How True, Trustworthy And Authoritative Is The Bible?

[prisonchaplain]

Here is a brief summary of the LDS Church beliefs about the Holy Bible, as I understood it. Note the link to the official church site, beneath my summary.

1. The Holy Bible, Old and New Testaments, are a collection of sacred writings, revelations and historical accounts.

2. Many Old Testament prophets foretold the coming of Jesus Christ.

http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,1091-1,00.html

Some key words that stand out for me are: HOLY, SACRED, REVELATION, HISTORICAL, and PROPHETS FORETOLD THE COMING OF JESUS.

1. That which is holy and sacred, should, of necessity, also be true. After all, Jesus claimed in John 14:6 that He is The Truth.

2. Revelations, historical accounts, prophets foretelling–again all of these aspects speak to accuracy, correctness, truthfulness.

Compare the above with a recent teaching I gave on the Holy Bible:

1. Faith Statement: We believe the Bible is God’s written revelation to man, and that it was verbally inspired, authoritative, and without error in the original manuscripts.

2. While we are not sure we have the original manuscripts, we find that with the large number we do have, the areas of contention are so relatively few, and the various readings are so inconsequential in terms of doctrine or understanding, that we can confidently say we do have God’s Word.

3. What the Bible claims for itself:

A. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. 2 Timothy 3:16-17

B. 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 1:20-21

C. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Matthew 5:18

6. Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free. ... I know that ye are Abraham’s seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. John 8:31-32, 37

Conclusion: We believe the Bible is true, that it has God’s wisdom for us today, that we must obey the Bible if we say we are Christians, that both the Old and new Testaments are equally inspired of God, and that when we are uncertain how to understand a certain passage we ought to patiently seek greater understanding from those more knowledgeable, and of course, through prayer and meditation.

Obviously, I’ve said more than the Mormon website did. However, should there be much disagreement over these matters? Yet, apparently there is. So, perhaps I’m missing something? In our discussions about canon (the books that makeup the Bible), and about the veracity of biblical accounts, I’ve sensed a subtle undercurrent of reticence to fully embrace the authority of the Holy Bible.

Maybe it wasn’t compiled right?

Who says it’s only suppose to have 66 books?

How can we be certain God told the writers what to write?

Inspiration doesn’t have to mean it’s accurate in its telling, does it?

I could expect such questions from skeptics, but find them peculiar coming from those for whom the Bible is one of the Standard Works of scriptural canon. Unless...

1. The current prophets truths supercede and redefine biblical truths.

2. The other Standard Works are held in somewhat higher esteem than the Holy Bible, and, in fact, also redefine biblical truths.

3. The Bible is somewhat suspect because the New Testament was authorized by an apostate Catholic church leadership, and the Old Testament was compiled but Jewish leaders who failed to recognize the Savior when He came.

And, if the above three are true, then a skeptic might postulate that the main purpose of the biblical writings (for Mormons) is not to explicate God’s Word to humanity, but to bolster the truths found in Joseph Smith’s triad, and to offer a bridge for investigators with Christian upbringing.

Yet, I’ve seen too many at this site quote from and refer to biblical passages with reverence, appreciation, and sincerity. Nevertheless, I’m cognizant that LDS apologists might be compelled to both defend and diminish the authority of the Holy Bible at the same time.

[Ray]

prisonchaplain,

You seem to have forgotten what I told you before about how you will hear all kinds of things from all kinds of people on this website, and that if you want to know the official position of the Church you should search the words of prophets and apostles in the Church instead of listening so much to all the people here.

But in case it helps any, I believe and know that the Holy Bible was written by men who wrote as they were moved by inspiration from God, that all scripture is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, etc... while also knowing that there will never be an end to scripture as long as there are men who are moved to write the things they are moved to write through knowledge and inspiration from God.

Or in other words, God never said there will only be 66 books to compile and contain in a volume of books called the "Holy Bible" or whatever else you want to name it, and any idea that He did say that there will ever be an end to people writing as they are moved by inspiration from God is not founded by anything written by anyone who has ever written scripture.

[prisonchaplain]

prisonchaplain,

You seem to have forgotten what I told you before about how you will hear all kinds of things from all kinds of people on this website, and that if you want to know the official position of the Church you should search the words of prophets and apostles in the Church instead of listening so much to all the people here.

Well...I didn't forget--that's why I included the link to the official site. I also know that in any faith movement there will be a range of views on any given subject--all of which may be within the confines of that group's orthodoxy. So, I'm trying to see what that range is concerning the Holy Bible.

But in case it helps any, I believe and know that the Holy Bible was written by men who wrote as they were moved by inspiration from God, that all scripture is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, etc... while also knowing that there will never be an end to scripture as long as there are men who are moved to write the things they are moved to write through knowledge and inspiration from God.

So, Ray, did God speak through a donkey, did God send animals to kill children who insulted a prophet by calling him baldy, was the world literally flooded up to the mountain tops? What is your view on these controversies? Is the an official Mormon perspective on biblical interpretation, when it comes to supernatural miracles?

Or in other words, God never said there will only be 66 books to compile and contain in a volume of books called the "Holy Bible" or whatever else you want to name it, and any idea that He did say that there will ever be an end to people writing as they are moved by inspiration from God is not founded by anything written by anyone who has ever written scripture.

This revelation hit me today, quite strongly. The doctrine of Restored Gospel means that Mormons reject everything that happened in the church from about 100-1820 AD. So, of course, all the councils, the forming of the canon, etc. would be deemed without authority, and church history would be considered more or less a study of a non-Christian cult. Furthermore, as Traveler has intimated, even the Old Testament, being compiled by religious authorities who's descendents would reject the Messiah, are not considered fully authoritative. So, who defines the canon? Of course, the restored Christian church. So, yes, Ray, I get it.

By way of contrast, we evangelicals speak of a Judea-Christian tradition. We do not see the Christian church as having broken off from Judaism, but rather, having fulfilled the Hebrew prophecies. We are not divorced from Judaism, but have been grafted into the seed of Abraham. Additionally, we do not divorce ourselves from church history, because we do not believe the church became apostate beyond redemption. Rather, we Protestants would agree with Martin Luther's call for reform. In fact, one of my history professors argued that Luther probably saved the Roman church, by forcing it to reform in reaction to the rising Protestant movement.

So, when the Church finalized the canon between 200-400 AD, we see the hand of God in that. When, in the 1500s the Roman Catholic church tried to bolster its tradition against the emerging Protestant theology by canonizing the Apocrapha (which does have passages supporting Purgatory, etc.), over 1000 years after the canon had been finalized and left unchanged, well, to Protestants it seemed to be a clearly defensive moved--rather than an inspired one.

So, Blomberg is right (in How Wide the Divide?). The canon cannot be definitely declared closed by referencing Scripture. However, those of us who accept the continuity of our religious heritage from Genesis to today--those of us who do not agree with the idea that God would allow his church to be dormant for 1700 years--can point to the reality of church history and say that, at minimum, anyone who would claim to be a prophet with writings that must be canonized has the burden of proof.

[Traveler]

And, if the above three are true, then a skeptic might postulate that the main purpose of the biblical writings (for Mormons) is not to explicate God’s Word to humanity, but to bolster the truths found in Joseph Smith’s triad, and to offer a bridge for investigators with Christian upbringing.

Yet, I’ve seen too many at this site quote from and refer to biblical passages with reverence, appreciation, and sincerity. Nevertheless, I’m cognizant that LDS apologists might be compelled to both defend and diminish the authority of the Holy Bible at the same time.

I speak for myself. Perhaps the problem is semantics. The Holy Scriptures are not authority. G-d is authority. Then those that speak in the name of G-d are authority. I am skeptical of those that claim authority through scripture rather than G-d. This was the claim of the Pharisees and Scribes that opposed Jesus’ authority. I believe Jesus claimed authority and that the scriptures gave witness to him as authority.

The scriptures also witness that the organization of the church rested with men given authority. Jesus chose and ordained his Apostles. Jesus clearly said he gave authority to his apostles to carry on his work. There are some scholars that believe when some claimed to have done things in the name of Jesus that his response is better understood to be, “I never authorized you” rather than, “I never knew you”. For G-d knows everybody. Regardless of how the scriptures are understood those that had false authority in the name of Christ were knowledgeable of scripture.

One of the biggest divisions among Christians is with who authority rest. LDS do not believe authority comes from scripture. There are no examples in scripture where someone received authority from scripture. Since scripture can be understood so many different ways it is my personal belief that authority cannot come from scripture. One last point here - Jesus said that if a person is not loyal to the commandments they are not true disciples regardless of how well they appear to understand scripture. I believe a follower of Christ is better identified by their works than by their doctrine - the least reliable source is the witness of men that believe something different or as Jesus said, men that gather grapes of thorns and figs of thistles.

The Traveler

[Snow]

PC,

What Mormons think of the Bible is a book lenght topic. In fact, it is a book - an excellent and erudite one: Mormons and the Bible - The Place of the Latter-day Saints in American Religion by Philip L. Barlow. The books shows, correctly, that Mormon and Mormon leader attitudes towards the Bible comprise an extraordinary mix of conservative, liberal, and radical ingredients. Joseph Smith had no problem correcting and improving the Bible. Other's would think the bible untouchable.

When asked whether they believed that the Scriptures are the inspired and inerrant Word of God in faith, history, and secular matters, Mormons are more like Lutherans, and Methodists and less like Pentecostals and Baptists. My experience with Mormons - and I have a lot alotta experience with Mormons that generally they believe the Bible to be much more historically literal and accurate than I do. However, most Mormons, like the general population are much less familiar with higher and textual criticism than some people are.

One thing about Mormons. Mormonism produces more scientists per captia than any other religion (if you use Utah as a rough surrogate for Mormonsim). I believe that the more one understands reason and science, the more one is forced into different understanding of the bible - that not all of it can possibly represent accurate literal history. Certainly Mormons aren't different that other educated folks in that regard but Mormons, as a people, are more educated than the general population.

The formal LDS position is that we believe the Bible to be the word of God in as far as it is translated correctly and that is an abbreviated way of saying about the same thing as the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy. When Mormons say "translated" they also think about transmission. Some Mormons would think that the bible was tampered with by the Catholic Church though educated Mormons understand that tampering with the text is probably minimal if any, and that the bigger issue would be with the canonization and selection process.

Mormons do not think that the entirety of the gospel is found in the bible nor does the bible comprise all ancient scripture.

I would say that evangelicals, especially the more fundamental ones, see the bible almost as an object of worship, like it itself is the gospel. I think it is just the man's written record of the gospel. It's not magical. It's an abstraction of the complete thing - God's truth and plan. That's probably a general LDS notion as well though almost all other Mormons attach more reverence to the bible than I do - at least the way I do as I play the devil's advocate in our discussions here.

The Standard Works are not held in higher esteem than the bible. The bible is the biggest single component of the Standard Works. It is on par with any other scripture, modern or ancient. Is it more or less important than the words or our living prophet? I don't look at it that way. We accept as a matter of faith that the bible was written by prophets (or those inspired like prophets). We also accept that prophets today are inspired. Their teaching are obviously more focused on what we are facing and doing today but the bible and other parts of the Standard Works are our canon, the stick by which other teachings are measured.

[prisonchaplain]

I speak for myself. Perhaps the problem is semantics. The Holy Scriptures are not authority. G-d is authority. Then those that speak in the name of G-d are authority. I am skeptical of those that claim authority through scripture rather than G-d. This was the claim of the Pharisees and Scribes that opposed Jesus’ authority. I believe Jesus claimed authority and that the scriptures gave witness to him as authority.

The scriptures also witness that the organization of the church rested with men given authority. Jesus chose and ordained his Apostles. Jesus clearly said he gave authority to his apostles to carry on his work. There are some scholars that believe when some claimed to have done things in the name of Jesus that his response is better understood to be, “I never authorized you” rather than, “I never knew you”. For G-d knows everybody. Regardless of how the scriptures are understood those that had false authority in the name of Christ were knowledgeable of scripture.

One of the biggest divisions among Christians is with who authority rest. LDS do not believe authority comes from scripture. There are no examples in scripture where someone received authority from scripture. Since scripture can be understood so many different ways it is my personal belief that authority cannot come from scripture. One last point here - Jesus said that if a person is not loyal to the commandments they are not true disciples regardless of how well they appear to understand scripture. I believe a follower of Christ is better identified by their works than by their doctrine - the least reliable source is the witness of men that believe something different or as Jesus said, men that gather grapes of thorns and figs of thistles. The Traveler

This is perhaps the clearest explanation on this matter I've seen to date. Thank you.

Let me see now if I have, in fact, understood:

1. Catholics claim apostolic authority rests, first, with the Pope, through the line of Peter. The Pope has the authority to speak ex cathedra (sp?), or with infallibility. He does not always do so, however.

2. Mormons claim priestly and apostolic authority, in that Joseph was a latter day prophet, and God used him to restore the Christian church. He also restored two orders of priesthood, the apostolic line, and the prophetic line.

3. Protestants (not all, of course) claim that Jesus' granted authority to all his followers, charging them with making disciples. They were all, through holy living and declaration of the good news, to point the lost to him.

Concerning scripture then...

1. Catholics treat scripture and tradition equally, and claim that the church has the ultimate authority to interpret.

2. Mormons treat scripture as sacred, and claim that it must be understood in light of the living prophet's declarations.

3. Protestants rely on scripture as the ultimate source for understanding God's will, under the direction of the Holy Ghost, of course. Pastors and teachers are gifted by the Holy Ghost to present these words for people, but each believer also can study and understand individually, and is expected to do so.

Haven't I gotten at least the overview right?

[BenRaines]

Sounds like a pretty good understanding to me without going in to a major discussion.

[prisonchaplain]

What Mormons think of the Bible is a book lenght topic. In fact, it is a book - an excellent and erudite one: Mormons and the Bible - The Place of the Latter-day Saints in American Religion by Philip L. Barlow. The books shows, correctly, that Mormon and Mormon leader attitudes towards the Bible comprise an extraordinary mix of conservative, liberal, and radical ingredients. Joseph Smith had no problem correcting and improving the Bible. Other's would think the bible untouchable. When asked whether they believed that the Scriptures are the inspired and inerrant Word of God in faith, history, and secular matters, Mormons are more like Lutherans, and Methodists and less like Pentecostals and Baptists. My experience with Mormons - and I have a lot alotta experience with Mormons that generally they believe the Bible to be much more historically literal and accurate than I do. However, most Mormons, like the general population are much less familiar with higher and textual criticism than some people are.

Thank you. This assessment matches up well with my experience here...everything from your "liberal Methodist/Lutheran" perspective to the almost fundamentalist approach of others.

One thing about Mormons. Mormonism produces more scientists per captia than any other religion (if you use Utah as a rough surrogate for Mormonsim). I believe that the more one understands reason and science, the more one is forced into different understanding of the bible - that not all of it can possibly represent accurate literal history. Certainly Mormons aren't different that other educated folks in that regard but Mormons, as a people, are more educated than the general population.

The demographics you suggest may or may not be accurate. However, it is worth noting that a more liberal understanding of the Holy Bible creates far less challenge to basic Mormon theology than it does to evangelical beliefs. So, a Mormon achieving higher education might be much more maleable to adopting such views than an evangelical.

The formal LDS position is that we believe the Bible to be the word of God in as far as it is translated correctly and that is an abbreviated way of saying about the same thing as the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy. When Mormons say "translated" they also think about transmission. Some Mormons would think that the bible was tampered with by the Catholic Church though educated Mormons understand that tampering with the text is probably minimal if any, and that the bigger issue would be with the canonization and selection process. Mormons do not think that the entirety of the gospel is found in the bible nor does the bible comprise all ancient scripture.

Bravo! I think you've hit the essential issue, here. The Mormon canon is extremely open, and the issue is less essential, anyway, since scripture is always subject to the living prophets' interpretations and pronouncements. Since the evangelical canon is closed in practice, and has been unchanged for roughly 1600 years, we have much more writing on the reliability of the Holy Bible vis a vis archeology, etc.

I would say that evangelicals, especially the more fundamental ones, see the bible almost as an object of worship, like it itself is the gospel.

The catch phrase you are looking for is "Bibolatry." I might accuse anti-Pentecostal fundamentalists of this, since they will fall on the sword of every miracle in the Bible, yet deny that God would let one take place today. Don't mess with the Bible! We don't need miracles today, because we have the Bible and it's complete. Yes, that comes close to bibolatry.

Evangelicals also have a much higher view of scripture, to be sure. However, I liken the Bible to an anchor. Humans may fail, interpretations may vary...but the Word itself remains there. The beauty of the priesthood of all believers is that you are not subject to the interpretations of men...even those who may be more theologically versed than you. Sometimes the simple do confound the wise.

I think it is just the man's written record of the gospel. It's not magical. It's an abstraction of the complete thing - God's truth and plan. That's probably a general LDS notion as well though almost all other Mormons attach more reverence to the bible than I do - at least the way I do as I play the devil's advocate in our discussions here.

If you're able to discern the essential truths with this approach, it's still a blessing. My sense is that I simply see God as much more aggressively willing to intervene in our affairs, in sometimes fantastic ways.

The Standard Works are not held in higher esteem than the bible. The bible is the biggest single component of the Standard Works. It is on par with any other scripture, modern or ancient. Is it more or less important than the words or our living prophet? I don't look at it that way. We accept as a matter of faith that the bible was written by prophets (or those inspired like prophets). We also accept that prophets today are inspired. Their teaching are obviously more focused on what we are facing and doing today but the bible and other parts of the Standard Works are our canon, the stick by which other teachings are measured.

This is perhaps the most useful post of yours I've read to date. Many thanks.

[Snow]

PC,

Yes - the LDS canon is open but I would say that Christian interpretation of the bible is, over the last 2000 years, at least as open and the LDS view the canon itself.

Certainly the interpretation of today's Christians is much much different than historical views of other eras.

[LionHeart]

Here is a little history of the translation of the bible: A man named William Tyndale who lived back in the 1500s made the first english translation of the bible. The only problem was it was not authorized by the Church. This was illegal in England so he went to Germany to do it. He was translating from the original Hebrew text. There were a few words and terms he had to "invent" because there was not an english word for it at the time, such as 'atonement' and 'brother's keeper' and 'salt of the earth' and a few more. Eventually the church caught up with him, arrested him, and burned him at the stake. His last words were "Lord, open the eyes of the king of England" His work however, later became the foundation of many of the modern versions; the king James version being one of them. King James authorized his version as the official version for England at the time, however some say that his scribes added many of their own ideas. This is why the LDS say they believe it is true as far as it is translated correctly, and also why Joseph Smith began his own translation of it. Joseph Smith studied a few different languages in his time, Latin, Hebrew, Greek, and German being among them. He said that the German translation is the closest to the Hebrew version; pointing out that in the English version, the word "create" is actually replace with the word "organize" in the German version. Another thing he pointed out is that when translating the bible, the translator read the Hebrew word "Elohiem" and left it the same in the translations; assuming that was the name of God. However, the way it is actually understood by the Hebrews is "God" in a plural sense, or "the Gods."

[Ray]

I agree with everything Traveler has said, and I also agree with just about everything Snow has said, except for the following quote, although I think I may know what he meant.

Mormons do not think that the entirety of the gospel is found in the bible...

Or in other words, I would say that the fullness of the gospel can be found within the pages of the Holy Bible, and the Book of Mormon, but by that I do not mean that all of the truth we’ve ever had or now have available from God is contained in either or those books, or collections of books.

Or in other words, the gospel of Jesus Christ is simply that God, the Father, sent Jesus Christ, or the person we now refer to as Jesus Christ, to save us from our sins, with that "salvation" predicated upon Faith in Jesus Christ, Repentance from our (individual) sins, Baptism to signify that we are willing to keep His commandments, Receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost as He tries to help us come to a better knowledge of Jesus Christ and all other things which are true, and Enduring to the end of our lives, forever, trying to become as good as we can possibly be.

And btw, that’s a paraphrase from some other words which some people consider to be scripture.

And having now said that, I will now share what I believe to be an improved version of “Mormon” ideology for the benefit of prisonchaplain:

2. Mormons claim priestly and apostolic authority, in that Joseph was a latter day prophet, and God used him to restore the Christian church. He also restored two orders of priesthood, the apostolic line, and the prophetic line.

The ideas of “priestly” and “apostolic” authority doesn’t sound right to most of us [LDS] because most of us don’t use those terms, and by my understanding of what you said those terms don’t seem to be in harmony with our beliefs.

Or in other words, the two orders of priesthood which were restored are not known as “apostolic” and “prophetic” orders of priesthood, and it seems a little confusing since most of us [LDS] know that “apostles” and “prophets” have the same order of priesthood.

Or in other words, the two orders of priesthood which were restored are known as the “Aaronic” or “Levitical” priesthood, in reference to the order of priesthood held by Aaron and Levi and their sons, AND the “Melchizedek” priesthood, in reference to the order of priesthood held by Melchizedek, Moses, Abraham, Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Peter, Paul, and all of the other people you now probably consider to be prophets, as well as the Prophets and Apostles of the Church in these latter days, and as well as many other people who were and are members of the true church of Christ who were and are not called as Prophets and Apostles, even though they were and are in fact all prophets and apostles. (hint: the capital letters mean something)

And if you want even more detail than that, I suggest that you search the scriptures to see how Authority and Priesthood is used.

And btw, as I said before, you can be a wonderfully good person (disciple of Christ) without ever obtaining the priesthood, and if you never do what it takes to obtain the priesthood after receiving the knowledge you need to obtain it, you will always be damned or limited in your progression because of having chosen to not obtain it.

2. Mormons treat scripture as sacred, and claim that it must be understood in light of the living prophet's declarations.

Yes, “Mormons” treat scripture as sacred, but No, we do not claim that scripture must be understood in light of the living prophet’s declarations.

We [LDS] claim that the scriptures must be understood in light of the knowledge that we receive through the power of the Holy Ghost, and by receiving our knowledge from God we can also know whether or not the declarations of any prophet or Prophet are true.

Or in other words, as I tried to tell you before, I don’t believe Joseph Smith was a prophet of God simply because Joseph Smith and some other people said he was, and I also don’t believe President Hinckley is a prophet of God simply because President Hinckley and some other people say he is… rather, I believe they were and are both prophets of God because God has told me they were and are prophets of God, through the power of the Holy Ghost.

[Traveler]

Concerning scripture then...

1. Catholics treat scripture and tradition equally, and claim that the church has the ultimate authority to interpret.

2. Mormons treat scripture as sacred, and claim that it must be understood in light of the living prophet's declarations.

3. Protestants rely on scripture as the ultimate source for understanding God's will, under the direction of the Holy Ghost, of course. Pastors and teachers are gifted by the Holy Ghost to present these words for people, but each believer also can study and understand individually, and is expected to do so.

Haven't I gotten at least the overview right?

Just a quick note: I cannot speak for anyone else. If you read there are some really good LDS types on this forum that disagree with my opinions of several matters. That is okay with me because I believe you do not learn anything unless you communicate with someone that has a different opinion. I also find that by expressing my opinion and observing responses I alter my opinion a little.

I do not seem to understanding your view, doctrine and opinions of a few things. Perhaps you can clarify something for me. (Keep in mind that when we agree there is no need to ask questions – so I thank you for you willingness to express yourself) You seem to hold a high opinion of Biblical scripture and I agree. You also seem to think that the Biblical scriptures are the single most reliable source for understanding doctrine and determining divine truth. (If a doctrine is not somewhere in the Bible that such a doctrine must be assumed heresy without compelling reason otherwise.) This is the point that I get confused with what sometimes you seem to express because you then seem to defend and hold to doctrines that I can’t find in the scriptures. You seem to believe such things by default. It is fine what you believe but when I ask where the doctrines and teachings came from (such as the doctrine of Cannon) you do seem to give clear scripture answers. There is another poster that seem to agree with your opinions but when I repeat my question for a clear indication where you learned the teachings, concepts or doctrines - rather than answer the question I am though of as a doubter of G-d and his scriptures. This is fine, I guess, because I do not control what anyone else thinks but it would really help me if you we or your supporter would answer where you learned what you believe.

If you believe the doctrine that authority to organize a church and to baptize disciples comes from Biblical scripture – would you show me the example of this taking place in scripture? I find the opposite in scripture, where some well meaning believers attempted to cast out some evil spirits in the name of Jesus as taught by one of the Apostles. It appears to me that at least in this case that the doctrine of authority from believing in Jesus is not dependable.

The Traveler

[Snow]

Or in other words, I would say that the fullness of the gospel can be found within the pages of the Holy Bible, and the Book of Mormon, but by that I do not mean that all of the truth we’ve ever had or now have available from God is contained in either or those books, or collections of books.

That's incorrect.

While "fullness of the gospel" does not mean every single teaching, it does mean all teaching necessary for salvation and exaltation. The Book of Mormon and Bible do not contain all such matters.

[Ray]

Snow,

By my understanding of what you regard as the definition of “fullness of the gospel”, NOBODY on this Earth has all of the teachings necessary for salvation and exaltation, in any form of instruction, given anywhere, including our temples. And even most of the people from this Earth who are now on the other side of the veil do not have all of those teachings either, otherwise they would already be fully saved and exalted to the point of not needing to be taught any more.

What we do have, however, and what I believe the phrase, “fullness of the gospel”, refers to, is all of the teachings necessary to let us know what God has given us and what we can have as we exercise our Faith in God and accept everything He loves to teach us.

Or in other words, borrowing from the words I just gave prisonchaplain:

…the “fullness of the gospel” of Jesus Christ is simply that God, the Father, sent Jesus Christ, or the person we now refer to as Jesus Christ, to save us from our sins, with that "salvation" predicated upon Faith in Jesus Christ, Repentance from our (individual) sins, Baptism to signify that we are willing to keep His commandments, Receiving the gift(s) of the Holy Ghost as He tries to help us come to a better knowledge of Jesus Christ and all other things which are true, and Enduring to the end of our lives, forever, trying to become as good as we can possibly be.

And if that’s not clear enough for you, try hearing the words of our Lord:

Behold I have given unto you my gospel, and this is the gospel which I have given unto you—that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me. And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil— and for this cause have I been lifted up; therefore, according to the power of the Father I will draw all men unto me <through Faith>, that they may be judged according to their works. And it shall come to pass, that whoso repenteth and is baptized <immersed in water> in my name <in my authority> shall be filled <with the Holy Ghost>; and if he endureth to the end, behold, him will I hold guiltless before my Father at that day when I shall stand to judge the world. And he that endureth not unto the end, the same is he that is also hewn down and cast into the fire, from whence they can no more return, because of the justice of the Father. – 3 Nephi 27:13-17

And btw, the Introduction to the Book of Mormon, written by some of the leaders of our Church, also states the fullness of the gospel is contained within the Bible, as well as the Book of Mormon, and by saying that they must have meant something other than to give the idea that everything we need to know is contained within the Bible, or Book of Mormon.

So there, you’ve now been corrected, in English.

[Jason]

This revelation hit me today, quite strongly. The doctrine of Restored Gospel means that Mormons reject everything that happened in the church from about 100-1820 AD. So, of course, all the councils, the forming of the canon, etc. would be deemed without authority, and church history would be considered more or less a study of a non-Christian cult.

That depends on which flavor of the "restored gospel" you like. For the LDS church, such is more or less the case. However, for the Community of Christ (formerly known as the RLDS) they don't put such a definitive date placement on apostasy. They're more like the Baptists who feel like god has more or less governed his church but waited until the reformation to really get things going.

Furthermore, as Traveler has intimated, even the Old Testament, being compiled by religious authorities who's descendents would reject the Messiah, are not considered fully authoritative. So, who defines the canon? Of course, the restored Christian church. So, yes, Ray, I get it.

Im pretty sure that this is just Traveler's opinion. I've not heard of any LDS authority rejecting the OT because of some supposedly unrighteous descendants.

That's akin to throwing away the Book of Mormon because the Lamanites became unrighteous. Doesn't make any sense.

When, in the 1500s the Roman Catholic church tried to bolster its tradition against the emerging Protestant theology by canonizing the Apocrapha (which does have passages supporting Purgatory, etc.), over 1000 years after the canon had been finalized and left unchanged, well, to Protestants it seemed to be a clearly defensive moved--rather than an inspired one.

I detect a number of errors with this statement. First, the RCC used the Deutorcanonical books throughout the entire life of the church. It only defined what was first canon and what was second canon during the Reformation. Why? Who really knows for sure. Perhaps it was at the insistance of the reformers who began to preach sola scriptura. I cannot say for sure.

Second, you seem to be leaving out the second largest branch of Christianity when you speak. Eastern Orthodoxy, at 100 Million strong, has not closed the Old Testament Canon. To my knowledge, they are the only church that has not done so. They regard the Deutrocanonical books as equals with the rest. They were largely unaffected by the entire Reformation (though it seems that Martin Luther did make at least one attempt to allign himself with the Bishops of the East), and continue on through this day without having made any definitive resolution on what to include and what to leave out (this includes such questionables as 4 Esdras and Odes of Solomon).

[prisonchaplain]

That depends on which flavor of the "restored gospel" you like. For the LDS church, such is more or less the case. However, for the Community of Christ (formerly known as the RLDS) they don't put such a definitive date placement on apostasy. They're more like the Baptists who feel like god has more or less governed his church but waited until the reformation to really get things going.

Well, here at LDStalk.com, I'm mainly interesting in the 97.5% of Mormons that follow the main LDS sect of Mormonism.

Im pretty sure that this is just Traveler's opinion. I've not heard of any LDS authority rejecting the OT because of some supposedly unrighteous descendants.

Perhaps. However, there seems to be plenty of skepticism here about my tendency to look to rabbinic and Jewish perspectives for Old Testament passages. My argument is that Jews have valuable insights into the meaning of Jewish writings. The response has often been, "But they couldn't even recognize the Messiah when he came."

I detect a number of errors with this statement. First, the RCC used the Deutorcanonical books throughout the entire life of the church. It only defined what was first canon and what was second canon during the Reformation. Why? Who really knows for sure. Perhaps it was at the insistance of the reformers who began to preach sola scriptura. I cannot say for sure.

Perhaps I overstated the Catholic actions at Trent. However, that these books were relegated to "secondary" status may also be evidence that the criticisms were too compelling to be ignored.

Second, you seem to be leaving out the second largest branch of Christianity when you speak. Eastern Orthodoxy, at 100 Million strong, has not closed the Old Testament Canon. To my knowledge, they are the only church that has not done so. They regard the Deutrocanonical books as equals with the rest. They were largely unaffected by the entire Reformation (though it seems that Martin Luther did make at least one attempt to allign himself with the Bishops of the East), and continue on through this day without having made any definitive resolution on what to include and what to leave out (this includes such questionables as 4 Esdras and Odes of Solomon).

Second largest? Well, perhaps if you insist that each Protestant denomination is a branch. However, most breakdowns I've seen go like this:

1. Catholic: 1 billion

2. Protestant: 1 billion

3. Orthodox: .1 billion

My primary argument against canonizing the Apocrapha is that they are considered Old Testament era Jewish writings. So, if the Jewish religious authorities did not consider them Scripture, what compelling reason do we have for doing so?

[Ray]

My primary argument against canonizing the Apocrapha is that they are considered Old Testament era Jewish writings. So, if the Jewish religious authorities did not consider them Scripture, what compelling reason do we have for doing so?

Heh, can’t you answer your own question with your own answer?

…But they couldn't even recognize the Messiah when he came."

And btw, while I do see some value in learning about Israel’s cultural history from the people I would expect to be familiar with the culture and history of Israel, just as I can also see some value in learning about American cultural history from the people I would expect to be familiar with the culture and history of America, I’d carefully consider all the information I gathered while knowing how blind some people can be.

[Jason]

Second largest? Well, perhaps if you insist that each Protestant denomination is a branch. However, most breakdowns I've seen go like this:

1. Catholic: 1 billion

2. Protestant: 1 billion

3. Orthodox: .1 billion

I do insist. I don't know how anyone could possible consider such diverse theologies as Mormons, Independent Baptists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists, ELCA Lutherans and Pentecostals, and the more traditional Episcopalian, Lutheran (Missouri Synod), Prebyterian among others as a single religion.

Seriously, can you make an argument for this? You do realize just how different the theologies are among these churches, right?

(Edit: I spoke to a Southern Baptist recently, and the specifically refused to consider themselves a "Protestant". Technically, she's right, because her faith never protested against Rome. So your definitions are wrong.)

My primary argument against canonizing the Apocrapha is that they are considered Old Testament era Jewish writings. So, if the Jewish religious authorities did not consider them Scripture, what compelling reason do we have for doing so?

First, I consider the word "apocrypha" a degenerative word used by Protestants to insult these texts. Please use Deutrocannon.

Second, the Jewish authorites you speak of opposed the deutrocanon because they come from the LXX. The LXX was written in Greek, and that's the reason they oppose it. Until their pseudo-counsel in the late first century, the Jews had no problems with the deutrocanon, except they seemed to substantiate the Christians more than they did the orthodox Jewish view of the time.

[Ray]

<div class='quotemain'>

Second largest? Well, perhaps if you insist that each Protestant denomination is a branch. However, most breakdowns I've seen go like this:

1. Catholic: 1 billion

2. Protestant: 1 billion

3. Orthodox: .1 billion

I do insist. I don't know how anyone could possible consider such diverse theologies as Mormons, Independent Baptists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists, ELCA Lutherans and Pentecostals, and the more traditional Episcopalian, Lutheran (Missouri Synod), Prebyterian among others as a single religion.

Seriously, can you make an argument for this? You do realize just how different the theologies are among these churches, right?

(Edit: I spoke to a Southern Baptist recently, and the specifically refused to consider themselves a "Protestant". Technically, she's right, because her faith never protested against Rome. So your definitions are wrong.)

I think the groupings are trying to bind people together by various "Christian" religions, according to what they have in common, and for the most part I agree with what they’re trying to say by doing that although I’d rather see us together... instead of as members of separate groups.

For instance, the grouping of “Catholics” includes Roman Catholics and Greek Orthodox Catholicism, and possibly some other “Catholic” groups that I'm not personally familiar with.

The "Protestant" group includes those who protested against Rome and the other splinter groups, including the RCCOLDS or CoC who protested against the Church that was restored.

And btw, we, the members of the CoJCoLDS, do not belong in a grouping of either Catholics or Protestants, because we didn’t protest against anyone. Rather, we belong in a grouping of one group who recognizes that the Church was in fact “restored”.

<div class='quotemain'>

My primary argument against canonizing the Apocrapha is that they are considered Old Testament era Jewish writings. So, if the Jewish religious authorities did not consider them Scripture, what compelling reason do we have for doing so?

First, I consider the word "apocrypha" a degenerative word used by Protestants to insult these texts. Please use Deutrocannon.

Second, the Jewish authorites you speak of opposed the deutrocanon because they come from the LXX. The LXX was written in Greek, and that's the reason they oppose it. Until their pseudo-counsel in the late first century, the Jews had no problems with the deutrocanon, except they seemed to substantiate the Christians more than they did the orthodox Jewish view of the time.

Good points for you, Jason. You do come in handy at times. :)

[Snow]

Snow,

By my understanding of what you regard as the definition of “fullness of the gospel”, NOBODY on this Earth has all of the teachings necessary for salvation and exaltation, in any form of instruction, given anywhere, including our temples.

That is incorrect. All doctrines, laws and ordinance necessary for exaltation are available through the restored Church in this, the dispensation of the fullness of times. Indeed a man may have his calling and election made sure while still on this earth.

And even most of the people from this Earth who are now on the other side of the veil do not have all of those teachings either, otherwise they would already be fully saved and exalted to the point of not needing to be taught any more.

That is incorrect. One's exaltation is not soley dependent upon the possession of all teachings. Many other factors including obedience and ordinance are also required. Additionally, there is no promise that once a person has learned all required matters that exaltation must immediately follow. For most of us there is still the issue of a future and final judgement.

What we do have, however, and what I believe the phrase, “fullness of the gospel”, refers to, is all of the teachings necessary to let us know what God has given us and what we can have as we exercise our Faith in God and accept everything He loves to teach us.

That doesn't even make sense.

…the “fullness of the gospel” of Jesus Christ is simply that God, the Father, sent Jesus Christ, or the person we now refer to as Jesus Christ, to save us from our sins, with that "salvation" predicated upon Faith in Jesus Christ, Repentance from our (individual) sins, Baptism to signify that we are willing to keep His commandments, Receiving the gift(s) of the Holy Ghost as He tries to help us come to a better knowledge of Jesus Christ and all other things which are true, and Enduring to the end of our lives, forever, trying to become as good as we can possibly be.

That is a simple formula for salvation. It is not sufficient for exaltation and therefor does not constitute the fullness of the gospel. For example, exaltation requires temple ordinances.

And btw, the Introduction to the Book of Mormon, written by some of the leaders of our Church, also states the fullness of the gospel is contained within the Bible, as well as the Book of Mormon, and by saying that they must have meant something other than to give the idea that everything we need to know is contained within the Bible, or Book of Mormon.

That is incorrect. The Book of Mormon does not have an introduction. It has a title page, a Brief Analysis of the Book of Mormon and the Origin of the Book of Mormon taken from the History of the Church and the Testimonies of the witnesses and none of those refer to the fullness of the gospel being found in the bible.

So there, you’ve now been corrected, in English.

With the exception that you have been factually wrong on every single point in your post.

[LionHeart]

The idea that the fullness of the gospel is contained in the Book of Mormon does seem to be a common misconception. Here is the truth as far the book of mormon saying so in the introduction: All Book of Mormons published before 1980 did not say anything about it. Publications in 1980 and after, had an introduction added in which it states the fullness of the gospel is contained therein as well as in the bible. The year 1980 is also when many changes in the text of the Book of Mormon were made.

But if you knew the teachings of the early leaders, you would know that the fulness of the gospel is not contained in either book.

My understanding of the Book of Mormon is that it is a foundation to build on. Something to get people to begin to understand the LDS theology. Back when it was first translated, the idea that God was once a man was unheard of. There was a first step that was required, which was the Book of Mormon, that people could take to get them headed down the path to an understanding of LDS theology.

[prisonchaplain]

<div class='quotemain'>

Second largest? Well, perhaps if you insist that each Protestant denomination is a branch. However, most breakdowns I've seen go like this:

1. Catholic: 1 billion

2. Protestant: 1 billion

3. Orthodox: .1 billion

I do insist. I don't know how anyone could possible consider such diverse theologies as Mormons, Independent Baptists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists, ELCA Lutherans and Pentecostals, and the more traditional Episcopalian, Lutheran (Missouri Synod), Prebyterian among others as a single religion.Seriously, can you make an argument for this? You do realize just how different the theologies are among these churches, right?

Keep in mind that this breakdown is Christianity at its simplest. It's based more on the historical development, than on theology. And, as different as the theologies and worship styles may seem, most of these groups consider members of the others to be fellow Christians.

I noticed that you bunched Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons in with Protestants. I'm not sure whether these groups are included in the bunchings or not, since Jehovah's Witnesses do not consider the rest of "Christendom" to be Christian at all. Also, as Ray pointed out, the LDS are in the unique position of considering themselves both the sole truly restored Christians, and at the same time wishing to be "included" by other Christians. The Bureau of Prisons has labeled these groups "Christian - Other" based on their inability to be properly accommodated by a general Christian service.

(Edit: I spoke to a Southern Baptist recently, and the specifically refused to consider themselves a "Protestant". Technically, she's right, because her faith never protested against Rome. So your definitions are wrong.)

I'm familiar with the argument, and on a technical level, yes, it might be true. The SBC also is not a member of the National Association of Evangelicals. Nevertheless, on a popular level, they are both Protestant and Evangelical.

First, I consider the word "apocrypha" a degenerative word used by Protestants to insult these texts. Please use Deutrocannon.

I am a Protestant, and the word is commonly used in academic writings. The word does show skepticism, which I have. It's not pejorative though. Even Catholics consider these writings "secondary canon."

Second, the Jewish authorites you speak of opposed the deutrocanon because they come from the LXX. The LXX was written in Greek, and that's the reason they oppose it. Until their pseudo-counsel in the late first century, the Jews had no problems with the deutrocanon, except they seemed to substantiate the Christians more than they did the orthodox Jewish view of the time.

I seem to have read concerns about the nature of the miracles, etc. in these writings. However, I'll have do some some research before I can comment intelligently.

[Snow]

The idea that the fullness of the gospel is contained in the Book of Mormon does seem to be a common misconception. Here is the truth as far the book of mormon saying so in the introduction: All Book of Mormons published before 1980 did not say anything about it. Publications in 1980 and after, had an introduction added in which it states the fullness of the gospel is contained therein as well as in the bible.

Hmmm,

I stand corrected. My 1971 BoM does not have an introduction, but my wife's 1989 does.

However, my 2001 does not, nor does my 1920 nor my 1889 (but it's in Maori so I can't be sure).

[roman]

For my $.02 worth there is this question------On what matter, topic, or subject does the the Bible fail? Can it be trusted to bring comfort, understanding of God, healing to hurts. Can it be insperational or motivational?

What topics does it lead you astry on? When a person can positivly answer these questions----then they may have a legitimate stance on the unreliability of the Bible and not wanting to trust it

[Serg]

"This revelation hit me today, quite strongly. The doctrine of Restored Gospel means that Mormons reject everything that happened in the church from about 100-1820 AD. So, of course, all the councils, the forming of the canon, etc. would be deemed without authority, and church history would be considered more or less a study of a non-Christian cult." Quote of PrisonChaplain

No brother. We hold the Bible as divine as the Book Of Mormon, but one diference is that the BoM had only three scribes and ONE translator, but the Bible had hundreds and hundreds of philosophical backgrounds...

With Restored Gospel, we dont mean that everything between 100-1830 was wrong. Thats a contradiction for we hold the composition of Christ's Church, that as far as i know was not completaly destroyed in 100 a.C.. Furthermore, dont let your self be mislead by members of the church who, under the persecution of other christians, have come to defend the BoM so much, that have come to "love" it mORE than the Bible...

We have an equal faith. We hold the same every wise Protestant holds, that in manner of doctrine the Bible is as perfect as the BoM but as to the translations(and hence later doctrines) is obviously filled with many errors...

We have now Prophets that lead us to understand the Bible again, and have restored our Faith in IT through another witness, another PART of your Bible, the BoM.

Regards