loving towards them than it is to claim that we spiritually superior and others not believe it or understand it.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am probably misunderstanding your statement Traveler, I do that quite often! :)

But are you saying that we shouldn't try to clear up misunderstandings in the scriptures or to call people to repentance? Are we just to preach the gospel of Christ through our actions?? I'm not trying to start a fight or get off topic, just trying to understand which direction you are coming from and going to. Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yekcidmij--The whole point in my argument is to show that the Bible cannot be the source of all human knowledge, by acknowledging this you are to realise that ANY book that was written by the servants of God, including Gad and Enoch, must be just as sacred as anything that is included in the Bible, and neither can the man of God rely solely upon it's merits to guide them in their duties today. There is a impending need for God to direct us in these times, for the scriptures cannot save our souls today. I admit that the revelations that Moses had were sufficient to save the people of Isreal, and the revelation Timothy had familiar were sufficient to redeem him, but to say that their words would be sufficient to redeem us is to say that we can alienate ourself to God and live on the works and words of others. No, I testify unto you that the word of God is necessary to our salvation today, and there is no other source to go to than God himself and to his servants that know him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Historical hindsight is always 20-20. But it does very little in terms of shedding light into the debate about whether revelation continues or not. I propose an experiment for the skeptics. The Trekies of the forum will know exactly what I am talking about. So the rest of you would have to go to the nearest video store and rent the whole Star Trek: The Next Generation series.

Imagine you are a member of "The Q". A race of almost omniscient, extremely powerful and mischievous beings that move across time and space freely, moving planets and acting god-like to "inferior species". Visualize the time line between The Creation and Malachi. Insert yourself anywhere there and we will erase your mental tape of any and all memory of future events. If you were to read the known scriptures up to that point, I would seriously doubt you would believe there was a need for any more scriptures. You would, most likely, state that you had enough knowledge and holy writ necessary for your salvation. You would have argued that you knew God's will and that you were living according to what has been revealed (up to that point in history) and that nothing else was going to be revealed in regards to how to approach God and obtain your salvation. Just as some do today.

That has been the claim of EVERY generation!!!! They went to the earth being VERY wrong. The Lord in His infinite wisdom kept raising prophets that spoke and declared to the people the way of salvation. He continued to reveal His will and mysteries and performing miracle to succor His children. But it was not seen that way as it happened. The words of the prophets became scripture and revelation, and truth and understanding to the FUTURE generations. But they (the prophets) ALL died stoned and imprisoned by their own people and their rulers. Prophets are never believed in their own time.

At last, God Himself, the Law Giver, the Creator and the Savior of mankind descended among the children of men and they said of Him: "... He casteth out devils through Beelzebub the chief of the devils." "...then answered the Jews, and said unto him [Jesus], Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?" "...And many of them said, He hath a devil, and is mad; why hear ye him?" "...the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man [Jesus] receiveth sinners, and eateth with them." "...Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man [Jesus] is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day." ...This man [Jesus], if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner." (brackets added)

So, my friends, I suggest to those that rely on borrowed, old and faded arguments to contest what is plain and discernible truth thru the Holy Ghost, that they should ponder in their minds the true intent of their hearts. Is it to seek after the things of that God that has made His name known among all nations because of His wonders and miracles and the power given to His servants? Or is it that their desire to contend, their quest to hoard and claim knowledge above the sovereignty of God the fuels their passion and argument to the point of blinding their eyes and minds?

I am no theologian, not do I claim any special or secret knowledge but what is available to all humble enough to seek Him with a broken heart. But, I have found of my own, without help or instruction and before I knew of the Restoration; that God speaks to his children, that there were and are men on the earth that speak and prophesy in His name and with His authority, and they walk with Him and they plead with Him and He hears and grants them their petition. And that will never end until the Savior comes and declares that the work is done.

Edited by Islander
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am probably misunderstanding your statement Traveler, I do that quite often! :)

But are you saying that we shouldn't try to clear up misunderstandings in the scriptures or to call people to repentance? Are we just to preach the gospel of Christ through our actions?? I'm not trying to start a fight or get off topic, just trying to understand which direction you are coming from and going to. Thanks

Some so enjoy misunderstanding that what we say has no meaning to them regardless. We are a light to the world but only if we, ourselves live by light.

Sometimes I think it is better we just say. I am LDS and I do not believe what is said about us by some of our critics. Rather that cram our beliefs down everybody else use opportunities to convers and become friends with those that have interest.

If someone is not willing to be a friend it does not matter to them what you think. And few want to be someone's friend that is not honest in defineing what they believe by how they live. We need to cowboy up to what we say we believe.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yekcidmij--The whole point in my argument is to show that the Bible cannot be the source of all human knowledge,

Oh, I agree. I don't know why anyone would think that anyway.

by acknowledging this you are to realise that ANY book that was written by the servants of God, including Gad and Enoch, must be just as sacred as anything that is included in the Bible,

Why? Why must that be the case? To say that Gad the Seer wrote sacred scripture is a pure form of argument from silence. How can you consider something to be sacred when you don't have a clue what it says? That seems irresponsible.

Fortunately, I have a copy of Enoch; why must I consider it part of the canon, and do you use Enoch as part of the canon? What about the deuterocanon; do you consider those canon as well? They were written by servants of God and are considered sacred by some.

There is a impending need for God to direct us in these times, for the scriptures cannot save our souls today.

The Messiah saves souls. That much is clear from scripture. And when has God not been directing His people? Has there been a time in our history when God stopped being Sovreign?

I admit that the revelations that Moses had were sufficient to save the people of Isreal, and the revelation Timothy had familiar were sufficient to redeem him,

Revelations don't redeem. God redeems. That much is clear throughout scripture too.

No, I testify unto you that the word of God is necessary to our salvation today, and there is no other source to go to than God himself and to his servants that know him.

So long as the words I'm hearing don't have God contradicting Himself. Example: If I read something where God reveals that we are to not worship idols and someone comes along later and says "let's go worship that idol", that doesn't conform to what God has already revealed about Himself.

And when has God's Word not been necessary for salvation? John 1 indicates that it's always been necessary.

Edited by Yekcidmij
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The importance of the books of Gad, the relevance of Enoch, cannot be dismissed easily just by saying they are not included in the Bible, and therefore cannot be considered scripture. You are ignoring the facts--the prophets and apostles in the Old and New Testaments were more than familiar with these books. They considered them sacred. How are we better able to judge these books than they? You are obviously saying that man, infallible man, are better able to interpret the value of these works than those who are taught by God to discern the truth of all things. Salvation is individual, therefore ANY individual that writes the Words God gives them are SACRED SCIPTURE to that person. Therefore the words that God reveals to us TODAY are the means of our Redemption. No man can be saved without his grace, after all we can do. Therefore I ask you to pray about my words, exersize a grain of faith. If you ask in sincerety, fully believing to recieve, I promise you that you will gain a testemony of these things. If you do this you will be filled with gladness, knowing that scriptures are being engraved upon your heart, and you will know for yourself that which will save you from the second death. Do not take this step lightly, for a new responsibilty is required of the truthbearers of Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The importance of the books of Gad, the relevance of Enoch, cannot be dismissed easily just by saying they are not included in the Bible, and therefore cannot be considered scripture.

And I haven't done that. I haven't been given sufficient reason to consider them scripture. I'm afraid someone just saying, "they are sacred" is not a reason to believe them to be sacred. It's irrespobsible on my part, and yours because you have no idea what they say.

I also keep saying I have Enoch on me. I'm ready to put it back in the bible should you give me sufficient reason to do so.

Paul, in Acts 17:28, quotes from Aratus (Phaenomena 5). Are you ready to accept Aratus, a Greek pagan poet, as scripture simply because Paul mentions him once? Paul, in Titus 1:12, quotes from Epimenides. Is Epimenides, another Greek pagan, now to be considered scripture? Surely you would answer "no" to both of those, and if so, you must alter your standard. If you don't alter your standard, you must accept pagan literature as scripture in order to remain consistent. I doubt, and hope, you won't be proclaiming Zeus by the end of the thread. Fortunately, I don't accept things as scripture simply because they are mentioned in passing, or even quoted in part, and so I won't be a Greek pagan by the end of this thread.

You are ignoring the facts--the prophets and apostles in the Old and New Testaments were more than familiar with these books.

Most of these books are mentioned once in passing, which indicates to me they aren't that important at all. Most of them say things along the lines of, "oh, this list of capable soldiers is written in Gad's book too", like a throw away comment. Most of the most obscure ones, like Gad the Seer, are mentioned in historical books like Samuel, Chronicles, and Kings, which indicates that the books are probably nothing more than historical documents and not prophetic like a Daniel, Ezekiel, or Isaiah. And which of these obsucre books are mentioned in the prophetic writings? There is also no indication at all that there was wide familiarity with a book like Gad the Seer's. You keep asserting things without sufficient reason to believe your assertions.

They considered them sacred.

You keep saying that, and you can say it, but that's exactly what I've been calling into question. There is no indication that they considered them sacred. There are numerous psalms that sing about Torah and numerous writings that that draw on things found in the Torah, which makes it rather obvious that the books of the Torah are sacred to lots of peoeple, but I can only find one obscure reference to a book by (for example) Gad the Seer. That's not what someone who considered the book sacred would do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's not forget that the Council of Nicaea had nothing spiritual or sacred about it. It was a wine inflamed, inkwell throwing raucous that left clear the schisms that a few years later caused the first split within the church.

Do not forget that The Muratorian Canon (the very fist one) did not include the letter to the Hebrews or James, 3 John, or 1 and 2 Peter. It included the Wisdom of Solomon and the Apocalypse of Peter. It rejected the Shepherd of Hermas and Paul's letters to the Laodiceans and Alexandrians.

So, we must pay attention what is called sacred and the criteria to judge such given the fact that history and those involved in the process proved to be less than reliable at choosing the scriptures and interpreting the word of God once His prophets and apostles were gone from the earth..

I suggest God thru the Spirit would be the ultimate authority on what record is sacred and thus of value to enhance our faith, spiritual growth and ability to get closer to the Savior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's not forget that the Council of Nicaea had nothing spiritual or sacred about it. It was a wine inflamed, inkwell throwing raucous that left clear the schisms that a few years later caused the first split within the church.

I guess it's a good thing that the Council of Nicea didn't compile the canon then.

Do not forget that The Muratorian Canon (the very fist one) did not include the letter to the Hebrews or James, 3 John, or 1 and 2 Peter. It included the Wisdom of Solomon and the Apocalypse of Peter. It rejected the Shepherd of Hermas and Paul's letters to the Laodiceans and Alexandrians.

Yep.

ht tp://w ww.bible-researcher.com/muratorian.h tml

"There is current also [an epistle] to (64) the Laodiceans, [and] another to the Alexandrians, [both] forged in Paul's (65) name to [further] the heresy of Marcion, and several others"

So, we must pay attention what is called sacred and the criteria to judge such given the fact that history and those involved in the process proved to be less than reliable at choosing the scriptures and interpreting the word of God once His prophets and apostles were gone from the earth..

I'm a fan of sound judgment too.

Edited by Yekcidmij
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess it's a good thing that the Council of Nicea didn't compile the canon then.

Yep.

ht tp://w ww.bible-researcher.com/muratorian.h tml

"There is current also [an epistle] to (64) the Laodiceans, [and] another to the Alexandrians, [both] forged in Paul's (65) name to [further] the heresy of Marcion, and several others"

I'm a fan of sound judgment too.

You are ignoring the point that I am trying to make. That we have gone thru a process of selection for the (OT/NT) scriptures and a definition of the tenets of Christianity that was not infallible or even sacred. And you are attempting to do the same by using "judgment" as the catalyst for the process of selecting what is sacred writ or not. Not only is it "judgment" subjective and flawed, it assumes a general body of knowledge, theological and historical awareness that most Christians today do not have.

In case you forgot or are purposefully ignoring it, ALL the letters in the NT are the words of the prophets and Apostles of God to His people. They provided the guidance, knowledge and insight, the truthful and correct interpretation of God's word and doctrine to the saints in the early Church. That is what we do today in the Church of Jesus Christ of Later day Saints thru the prophet, seers and revelators.

Edited by Islander
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yikcigmij, it is not man that can determine what is sacred: the only sources that can be trusted are for this are God and the servants that he has sent. I have a testamony of the truth of this for God has revealed it to me by the Holy Ghost. But do not take my word on it. Pray. The Lord can reveal anything whenever someone truly has faith. Take the test of faith. Tell me, dost not this makes your heart burn within you. Does this give you a testamony. If not, I suggest that you are too hardhearted and devoid of the spirit of God to feel this still small voice of that sacred spirit of revelation.

On another note, may I ask, which Book of Enoch do you have. I'm just curious. I particuliarly like the Greek version. The most common, ands most well known is the Ethiopic one. The smallest fragments belong to the Hebrew books of Enoch.

Some other good sources I like are Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Nag Hammadi Documents.

As for the other sources that you mention, I do not immiediatly discount the pagan refferences. Even a pagan can tell the truth. The search for truth should not end just because the source isn't of your faith. I happen to study all religions. No matter where I search I see truth. It is not necessarily all true, but thats why you must rely on the Spirit of God to see them rather than rely on your own wisdom. Even an evil man can teach us somethging useful, if only to live diferently than him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am Roman Catholic on this site. While there were many disagreements at the Council of Nicaea as other councils, let's not throw stones at history or those that made it. Much good-in my opinion was accomplished at this and other Church Councils.

To say the council had "nothing sacred or spiritual about it"-is an afront to many Christians in general and me specifically.

We may disagree on doctrine-but let's not throw stones at others or put one's slant on the history of the Church.

Throwing stones never brings people together-it just keeps them apart.

-Carol

Let's not forget that the Council of Nicaea had nothing spiritual or sacred about it. It was a wine inflamed, inkwell throwing raucous that left clear the schisms that a few years later caused the first split within the church.

Do not forget that The Muratorian Canon (the very fist one) did not include the letter to the Hebrews or James, 3 John, or 1 and 2 Peter. It included the Wisdom of Solomon and the Apocalypse of Peter. It rejected the Shepherd of Hermas and Paul's letters to the Laodiceans and Alexandrians.

So, we must pay attention what is called sacred and the criteria to judge such given the fact that history and those involved in the process proved to be less than reliable at choosing the scriptures and interpreting the word of God once His prophets and apostles were gone from the earth..

I suggest God thru the Spirit would be the ultimate authority on what record is sacred and thus of value to enhance our faith, spiritual growth and ability to get closer to the Savior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be pleased to admit that statement, providing they were inspired in thier decisions. Personally, I believe that these counsels were man made. God had nothing to do with it. If they were inspired, then why didn't they come to the right conclusions. In the councils, we are told that God has no body, parts or passions. This is to say that God is nothing--for the only thing that can exist under those requirements is nothing. They tell us that God is three beings but one as well. I hold that the Godhead trio are one/united in power, purpose and likeness, but to say that they are both one and three is ridiculous. The number of inconsistencies is astonishing for a group that claims they have God's sanction. Perhaps the reason you Catholics do not hear from God has something to do with the fact you worship a god without a body, parts and passions--one that cannot speak for he only exists in your imagination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I believe that these counsels were man made. God had nothing to do with it.

Why do you think that?

Also, why does the LDS church use the exact same OT and NT canons that protestants do? If the councils were apostate, it seems they managed to stop being apostate long enough in AD 393, 397, and 419 (68 - 94 years after Nicea) to compile the correct canon. Why not go back and add Enoch to the LDS canon if it's really inspired?

In the councils, we are told that God has no body, parts or passions.

Is that a quote from Nicea or is that from Aquinas?

They tell us that God is three beings but one as well.

That's not quite what it says.

I see this thread is swirling into a trinitarian/Nicea issue, even though Nicea didn't canonize scripture. That's cool.

I hold that the Godhead trio are one/united in power, purpose and likeness, but to say that they are both one and three is ridiculous. The number of inconsistencies is astonishing for a group that claims they have God's sanction. Perhaps the reason you Catholics do not hear from God has something to do with the fact you worship a god without a body, parts and passions--one that cannot speak for he only exists in your imagination.

Let's be honest, Nicea members weren't stupid, ignorant drunkards who spent the entire proceedings in a stupor. They probably knew of a few verses (leaving Divine names with proper transliteration):

Deut 4:16: I say this so you will not corrupt yourselves by making an image in the form of any kind of figure. This includes the likeness of a human male or female,

Deut 4:35 You have been taught that Jehovah alone is Elohim – there is no other besides him.

Deut 4:39 Today realize and carefully consider that Jehovah is Elohim in heaven above and on earth below – there is no other!

Deut 6:4 Listen, Israel: Jehovah is our Elohim, Jehovah is one!

I'm going to venture a guess that Nicea knew of these verses and others like these and knew they could either deny these verses, for whatever reason, or uphold all of scripture.

Deut 32:39 “See now that I, indeed I, am he!” says Jehovah,

“and there is no other Elohim besides me.

I kill and give life,

I smash and I heal,

and none can resist my power.

Jehovah says it's His power and no "elohim" besides Him. Has Jehovah just usurped Elohims power and taken Elohims worship? I think it's made abundantly clear to Moses on Mount Sinai:

Exodus 19:16 On the third day in the morning there was thunder and lightning and a dense cloud on the mountain, and the sound of a very loud horn; all the people who were in the camp trembled. 19:17 Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet Elohim, and they took their place at the foot of the mountain. 19:18 Now Mount Sinai was completely covered with smoke because Jehovah had descended on it in fire, and its smoke went up like the smoke of a great furnace, and the whole mountain shook violently. 19:19 When the sound of the horn grew louder and louder, Moses was speaking and Elohim was answering him with a voice.

Ok...so both Elohim and Jehovah are there on Mt. Sinai with Moses. Moses is speaking to Elohim and Elohim is speaking back. Unfortunately, or fortunately, Jehovah makes a bold move there on Sinai just a few verses later:

Exodus 20:2 “I, JEHOVAH, am your ELOHIM, who brought you from the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery.

20:3 “You shall have no other ELOHIM before me.

Why doesn't Elohim object to this? Jehovah says HE is Elohim, then He forbids the worship of other Elohim. Why doesn't Heavenly Father object? Jehovah just forbid us to worship Heavenly Father! Elohim doesn't object because Jehovah is Elohim. He's not lying in Exodus 20:2 (or in Mosiah 12:33-37 where it's repeated word for word by Abinadi).

Nicea was probably aware of things like this (probably not the Abinadi quote though) and knew better than to posit more than one god. Jesus claims were pretty bold, yet it's clear that there is only One God. What do you do with the information found in the New and Old Testament and the Deuterocanon? Scripture is clear that there is one God, yet Jesus made some rather blasphemous remarks and actions, and was raised from the dead in spite of what should have been blasphemy and a free ticket strait to Sheol. What is a council to do with that?

God has revealed the information over many years, surely He left it such that we (or Nicea in this case) could apply the command to love the Lord with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind (Deut 6:5) and come to an understanding on what God has revealed about Himself. The answers are there in scripture. Rather than just say Nicea was a bunch of drunk, rowdy apostates (a genetic fallacy btw), why don't we check and see if their creed can actually be collaborated with what God has already revealed to us. I believe it can.

Now, having said that, and to try to get back on topic somewhat, Nicea still didn't compile the canon. The canon was finalized later by the Synod of Hippo (AD 393) and the Councils of Carthage (397 and 419). Were those 3 councils also drunken apostates? If they were apostate, why does the LDS OT and NT canon match the protestant rendition of it? Of course, if there wasn't a total apostasy by that point, and/or those 3 councils got it right, then maybe Nicea deserves a fresh look and another shot.

Edited by Yekcidmij
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You go in depth to call Jesus our Heavenly Father--and He was:just not in the same sense as you use it. In the Gospel of John, John calls Jesus the Word: quothe "In the begining was the Word, and the Word was with God...The same was in the begining with God." {John 1;1-2.} "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt umoung us..." {John 1;14.} In this reference it also reads in verse 3 that "all things was made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." This means that God used Jesus as the Creator of all of us. This makes Him our Father. And once a father always a father. Thus he is the Eternal Father or Elohim. Does this mean that Jesus and his Father are one and the same? No!! They each retain their individual itentity, but that doesn't mean that Christ hasn't earned His title as the Messiah, the Son of God.

As for our, us Latter Day Saints, use of scriptures, we fully acknowledge that the Bible is only as correct as it is translated correctly {Read our Articles of Faith sometime.}. We also have a collection of translated passages from the Bible that Joseph Smith was instrumental in bringing to light.

As for what I'd put in the canon, I would only repeat that Revelation, either from God or his servants can decide what is sacred. Enoch is a very useful text, and despite the facts that there will be errors therein, deserves to be acknowledged as a text that inspired the ancient apostles to hold it in esteem and set the mood for religious furvor for centries after it was written.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The stones keep coming!-guess I need a helmet-along with many other Christians who feel some things good came out of the ancient councils and creeds of the church.

You also state we "Catholics do not hear from God." and that- he only exists in our imagination? --so God only speaks to LDS members? So- God is only present in members of the LDS? and not to Catholics?-is that what the LDS church teaches its members?

I doubt it

-I am here as a Catholic on this site learning about the LDS Church-and what little I do know--I doubt what you are saying is a doctrine of the LDS Church.

I guess I had better study my Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants more deeply to better understand more about the teachings of the LDS Church-thanks for enlightening me.

-inquiring minds want to know.

-Carol

I would be pleased to admit that statement, providing they were inspired in thier decisions. Personally, I believe that these counsels were man made. God had nothing to do with it. If they were inspired, then why didn't they come to the right conclusions. In the councils, we are told that God has no body, parts or passions. This is to say that God is nothing--for the only thing that can exist under those requirements is nothing. They tell us that God is three beings but one as well. I hold that the Godhead trio are one/united in power, purpose and likeness, but to say that they are both one and three is ridiculous. The number of inconsistencies is astonishing for a group that claims they have God's sanction.Perhaps the reason you Catholics do not hear from God has something to do with the fact you worship a god without a body, parts and passions--one that cannot speak for he only exists in your imagination/U].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The stones keep coming!-guess I need a helmet-along with many other Christians who feel some things good came out of the ancient councils and creeds of the church.

You also state we "Catholics do not hear from God." and that- he only exists in our imagination? --so God only speaks to LDS members? So- God is only present in members of the LDS? and not to Catholics?-is that what the LDS church teaches its members?

I doubt it

-I am here as a Catholic on this site learning about the LDS Church-and what little I do know--I doubt what you are saying is a doctrine of the LDS Church.

I guess I had better study my Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants more deeply to better understand more about the teachings of the LDS Church-thanks for enlightening me.

-inquiring minds want to know.

-Carol

You are so right!!! I hate seeing the stones fly. It gets us nowhere! We are all God's children and I'm sure He is not pleased with us when we enter into such contentious conversations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I accede the point. Truth is had by ALL the children of God. Anything respectable comes from God. If you are ready to accept all new revelation, as long as it comes from Christ, I am more than willing to admit God speaks to you, whether through a medium or directly. Inteligence, or the ability to learn, is the form light takes in matter. You could say that light, inteligence and matter are synonymous. The fact that we live is proof that God made us. He formed us spiritually before he formed us physically. He gave us each talents, knowledge, inteligence and personality--all of our gifts. In this God talks to us all. But to have true communication is supposed to be a two way thing. God imparts knowledge unto us in exchange for faith and obedience to his word. But which church teaches the true word of Christ in THESE days? Every church teaches some truth, but only one can teach the full truth. Perception interpretes the truth. The goal is to view it in God's own way. For this we should not be content to accept other peoples word for it, we should seek to attain this knowledge for ourselves. And once we have it we should not cease to live by it's precepts for the rest of our days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I believe that people of all faiths can hear and communicate with God. The LDS do not have an exclusive right to that. There are many good people in the world and many trying to find a way back to their Heavenly Father.

I think that there will be many LDS who are surprised when final judgment comes and they are judged as they have judged.

Ben Raines

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share