How True, Trustworthy And Authoritative Is The Bible?

[Ray]

Snow,

I’ll try to put this in nutshells for you, to help prevent you from becoming confused.

First, the gospel is simply the “good news” declaring the fact that Jesus Christ is our Savior.

Or in other words, the gospel does not include any of the teachings and ordinances He (Jesus Christ) requires us to accept before He will grant us exaltation.

Or in other words, all the information we [LDS] have about exaltation is “relative” to the “good news” (of Jesus Christ), not the message itself, but “related” to the message, as life is related to living.

Or in other words, all of those details “related” to the gospel are not the gospel message, they are simply more details “related” to the gospel which give us more details of our Savior, including everyone "who" is involved in our salvation, “what” it means to be saved, “where” salvation happened, “when” God saved us, “why” God saved us, and “how” God saved or did save us.

Or in other words, to know that Mary gave birth to our Savior we don’t need to know "all" about Mary or Jesus, and all the details we might learn about Mary and Jesus are in addition to knowing our Savior.

Anyway, try thinking of the difference between the scriptures in all of the "standard" works contrasted to all the other words of God.

Second, we will all be resurrected after death despite what we do, and that is the gift of salvation. And I say this because you seem to think people need to do and know certain things before salvation can ever be granted.

Or in other words, salvation does not include exaltation, just as the gospel does not include all of the teachings and ordinances “related” to the gospel. But yes, we do need to be saved to receive exaltation, just as we need a Savior to receive His teachings and ordinances.

Or in other words, we can’t achieve exaltation by simply doing what other people tell us we need to know or do, unless we actually know we have a Savior and He has authorized those teachings and ordinances.

Or in other words, we can’t achieve exaltation by simply allowing someone to lay their hands upon our head to bless us (as they say) with the “gift” of the Holy Ghost, unless we actually know that we will receive the gift of the Holy Ghost as the Holy Ghost has taught and will teach us.

Or in other words, we can’t simply make up our own rules here while believing that whatever we do or believe will “save” or “exalt” us, because we have to know we are actually guided by God while doing everything He has taught and will teach us.

And finally, the fact that you said that there is no Introduction to the Book of Mormon doesn’t mean that it isn’t there, and if you can’t see it after I told you it’s there and opening the book there’s not much more I can do to help you.

[Ray]

<div class='quotemain'>

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).

I see this post now, and I'm happy you've finally found it.

And btw, while I don't know why it's not in your 2001 edition, I do know our leaders have written it, and knowing they wrote it I know there is a reason they wrote it, and the reasoning I gave you explains it.

[Snow]

Snow,

I’ll try to put this in nutshells for you, to help prevent you from becoming confused.

First, the gospel is simply the “good news” declaring the fact that Jesus Christ is our Savior.

Or in other words, the gospel does not include any of the teachings and ordinances He (Jesus Christ) requires us to accept before He will grant us exaltation.

Like most everything you say on the topic - THAT IS INCORRECT - again.

The prophet, seer and revelator Bruce R. McConkie saidL " The gospel of Jesus Christ is the the plan of salvation. It embraces all of the laws, principles, doctrines, rites, ordinances, acts, powers, authorities, and keys necessary to save and exalt men the highest order of heaven."

The prophet, seer and revelator Brigham Young said: "Gospel of the Son of God that has been revealed is a plan or system of laws and ordinances, by strict obedience to which the people who inhabit this earth are assured that they may return again into the presence of the Father and the Son"

The prophet, see and revelator Joseph F. Smith said: "In the theological sense, the gospel means more than just the tidings of good news, with accompanying joy to the souls of men, for it embraces every principle of eternal truth. There is no fundamental principle, or truth anywhere in the universe, that is not embraced in the gospel of Jesus Christ, and it is not confined to the simple first principles, such as faith in God, repentance from sin, baptism for the remission of sins, and the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, although these are absolutely essential to salvation and exaltation in the kingdom of God

The prophet, seer and revelator Ezra Taft Benson said: "...he gospel embraces all truth, all light, all revealed knowledge to mankind."

Ray - don't you ever check anything before you speak up on topics about which you are uninformed? It would save much embarrasment later.

Or in other words, salvation does not include exaltation, just as the gospel does not include all of the teachings and ordinances “related” to the gospel.

Not surprizingly, THAT IS INCORRECT - again.

You are giving a narrow explanation of salvation.

The Apostle Dallin H. Oaks explains correctly: "... the words saved and salvation are also used to denote exaltation or eternal life (see Abr. 2:11). This is sometimes referred to as the “fulness of salvation” (Bruce R. McConkie, The Mortal Messiah, 4 vols. [1979–81], 1:242). This salvation requires more than repentance and baptism by appropriate priesthood authority. It also requires the making ofsacred covenants, including eternal marriage, in the temples of God, and faithfulness to those covenants by enduring to the end."

Buy a book, open it, read it before you post for heaven's sake.

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.

I just noticed this today when another poster mentioned it. I'm think you are speaking emotionally rather than from knowledge about Mormonism that you surely must possess. The Bible, specifically the good ole Protestant Bible is the biggest part of the LDS canon. It is official LDS policy and procedure so to speak.

Additionally, Mormons believe that much good and truth is to be found in the faith traditions of all or many branches of Christianity.

I personally believe that the Catholic Church was, in some ways, one of the lonely beacons of light through the "dark ages."

[prisonchaplain]

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.

I just noticed this today when another poster mentioned it. I'm think you are speaking emotionally rather than from knowledge about Mormonism that you surely must possess. The Bible, specifically the good ole Protestant Bible is the biggest part of the LDS canon. It is official LDS policy and procedure so to speak.

Saying that a revelation hit me might sound "emotional," but my point was not. Yes, I'm aware that Mormons embrace the KJV Bible as part of their canon. And Serg refined this understanding, by saying that Mormon leadership has added understanding to this set of Scripture, and that the only concern is in translation.

So, as an aside, why insist on the KJV, when there are more accurate versions out there (clearer ones, too)?

Back to topic: My argument is that the compilation of the Bible--and the book's status itself--is only canon because the LDS Church leadership says so. The whole point in questions about the Apocrapha, about the Coptic and Orthodox churches, etc. is to point out that any non-LDS Christian canon does not become authoritative--and indeed is suspect--until the LDS church leadership approve it. I'm not even necessarily saying this as criticism, but rather as "Oh, I get it." Quite frankly, we Protestant (and I would guess Catholics too), never really questioned how the biblical canon came to be. I suppose, since the Quad is relatively recent history, this is all fairly fresh for Mormons.

Additionally, Mormons believe that much good and truth is to be found in the faith traditions of all or many branches of Christianity.

Yes, of course. I understand this, and know that you believe it. The question is not about goodness or truth, but authority. Any truth the non-LDS segment of Christianity has becomes truth when the leadership says, "Okay...let's embrace this."

I personally believe that the Catholic Church was, in some ways, one of the lonely beacons of light through the "dark ages."

As a "what if" game for any Catholic critics (and my movement has plenty), the simple question is, would any group handle that much power without a fair amount of corruption on the part of some in leadership? I still say Lord Acton got it right.

[Snow]

So, as an aside, why insist on the KJV, when there are more accurate versions out there (clearer ones, too)?

I don't insist on the KJV. I have a NIV, a New American Standard, a NKJV, a KJV and an NAB, plus a Greek NT I can't read. There is nothing magical about the KJV. Half the LDS Church does not use the KJV as they don't speak English.

You can use any translation you want - you may get some funny looks because it would be unusual but the Church hasn't canonized a particular translation, although it is fair to say that since the KJV is the only English bible the Church publishes that there is a quasi-semi (but not definitive) official status to it.

Back to topic: My argument is that the compilation of the Bible--and the book's status itself--is only canon because the LDS Church leadership says so. The whole point in questions about the Apocrapha, about the Coptic and Orthodox churches, etc. is to point out that any non-LDS Christian canon does not become authoritative--and indeed is suspect--until the LDS church leadership approve it.

Yes I suppose that is technically true but Joseph Smith and all early Church leaders came out of the Protestant tradition and accepted the Bible as authoritative before there even was an LDS Church. They later affirmed what they already accepted prior to Mormonism.

Quite frankly, we Protestant (and I would guess Catholics too), never really questioned how the biblical canon came to be. I suppose, since the Quad is relatively recent history, this is all fairly fresh for Mormons.

Mormons certainly know about the origen of the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenant; less so about the Book of Abraham and then even less so about the Book of Moses. Mormons are about as uneducated as everybody else when it comes to the origen of the Bible.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE

Additionally, Mormons believe that much good and truth is to be found in the faith traditions of all or many branches of Christianity.

Yes, of course. I understand this, and know that you believe it. The question is not about goodness or truth, but authority. Any truth the non-LDS segment of Christianity has becomes truth when the leadership says, "Okay...let's embrace this."

That's true. We think your mostly on to a good thing but have no authority. We want it both ways. We want you to call us Christian but we don't want you to get upset when we tell you that you have no authority in Chiristian matters. In a way, we are a bit snobbish.

As a "what if" game for any Catholic critics (and my movement has plenty), the simple question is, would any group handle that much power without a fair amount of corruption on the part of some in leadership? I still say Lord Acton got it right.

My belief in the light in the darkness that was the Catholic Church is geared mainly towards their intellectual tradition, not theological.

[LionHeart]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

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).

I see this post now, and I'm happy you've finally found it.

And btw, while I don't know why it's not in your 2001 edition, I do know our leaders have written it, and knowing they wrote it I know there is a reason they wrote it, and the reasoning I gave you explains it.

Okay, I'm just going to say the thing that we've all been avoiding and get it over with.

I don't think any of us are that blind.

After 1980, the Book of Mormon said that fullness of the gospel was contained in both the Book of Mormon and the Bible. However, we all know that it is not contained in either of them. If it was contained in the Bible, we would not need the Book of Mormon; if it was contained in the both of them together, we would not need the doctrine and Covenants or any of the other later teachings, so why did they say that it was contained in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon? Actually I think I know the answer to this but I would like to hear other's opinion on it.

[prisonchaplain]

You can use any translation you want - you may get some funny looks because it would be unusual but the Church hasn't canonized a particular translation, although it is fair to say that since the KJV is the only English bible the Church publishes that there is a quasi-semi (but not definitive) official status to it.

Okay, this is news. I was under the impression that the LDS had more or less canonized the KJV. There is a school of thought within fundamentalism that says the KJV is the true Bible for English speaking peoples (see Bob Jones University and Florida Christian College for these arguments). However, most evangelicals today use NIV, and those who want word-for-word accuracy lean towards the NASB. Since modern translations have access to much older manuscripts, they tend to be more accurate (not that the KJV is unreliable). Also, with the modern versions, there is less likelihood of misunderstanding as readers internally translate archaic English into their own understanding.

Yes I suppose that is technically true but Joseph Smith and all early Church leaders came out of the Protestant tradition and accepted the Bible as authoritative before there even was an LDS Church. They later affirmed what they already accepted prior to Mormonism.

So, perhaps the adaptation of the KJV was due to the fact that it is what Joseph Smith knew, and the Church's energies were concentrated on explicating it in light of the new Sacred Works. Since they are all understood in-tandem, newer translations might not mesh as neatly. Just speculation on my part.

You and Ray have both hit upon this issue of authority several times. It just hit me as we discussed canon, that authority ties into all of these discussions.

That's true. We think your mostly on to a good thing but have no authority. We want it both ways. We want you to call us Christian but we don't want you to get upset when we tell you that you have no authority in Chiristian matters. In a way, we are a bit snobbish.

Or, perhaps the theology must needs be 'snobbish.' Except, that if it's right, then your merely guilty of being right, and trying hard to get along with those who are less right, without smirking too much. Ultimately, there is a good deal riding on Joseph Smith's testimony.

[Traveler]

The question is not about goodness or truth, but authority.

I still do not understand the Biblical scriptures as authority. Let me say that I see a big difference between exercising authority and giving advice. I see the Biblical scriptures as divine advice without authority. Historically those that have used the Biblical scriptures as authority have been proven to be wrong. For example the concept of a flat earth, the opposition to tides being predictable on the notion of a sun centered solar system. The scriptures are not authority for:

1. Particle Physics.

2. Navigation

3. Explaining the size of the universe

4. Calculating the universal gravitational constant, pi, golden mean, light as a constant, electrical impendence, or thousands of other critical concepts to our society.

Even those that claim authority from scripture seem to me to use it more along the lines of advice. The Bible scripture do not explain the following:

1. Where the doctrine of scripture authority comes from?

2. Any Biblical scripture record where scriptures gave anyone authority?

3. Even those that say Biblical scripture is authority appear to me to deny the doctrine by their actions - looking else where for their real authority.

A. By teaching doctrines that are not found anywhere or relying on vague references in Biblical scripture.

B. By not respecting every and all individuals with scripture as having the same authority.

C. Not using the scriptures. (I am alarmed that those that claim Biblical scripture authority on this forum seldom quote scripture to back their doctrine). As I have visited some churches I find that even when giving sermons that the sermons are maybe 5% scripture and 95% or more non Biblical scriptural references.

If scripture is authority then the Pharisees had authority because they were expert in scripture. As well as David Korish, Jim Jones, Adolf Hitler and also Satan that in Luke chapter 4 used such scripture authority to tempt Jesus. For well over 1500 years the so-called authority of scripture put to death heresy (those that disagreed with their authority) but I am not aware of any Christians doing so today. This, to me, means that ether they really did not have authority or if they did they no longer do today.

No my friends I reject the Bible as authority any anyone that claims such authority. I accept the Bible as advice but I look to G-d and G-d only as authority. If someone does not have authority from G-d - I do not believe they have any authority and if they claim authority from any other source other than G-d I do not trust their advice.

I am sorry PC. Without compelling support (something other than human opinions) of the Bible as authority I will not budge on this.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

I still do not understand the Biblical scriptures as authority. Let me say that I see a big difference between exercising authority and giving advice. I see the Biblical scriptures as divine advice without authority.

I guess it comes down to who you believe the Bible was written for. Take Matthew 28:18-19, for example:

And Jesus came and spake unto them saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations...

Yes, Jesus' initial audience was the disciples. However, the Bible is also written to all believers "unto the end of the world." (Mt. 28:20). So, it's written to me. It's written to all believers. That's my default reading of this, and most such passages. Authority = power, and power is for witnesses unto the uttermost part of the earth. (see Acts 1:8)

In my 32 years as a Christian, I never encountered an alternate understanding of reading Scripture...until I came here. Suddenly, I'm asked, "Why would that passage apply to you? You're not a disciple, nor do you have the authority of the disciples."

I don't know if this helps, Traveler. When Jesus says, in Scripture, to do, most evangelicals believe it means that each of us is to do.

Historically those that have used the Biblical scriptures as authority have been proven to be wrong. For example the concept of a flat earth, the opposition to tides being predictable on the notion of a sun centered solar system. The scriptures are not authority for:

1. Particle Physics.

2. Navigation

3. Explaining the size of the universe

4. Calculating the universal gravitational constant, pi, golden mean, light as a constant, electrical impendence, or thousands of other critical concepts to our society.

Me thinks you are confusing faulty interpretation with biblical authorization. Much of the Bible tells story, and only incidentally relays secular information that might be useful to scientists or other professionals.

1. Where the doctrine of scripture authority comes from?

I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you asking where, in the Bible, it says we should follow the precepts and lessons of the Bible? If so, 2 Timothy 3:16-17

2. Any Biblical scripture record where scriptures gave anyone authority?

I suppose 1 Corinthians 12-14 lists the gifts of the Spirit, including teachers (who explicate Scripture). BTW, it's obviously not that an inanimate object (Bible) gives authority, and that the teachings empower.

3. Even those that say Biblical scripture is authority appear to me to deny the doctrine by their actions - looking else where for their real authority.

A. By teaching doctrines that are not found anywhere or relying on vague references in Biblical scripture.

B. By not respecting every and all individuals with scripture as having the same authority.

C. Not using the scriptures. (I am alarmed that those that claim Biblical scripture authority on this forum seldom quote scripture to back their doctrine). As I have visited some churches I find that even when giving sermons that the sermons are maybe 5% scripture and 95% or more non Biblical scriptural references.

Well, that's a pretty vague set of accusations. If you refer to teachers who also rely on church history and doctrinal development, well, Scripture does tell us that some are gifted as teachers--and these folk also write and consult. Their words are not Holy Scripture, but as understandings undergo peer-criticism, and then are embraced and rejected by the churches, they do carry weight. Other teachers fall by the wayside, when they do not stand up.

As for respecting everyone the same--no of course not. Not everyone who claims to be a gifted teacher is. Not everyone who claims to have a prophetic word does (you might have heard of the 1992 heresy, in Korea, whereby a prophet claimed Jesus would return in October of that year). Yes, we're all equal--but to use a corny refrain--some teachers/leaders are more equal than others.

Finally, quite often a single verse is so powerful, that teachers will use two or three illustrations to highlight the truths. Often illustrations come from personal experience, or from modern accounts.

If scripture is authority then the Pharisees had authority because they were expert in scripture. As well as David Korish, Jim Jones, Adolf Hitler and also Satan that in Luke chapter 4 used such scripture authority to tempt Jesus. For well over 1500 years the so-called authority of scripture put to death heresy (those that disagreed with their authority) but I am not aware of any Christians doing so today. This, to me, means that ether they really did not have authority or if they did they no longer do today.

The authority is in the Truth, and Jesus is the truth (John 14:6). Jesus told us that there would always be false teachers, pretenders, wolves in sheeps clothes--more so as the end of time approaches. During the Seoul Olympics, in 1988, there were 72 different "prophets" circulating their messages in Korea. Where the church leadership comes in, is to oversee the most essential truths and teachings, and to offer guidance. So, yes, there are times when human leadership exercises authority to say "Yea or Nay." However, even then, believers may sincerely disagree. We part and bless one another.

No my friends I reject the Bible as authority any anyone that claims such authority. I accept the Bible as advice but I look to G-d and G-d only as authority. If someone does not have authority from G-d - I do not believe they have any authority and if they claim authority from any other source other than G-d I do not trust their advice.

How very Catholic of you. Protestants say church leadership and tradition must submit to the truths of the Bible. Catholicism says, NO--the Bible and Tradition are equal, and only the Church may interpret them.

[Sugarbay]

You look to G-d? Who is that? Is the "o" missing on your keyboard? It is safe to say the word "God". He won't strike you dead or anyting. He is a god, he is God, that is not his name but his title. It is okay to say God. I think I would feel a little put out if someone was referring to me and left out a definitive letter that would clue the reader as to whom is being talked about. I noticed the same thing about the L-rd. What's up with that?

B)

[Lindy]

My two cents..... I answered a statement a little while back about what is in the scriptures... I still feel the same way...in my heart I know that the scriptures don't tell us about everything.....they were put together by men, and I'm sure that there is a lot missing, a lot that has been thrown away or destroyed... and the parts which were kept were kept for reasons of man.... not God.

But that is just my view on it.

[Traveler]

I guess it comes down to who you believe the Bible was written for. Take Matthew 28:18-19, for example:

And Jesus came and spake unto them saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations...

Yes, Jesus' initial audience was the disciples. However, the Bible is also written to all believers "unto the end of the world." (Mt. 28:20). So, it's written to me. It's written to all believers. That's my default reading of this, and most such passages. Authority = power, and power is for witnesses unto the uttermost part of the earth. (see Acts 1:8)

In my 32 years as a Christian, I never encountered an alternate understanding of reading Scripture...until I came here. Suddenly, I'm asked, "Why would that passage apply to you? You're not a disciple, nor do you have the authority of the disciples."

I don't know if this helps, Traveler. When Jesus says, in Scripture, to do, most evangelicals believe it means that each of us is to do.

I’m just trying to understand how you use the scriptures to come up with the doctrines you do and then explain how I use scriptures. First: The Bible is written to all believers?? You told me earlier that Amos 3 was not written to all believers and that scripture must be understood in the context of who is talking and to who?? But with this scripture you take a different stand??? Why??? I am inclined to think because if fits the evangelical agenda. Second: the scripture you quoted in Matt 28:20 is not understood correctly unless you remember what happened before (Mark 3:14-15) Jesus said “And he ordained twelve that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach.

And to have power to heal sickness, and to cast out devils. Now look at Matt 28:16. This refers to the 11 disciples. In case you missed it there were 12 at the point of Mark 3 but because of Judas there were only 11 in Matt 28. If the Bible scriptures can be trusted the “Authority” of the apostles did not come through scripture but by “Ordination” by Jesus himself. If you believe in Jesus why do you not believe in authority by ordination???

Me thinks you are confusing faulty interpretation with biblical authorization. Much of the Bible tells story, and only incidentally relays secular information that might be useful to scientists or other professionals.

My concern is when I am told that the Bible holds all truth that comes from G-d. I believe that the scriptures have a lot to say about truth, seeking truth and who is the spirit of truth and where truth comes from. My point is simply that the Bible lacks a great deal of truth. If there is another source of truth other than G-d I would be very interested on your opinion about such truth and what source is better than G-d. Or do you agree that the Bible does not hold all of G-d's truth that he has given to man???

I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you asking where, in the Bible, it says we should follow the precepts and lessons of the Bible? If so, 2 Timothy 3:16-17

No - I think you are misusing this scripture. It does not say Bible scripture nor does it say standard or cannon scripture. If fact it specifically avoids in any limiting the meaning to any specific scripture or grouping of scripture. I do not understand why you think this refers only to Bible scripture and as much as I have asked you must not understand the question because you never do answer it.

Well, that's a pretty vague set of accusations. If you refer to teachers who also rely on church history and doctrinal development, well, Scripture does tell us that some are gifted as teachers--and these folk also write and consult. Their words are not Holy Scripture, but as understandings undergo peer-criticism, and then are embraced and rejected by the churches, they do carry weight. Other teachers fall by the wayside, when they do not stand up.

As for respecting everyone the same--no of course not. Not everyone who claims to be a gifted teacher is. Not everyone who claims to have a prophetic word does (you might have heard of the 1992 heresy, in Korea, whereby a prophet claimed Jesus would return in October of that year). Yes, we're all equal--but to use a corny refrain--some teachers/leaders are more equal than others.

Finally, quite often a single verse is so powerful, that teachers will use two or three illustrations to highlight the truths. Often illustrations come from personal experience, or from modern accounts

Again all I am seeking is truth concerning authority. Often (as with the magicians that opposed Moses) there are false claims that work out (turning staffs to snakes). If someone claims authority, and uses scripture but disagrees with someone else that claims authority and uses scripture - How are we to know which is authority based on scripture???

The authority is in the Truth, and Jesus is the truth (John 14:6). Jesus told us that there would always be false teachers, pretenders, wolves in sheeps clothes--more so as the end of time approaches. During the Seoul Olympics, in 1988, there were 72 different "prophets" circulating their messages in Korea. Where the church leadership comes in, is to oversee the most essential truths and teachings, and to offer guidance. So, yes, there are times when human leadership exercises authority to say "Yea or Nay." However, even then, believers may sincerely disagree. We part and bless one another.

I was lead to believe (by Biblical scripture) if you are not one you are not Christ’s???

How very Catholic of you. Protestants say church leadership and tradition must submit to the truths of the Bible. Catholicism says, NO--the Bible and Tradition are equal, and only the Church may interpret them.

I disagree with both the Protestants and Catholics - I believe all things must submit Christ. If something is done in a way different from his example - I'm not too accepting of the idea. I believe him and his example if you what to change how he has shown concerning those that should teach through out the world, you have to come up with something much better than you have.

But thanks for listining and trying to help me understand your point of view. I still believe you have a heart G-d can convince.

The Traveler

[Ray]

prisonchaplain,

To try to put it simply, you seem to believe you can receive authority from God simply by knowing and doing what God has authorized other people to do, without actually receiving authority from God or others whom God has authorized, while we [LDS] believe we can receive authority from God only by actually receiving authority from God or others whom God has authorized.

And by analogy, your belief is like believing someone can become a lawyer in America simply by knowing the laws of America and then doing what lawyers do, without receiving authority from those who can authorize others to become lawyers in America.

And btw, the authority does not come from passing a test, but by actually receiving authority from those who can authorize others to act with authority.

[prisonchaplain]

I’m just trying to understand how you use the scriptures to come up with the doctrines you do and then explain how I use scriptures. First: The Bible is written to all believers?? You told me earlier that Amos 3 was not written to all believers and that scripture must be understood in the context of who is talking and to who?? But with this scripture you take a different stand??? Why??? I am inclined to think because if fits the evangelical agenda.

In Amos 3 God explains to the Israelites that judgment is coming and the prophets have been told, and are compelled to reveal them to the people. So, the message today might well be that God will warn his church when judgment is coming, and that the prophets (whether those who exercise the gift of prophecy, or those who prophecy (or proclaim), will certainly warn the members. It seemed to me that you carried the Amos passage too far when you suggested that it not only justified the modern Mormon church office of prophet, but the passage required it. The main message of Amos is not the importance for the church of the office of prophets, but that God warns his people of judgment--they are without excuse.

By the way, as to your inclination of why I interpret the passages the way I do: I'm not necessarily trying to convince you to change your theology here. I simply want you understand where I and many evangelical/pentecostal types are coming from. It's not an agenda I'm explaining, it's our beliefs. B)

Second: the scripture you quoted in Matt 28:20 is not understood correctly unless you remember what happened before (Mark 3:14-15) Jesus said “And he ordained twelve that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach. And to have power to heal sickness, and to cast out devils. Now look at Matt 28:16. This refers to the 11 disciples. In case you missed it there were 12 at the point of Mark 3 but because of Judas there were only 11 in Matt 28. If the Bible scriptures can be trusted the “Authority” of the apostles did not come through scripture but by “Ordination” by Jesus himself. If you believe in Jesus why do you not believe in authority by ordination???

Yes, and these 12 (or 11) were told to make disciples, who obviously would also make disciples, etc. etc. There's even a denomination called the Disciples of Christ. In Acts 1 Jesus said this good news was to be spread to the uttermost parts of the earth. Clearly, more than 12 were needed.

My concern is when I am told that the Bible holds all truth that comes from G-d. I believe that the scriptures have a lot to say about truth, seeking truth and who is the spirit of truth and where truth comes from. My point is simply that the Bible lacks a great deal of truth. If there is another source of truth other than G-d I would be very interested on your opinion about such truth and what source is better than G-d. Or do you agree that the Bible does not hold all of G-d's truth that he has given to man???

My understanding is that the Holy Bible contains all the truth God wants us to have in writing. Yes, there are prophecies given. Yes, teachers, preachers, evangelists, missionaries explicate truths and applications daily. And yes, there are truths that are not found in the Bible. However, the Bible is complete--it is what God wants it to be for us.

No - I think you are misusing this scripture. It does not say Bible scripture nor does it say standard or cannon scripture. If fact it specifically avoids in any limiting the meaning to any specific scripture or grouping of scripture. I do not understand why you think this refers only to Bible scripture and as much as I have asked you must not understand the question because you never do answer it.

I quoted 2 Timothy 3:16 because you asked me if Scripture was complete, useful or some such inquiry. The passage explains how Scripture is useful. No, it does not refer to the Bible we have today, because the Bible was not yet complete.

Again all I am seeking is truth concerning authority. Often (as with the magicians that opposed Moses) there are false claims that work out (turning staffs to snakes). If someone claims authority, and uses scripture but disagrees with someone else that claims authority and uses scripture - How are we to know which is authority based on scripture???

The first test--which we both would pass--is that truth-tellers recognize Jesus as the Truth, and as Lord. Beyond that, yes, this is why the Lord gave some to be teachers, some to be pastors (overseers, bishops)--why he granted some the gift of discernment. And, ultimately, most Christians do look to their church leaders for protection and direction.

I was lead to believe (by Biblical scripture) if you are not one you are not Christ’s???

I'm afraid I lost the context of your response. Are you suggesting that there can be only one human organization (i.e. denomination) that represents Christ, and that all others would be false? Scripture calls us to be united, not lock-step. Even within Mormon churches, some stakes run differently than others on secondary matters, I'm sure.

I disagree with both the Protestants and Catholics - I believe all things must submit Christ. If something is done in a way different from his example - I'm not too accepting of the idea. I believe him and his example if you what to change how he has shown concerning those that should teach through out the world, you have to come up with something much better than you have.

I'm a little confused here. Yes, it's a cute pat answer to say, "I submit to Christ, not writings, not a church organization." Yet, you seem to have been driving at the argument that ultimately authority comes through apostolic succession--through Joseph Smith to the priestly orders, etc., not through mere Scripture interpretation by any believer who has a thought.

prisonchaplain,

To try to put it simply, you seem to believe you can receive authority from God simply by knowing and doing what God has authorized other people to do, without actually receiving authority from God or others whom God has authorized, while we [LDS] believe we can receive authority from God only by actually receiving authority from God or others whom God has authorized.

To reword what you've surmized: Yes, I believe that God has given his general authority (POWER) for all Christians to "make disciples" to "be witnesses," etc. Not all are pastors, teachers, prophets etc. But all believers have the authority to present the good news to those in their circle of influence--the authority and the obligation, for that matter.

And by analogy, your belief is like believing someone can become a lawyer in America simply by knowing the laws of America and then doing what lawyers do, without receiving authority from those who can authorize others to become lawyers in America.

It's more like saying anyone can do simple household repairs. Yes, professional contractors can do the tasks more efficiently and effectively. Nevertheless, many choose to do minor jobs themselves. Likewise, professionally trained clergy, or missionaries, or evangelists etc. can more correctly, completely, and perhaps powerfully preach the good news than laity. On the other hand, many nonbelievers will not have or seek access to the professionals. Thus, all believers are called to bear witness to the truth they know, and to proclaim God's greatness in word and deed.

And btw, the authority does not come from passing a test, but by actually receiving authority from those who can authorize others to act with authority.

When it comes to presenting the good news, all believers have the authority--or power--to witness--via the Holy Ghost. Acts 1:8

[Snow]

To reword what you've surmized: Yes, I believe that God has given his general authority (POWER) for all Christians to "make disciples" to "be witnesses," etc. Not all are pastors, teachers, prophets etc. But all believers have the authority to present the good news to those in their circle of influence--the authority and the obligation, for that matter.

It's more like saying anyone can do simple household repairs. Yes, professional contractors can do the tasks more efficiently and effectively. Nevertheless, many choose to do minor jobs themselves. Likewise, professionally trained clergy, or missionaries, or evangelists etc. can more correctly, completely, and perhaps powerfully preach the good news than laity. On the other hand, many nonbelievers will not have or seek access to the professionals. Thus, all believers are called to bear witness to the truth they know, and to proclaim God's greatness in word and deed.

Well that's a major difference between Protestant relgion and us. We believe that God is a god of order and part of that order includes passing on of authority by those who have the keys to do so to those that are, in some way prepared to recieve it. In our tradition, one can't hang a shingle outside the door and say, "hey, I represent God, let me baptise you, and collect your tithes."

Can you think of a single instance in scripture where man took upon himself authority to officiate in a sacred ordinance and was acknowledged of the Lord is such administration? No, of course not as there is no such instance. On the other hand the scriptures are full of condemnation for unauthorized ministrations...Korah, Miriam, Uzza - Saul who rather than waiting for Samuel who had authority, thought his kingship good enough but was rejected by God when he made the offerings -Uzziah, The seven sons of Sceva, etc.

And, is not the bible, Old Testament and New alike, not replete of instance after instance of authority being conferred God or by one in authority to do so? Noah, Abraham, Moses, Samuel, Isaiah, Peter, Andrew, James, John, Barnabas and Saul.

Paul specifically tells us that no man takes the honor upon himself, only he who is called of God as was Aaron and Aaron was called though one who had authority to do so - Moses. We believe that God, through an orderly process does the calling, men do not call themselves nor can they buy authority as Simon tried.

It is no surprize to anyone that when you get people calling themselves you wind up with hundreds of sects and denominations, each with their own spin on doctrine. Some enriching themselves on offerings meant for the Lord, and others so full of themselves and their assumed power that they think themselves beyond the mores of society and religion. You get Robert Tilden. Ted Armstrong, Peter Popov, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Baker, Paul Crouch, Oral Roberts, Benny Hinn, Reinhold Bonke, ad naseum, when people purport to take for themselves God's sanction. In my opinion it's a bloody mess. God wouldn't run any organization so devoid of order.

[BenRaines]

Snow, I agree with you on this one 100% I couldn't have said it any better.

There are good men that do good works too but many are crooks and will pay for their misleading and deceptive practices that truly rob God and people.

Ben

[Ray]

I agree with Snow and Ben here, and on the subject of people who do good works without authority from God, I would also like to say that people who do good works without authority from God are only working as men and not servants of God… which is simply another way of saying the same thing we [LDS] have been saying here.

And btw, our Lord has told us that everyone should be doing good works, without waiting to be told to do so, but when we go so far as to claim that God has authorized us to do what we are doing, possibly because we believe God would want us to do what we're doing, possibly because God authorized other people to do that before, we need to realize that God has NOT authorized us to do what we're doing when God has done no such thing.

Or in other words, there are works of God, which are accomplished by God and His authorized servants, who do what God has authorized them to do, and then there are works of Man, which are accomplished by Man and other beings Man has authorized to do work, without authority from God.

Some people just don't seem to see clearly when making distinctions about these things.

Or in other words, prisonchaplain, God authorizes people to do His work and only those people are authorized, and while you may be able to do the same work, you do not have authority from God unless God or His authorized servants have authorized you through the orders He has established for priesthood.

And btw, if it doesn't appear evident to you, prisonchaplain, we [LDS] believe you have not received authority from God, because we [LDS] know how God gives authority to people and you have not fit the bill.

But hey, if you want to keep believing what you believe, I will uphold your right to do so, although I do want to make it perfectly clear that I do not agree with you here.

Heh, and you do seem to make a good pharoah. :)

[Ray]

<div class='quotemain'>

Snow,

I’ll try to put this in nutshells for you, to help prevent you from becoming confused.

First, the gospel is simply the “good news” declaring the fact that Jesus Christ is our Savior.

Or in other words, the gospel does not include any of the teachings and ordinances He (Jesus Christ) requires us to accept before He will grant us exaltation.

Like most everything you say on the topic - THAT IS INCORRECT - again.

The prophet, seer and revelator Bruce R. McConkie saidL " The gospel of Jesus Christ is the the plan of salvation. It embraces all of the laws, principles, doctrines, rites, ordinances, acts, powers, authorities, and keys necessary to save and exalt men the highest order of heaven."

The prophet, seer and revelator Brigham Young said: "Gospel of the Son of God that has been revealed is a plan or system of laws and ordinances, by strict obedience to which the people who inhabit this earth are assured that they may return again into the presence of the Father and the Son"

The prophet, see and revelator Joseph F. Smith said: "In the theological sense, the gospel means more than just the tidings of good news, with accompanying joy to the souls of men, for it embraces every principle of eternal truth. There is no fundamental principle, or truth anywhere in the universe, that is not embraced in the gospel of Jesus Christ, and it is not confined to the simple first principles, such as faith in God, repentance from sin, baptism for the remission of sins, and the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, although these are absolutely essential to salvation and exaltation in the kingdom of God

The prophet, seer and revelator Ezra Taft Benson said: "...he gospel embraces all truth, all light, all revealed knowledge to mankind."

Ray - don't you ever check anything before you speak up on topics about which you are uninformed? It would save much embarrasment later.

Or in other words, salvation does not include exaltation, just as the gospel does not include all of the teachings and ordinances “related” to the gospel.

Not surprizingly, THAT IS INCORRECT - again.

You are giving a narrow explanation of salvation.

The Apostle Dallin H. Oaks explains correctly: "... the words saved and salvation are also used to denote exaltation or eternal life (see Abr. 2:11). This is sometimes referred to as the “fulness of salvation” (Bruce R. McConkie, The Mortal Messiah, 4 vols. [1979–81], 1:242). This salvation requires more than repentance and baptism by appropriate priesthood authority. It also requires the making ofsacred covenants, including eternal marriage, in the temples of God, and faithfulness to those covenants by enduring to the end."

Buy a book, open it, read it before you post for heaven's sake.

Heh, okay, one more time, and if this doesn't settle it I'll quit (for now).

D&C 20:8–10

(hint: pay special attention to verse 9, and the links you can find there)

[Snow]

First Ray, D&C 20:8-10 says absolutely nothing about the definition of gospel let alone support your incorrect interpretation.

Second, you still are giving a very narrow defintion of "fullness"- That is unless you think you know more that the prophets and apostles who explained it.

Do you - know better than the prophets?

[Ray]

First Ray, D&C 20:8-10 says absolutely nothing about the definition of gospel let alone support your incorrect interpretation.

Heh, I didn’t say that D&C 20:8-10 would provide a “definition” of the gospel. :)

I referenced D&C 20:8-10 to support the argument I originally made in response to your comment, when I said the Book of Mormon, as well as the Bible, contains the fullness of the gospel.

And if you will look at D&C 20:8-10, especially verse 9 and the links you will find there, perhaps you will begin to see that there are other people, besides myself, who have said and will continue to say that the Book of Mormon does contain the fullness of the gospel.

Second, you still are giving a very narrow definition of "fullness"- That is unless you think you know more that the prophets and apostles who explained it.

Keep looking, Snow, and perhaps you will find some other comments from prophets to support and expound upon the point I’ve been making. And btw, I do know those comments are out there, and that they were given by prophets of our Lord.

Do you - know better than the prophets?

I am one of the prophets, Snow. And as a matter of fact, so are you. You just don’t seem to know the truth about this issue, or if you do you have done well at hiding it.

And to help disclose the truth on this issue, since I am revealing more truth about this issue than you are, I suggest that others look for more information through revelation which has come through the power of the Holy Ghost… or by finding more comments from other people you will believe as they tell you what I have already told you.

And btw, if it will help you, I will continue to provide clarification of what I meant or had in my mind as I was putting my thoughts down in writing.

For instance, when I said this…

First, the gospel is simply the “good news” declaring the fact that Jesus Christ is our Savior.

…I meant and could have better said what I meant by saying that to put it simply, the gospel is the “good news” declaring the fact that Jesus Christ is our Savior.

And when I said this…

Or in other words, the gospel does not include any of the teachings and ordinances He (Jesus Christ) requires us to accept before He will grant us exaltation.

…I meant and could have better said what I meant by saying that the plain and simple message of the gospel, in reference to what I was saying in the above quote, does not necessarily include any of the teachings and ordinances He {Jesus Christ} requires us to accept before He will grant us exaltation.

And when I said this…

Or in other words, salvation does not include exaltation, just as the gospel does not include all of the teachings and ordinances “related” to the gospel.

…I meant and could have said better said what I meant by saying that salvation does not necessarily include exaltation, just as the gospel simply stated does not necessarily include all of the teachings and ordinances “related” to the gospel.

Or in other words, to try to now say what I meant and know to be true in simply other words, I will now say that the gospel of Jesus Christ is a very simple message encompassing EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING, and we do not necessarily need to know EVERYTHING before we can say we know the “fullness of the gospel.”

Or in other words, the “fullness of the gospel” can be stated in a very simple message involving the principles of everything we need and might want to know about everything.

And btw, Snow, as I said before, every ordinance you’ve ever had will not save you, unless you back that up with a life well lived by accepting all the truths you’ve been given.

[Snow]

Congratulations on your excellent backpeddling. Bill Clinton would be proud.

Oh - yeah, you're a prophet like Leonard Nimoy is a duck-billed platipus.

[prisonchaplain]

Well that's a major difference between Protestant relgion and us. We believe that God is a god of order and part of that order includes passing on of authority by those who have the keys to do so to those that are, in some way prepared to recieve it. In our tradition, one can't hang a shingle outside the door and say, "hey, I represent God, let me baptise you, and collect your tithes."

When I said all believers are called to spread the gospel, I did not mean that all believers are called to become ordained ministers. In fact, that was part of my post--not all are called to teach, preach, etc.--yet all are to bare testimony to the greatness of God and his salvation.

My own fellowship, like most Protestant churches, has stringent processes for those who would become ministers, missionaries, or even evangelists. Yet, we regularly remind our people to share truth with their neighbors, coworkers, etc. Every believer should be able to lead a soul to faith, and to begin the process of discipleship (training).

Can you think of a single instance in scripture where man took upon himself authority to officiate in a sacred ordinance and was acknowledged of the Lord is such administration? No, of course not as there is no such instance. On the other hand the scriptures are full of condemnation for unauthorized ministrations...Korah, Miriam, Uzza - Saul who rather than waiting for Samuel who had authority, thought his kingship good enough but was rejected by God when he made the offerings -Uzziah, The seven sons of Sceva, etc. And, is not the bible, Old Testament and New alike, not replete of instance after instance of authority being conferred God or by one in authority to do so? Noah, Abraham, Moses, Samuel, Isaiah, Peter, Andrew, James, John, Barnabas and Saul. Paul specifically tells us that no man takes the honor upon himself, only he who is called of God as was Aaron and Aaron was called though one who had authority to do so - Moses. We believe that God, through an orderly process does the calling, men do not call themselves nor can they buy authority as Simon tried.

The "priesthood of all believers" generally does not extend to officiating over the ordinances of the church. The focus is primarily "evangelism." In most of the instances you mention, nonbelievers, or pride-filled leaders tried to shortcut God's work. Again, we're comparing evangelism to ordinances--apples and oranges.

It is no surprize to anyone that when you get people calling themselves you wind up with hundreds of sects and denominations, each with their own spin on doctrine. Some enriching themselves on offerings meant for the Lord, and others so full of themselves and their assumed power that they think themselves beyond the mores of society and religion. You get Robert Tilden. Ted Armstrong, Peter Popov, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Baker, Paul Crouch, Oral Roberts, Benny Hinn, Reinhold Bonke, ad naseum, when people purport to take for themselves God's sanction. In my opinion it's a bloody mess. God wouldn't run any organization so devoid of order.

Well, with your lack of tolerance for "controlled chaos" you're in the right fellowship, then. On the other hand, Protestantism still works. Both Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart WERE ordained ministers in my fellowship. Swaggart, in particular, had been counseled by authorities about his pride. Here's how his 'fall' played out.

1. When the allegations of sexual misconduct became known, Swaggart was offered the standard program of rehabilitation for ordained ministers--a minimum of one year out of the pulpit and public ministry, accompanied by intensive religious counseling. The period could extend up to two years, depending on how church authorities evaluate the offender's progress. Ultimately a decision to reinstate or withdraw credentials is made.

2. Swaggart attempted to negotiate a four-month rehabilitation with his local district office. His ministry was pumping in 50% of the district's missionary support.

3. The national office stepped in, and said, your district has no authority to negotiate any rehabilitation. You will take the standard offer, or leave it.

4. He left it, and became independent.

Yes, he's still preaching. However, the message was clear. He no longer had the approval of his peers.

Many of the others you list are indeed independent. So, perhaps your concerns are mostly directed at independent ministries.

For an example of apparent diversity that works, however, I look to Promise Keepers. We had a great diversity of Christian fellowships--we disagreed on some fairly serious doctrinal issues. Yet, we were united enough on the essentials, that we gathered to build Christian men up to be better husbands, fathers, and churchmen. We led a great day of repentence in 1997--one that I am convinced probably held back some things we will never know about until the second coming.

I'm sorry that the universal church of believers is a rather hodge-podge, sometimes chaotic grouping. Yet, my reading of the New Testament leads me to contend that the more things change the more they remain the same. I much prefer a diversity I can see and engage, to a congregation full of people who only "say the right things."

[Snow]

Hi PC,

A couple observations...

In the sense that you describe, preaching is like sharing and even one has the right to share. I don't think any authority is required to share the gospel.

In the case of Jimmy Swaggart, it doesn't matter if his fellowship sanctioned him or not, according to your way of thinking, because whether he is Pentecostal or Baptist or Greek Orthodox or independent he is part of the general body of believers so it's all good... and in this case, a serial sex offender can set up shop, ordain himself, preach the gospel, baptise believers and collect offering and earn a $200,000-1,000,000/year salary and it all good.

[prisonchaplain]

In the sense that you describe, preaching is like sharing and even one has the right to share. I don't think any authority is required to share the gospel.

True enough. However, my sense is that most Mormons would quickly call in the missionaries or other authority figures to do any training, and perhaps even to say a prayer of initiation.

In the case of Jimmy Swaggart, it doesn't matter if his fellowship sanctioned him or not, according to your way of thinking, because whether he is Pentecostal or Baptist or Greek Orthodox or independent he is part of the general body of believers so it's all good... and in this case, a serial sex offender can set up shop, ordain himself, preach the gospel, baptise believers and collect offering and earn a $200,000-1,000,000/year salary and it all good.

In a sense, what you say is true. We might well recognize--and in fact do recognize--the ministries of some of those independents as legitimate. God will judge those who are corrupt. On the other hand, it is quite possible that a person could be preaching because "it's a good gig," and while s/he might personally end up in hell for their sins and lack of faith, the followers would still receive their blessings. Why? The authority is in the gospel message--not the messenger.

BTW, God can use people with rough pasts. Matthew the tax collector (they were collaboraters with occupation governments), the woman at the well (5X divorcee, shacking up with boyfriend), etc. However, you do make my case that denominations do provide a greater level of unity and spiritual safety than do independent movements, though the latter are definitely experiencing the greater growth these days.

[Snow]

I would disagree with you about Mormons and calling in the big guns. Certainly when someone is ready to serioiusly consider joining the Church, the missionaries are called, however my experience has been that Mormon rank and file members are more involved in spreading the good word than any other denomination I have run across, period.

And again about authority... The bible tells us that we must all be baptised. I just can't imagine that it's all just as good for God if the baptizer is, say, an ordained priesthood holder, duly called and set apart, or some flim flam man off the street looking to get rich through religion.