The BoM, the word of God; “Insomuch as it is correctly translated”?

[The_Phoenix]

Often times those who do not understand our faith, think that we attack the Bible. We as a people do not such thing. Individuals may do so, but not as a faith. The comment found in the 8th Article of Faith, “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly;” is not an attack, but a clarification. The Prophet Joseph Smith stated that the BoM is the “most correct of any book”; not perfect. The angel Moroni pointed out the same, when he said, “And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God,”.

Clearly both the writers and translator of the BoM acknowledge that any man can be in error. Since the Bible comes with no up front acknowledgement of possible error in translation, the Prophet felt the need to recognize that errors can and do occur. This is not an attack but a statement of fact.

Where do you stand on this issue?

[pam]

I stand with the 8th Article of Faith. I also agree it's not an attack but a statement of fact. Look at how many different and varying versions there are of the Bible.

[Blackmarch]

Often times those who do not understand our faith, think that we attack the Bible. We as a people do not such thing. Individuals may do so, but not as a faith. The comment found in the 8th Article of Faith, “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly;” is not an attack, but a clarification. The Prophet Joseph Smith stated that the BoM is the “most correct of any book”; not perfect. The angel Moroni pointed out the same, when he said, “And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God,”.

Clearly both the writers and translator of the BoM acknowledge that any man can be in error. Since the Bible comes with no up front acknowledgement of possible error in translation, the Prophet felt the need to recognize that errors can and do occur. This is not an attack but a statement of fact.

Where do you stand on this issue?

I agree with the statements made.

[The_Phoenix]

I stand with the 8th Article of Faith. I also agree it's not an attack but a statement of fact. Look at how many different and varying versions there are of the Bible.

I once read a comment by Hugh Nibley who said there were over 8,000 versions. Not sure if he was making a statement of fact or trying to prove a point. I own four versions of the Bible myself. KJV, NIV, ASB and NKJV. Make that five, a Catholic Bible.

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

I get quite a rise out of some Mormons when I suggest that the LDS is a product of the Protestant template, but it doesn't help that the preferred version for the LDS is the King James Version and the BOM quotes from this version. It also doesn't help that the KJV, not the 1611 authorized version, ommits the 7 books that were originally included in the canon during the canonical councils of Rome and Hippo. It would seem that if Joseph Smith were really trying to "restore the church" he would have started with the original Bible, not the butchered Protestant version of it.

[Traveler]

I get quite a rise out of some Mormons when I suggest that the LDS is a product of the Protestant template, but it doesn't help that the preferred version for the LDS is the King James Version and the BOM quotes from this version. It also doesn't help that the KJV, not the 1611 authorized version, ommits the 7 books that were originally included in the canon during the canonical councils of Rome and Hippo. It would seem that if Joseph Smith were really trying to "restore the church" he would have started with the original Bible, not the butchered Protestant version of it.

Both the Bible and the Book of Mormon are witness of Christ. Those that think these are the only witnesses given by G-d are wrong. It is my personal opinion that those that think in either or both is all of G-d’s revelation of Christ that will come forth during the restoration are in error in their understanding. It is my opinion that a most important doctrine of the anti-Christ is that the we have enough revelation concerning Christ in scripture.

The Traveler

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

Both the Bible and the Book of Mormon are witness of Christ. Those that think these are the only witnesses given by G-d are wrong. It is my personal opinion that those that think in either or both is all of G-d’s revelation of Christ that will come forth during the restoration are in error in their understanding. It is my opinion that a most important doctrine of the anti-Christ is that the we have enough revelation concerning Christ in scripture.

The Traveler

I'm always amazed at the many points of agreement between the Catholic and LDS churches. Yes, the Bible really is only a part of the full revelation of God in Jesus Christ, a stark contradiction to sola scriptura Protestantism that heaves upon Scripture a burden it could never bear, to be the sole arbiter and exhaustive container of all Christian truth.

[The_Phoenix]

I get quite a rise out of some Mormons when I suggest that the LDS is a product of the Protestant template, but it doesn't help that the preferred version for the LDS is the King James Version and the BOM quotes from this version. It also doesn't help that the KJV, not the 1611 authorized version, ommits the 7 books that were originally included in the canon during the canonical councils of Rome and Hippo. It would seem that if Joseph Smith were really trying to "restore the church" he would have started with the original Bible, not the butchered Protestant version of it.

Or could it be that God used the language and version best known to the county in which he restored his gospel? A re-invention of the wheel would have introduced a foreign means of restoration to those who were the intended demographic. Therefore “if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God,”. That reminds me of another Bible I have the KJV 1611AV. Thanks.

[Jamie123]

The problem I used to have with this statement was that Biblical scholarship does not depend on translation. If it were mere translations that were in error then they could be corrected simply by going back to the Greek and Herbrew texts.

I've since learned that some Mormons are well aware of this problem, and suggest that Joseph Smith used the word "translation" in a different sense. To him it meant something more like "transmission". Even the best original-language documents could have errors of transmission (i.e. they were copied wrongly from the originals) which no effort of "translation" could correct.

[The_Phoenix]

The problem I used to have with this statement was that Biblical scholarship does not depend on translation. If it were mere translations that were in error then they could be corrected simply by going back to the Greek and Herbrew texts.

I've since learned that some Mormons are well aware of this problem, and suggest that Joseph Smith used the word "translation" in a different sense. To him it meant something more like "transmission". Even the best original-language documents could have errors of transmission (i.e. they were copied wrongly from the originals) which no effort of "translation" could correct.

Except that much of the Hebrew text came down through oral traditions. If these narrations were incorrect the error would continue into translation and the Greek would be useless since it sprang forth from the Hebrew text.

[Dravin]

The problem I used to have with this statement was that Biblical scholarship does not depend on translation. If it were mere translations that were in error then they could be corrected simply by going back to the Greek and Herbrew texts.

I've since learned that some Mormons are well aware of this problem, and suggest that Joseph Smith used the word "translation" in a different sense. To him it meant something more like "transmission". Even the best original-language documents could have errors of transmission (i.e. they were copied wrongly from the originals) which no effort of "translation" could correct.

On a side note, when the Book of Mormon talks about plain and precious truths being lost, I don't think it's all a translation/transmission error (or books being lost). I think some of it was lost by the loss of correct interpretation. Have a Mormon and a Baptist hash out the trinity from the Bible to see what I'm talking about, it's not that the words themselves became corrupted or where incorrectly translated but that over time what is trying to be taught by those words has been corrupted. And in the sense of evenhandedness, other Christians can look at our interpretations in the same light. Doctrine shapes how we view the scriptures, and if doctrine changes so does our view of particular scripture verses and plain and precious truths can become hidden and lost.

[prisonchaplain]

A couple of thoughts...the KJV is part of the canon of the Church. The apocrapha, or deutercanonicals, found in the Catholic Bible are NOT part of that canon. So, Joseph Smith clearly took sides on that matter. He did agree with Protestantism.

What concerns those of us willing to talk about such matters is that the issue of possible errors in translation (or transmission) would seem to be a topic for academics and apologists to hammer out, not a foundational doctrine. So, if Joseph Smith was simply stating fact, and did not mean to highlight potential problems and limitations with the Bible, why did this caveat rise to such prominence that it became canon, and is indeed part of the Church's core instruction?

[Blackmarch]

I get quite a rise out of some Mormons when I suggest that the LDS is a product of the Protestant template, but it doesn't help that the preferred version for the LDS is the King James Version and the BOM quotes from this version. It also doesn't help that the KJV, not the 1611 authorized version, ommits the 7 books that were originally included in the canon during the canonical councils of Rome and Hippo. It would seem that if Joseph Smith were really trying to "restore the church" he would have started with the original Bible, not the butchered Protestant version of it.

IN a sense this quite true, as it was the religious situation that Joseph smith found himself in, and was such that it caused him to ask the Lord in prayer to know where to turn to... As well as many of the early converts. This would certainly have affected an individuals mindset, and how they would see things and what they would ask God.

While there is a certain logic to having Joseph smith go over and correct the bible first, this doesn't seem to fit how God has worked in the bible (otherwise we should only have the pentateuch). Eventually Joseph smith did go over the bible and did correct it or much of it, altho i'm fairly sure it was a version that did not have the apocrypha. I know at several times later in his life Joseph smitha had a couple different versions of the bible that he used and would refer to, other than just the king james version.

Edited March 17, 2011 by Blackmarch

[Dravin]

What concerns those of us willing to talk about such matters is that the issue of possible errors in translation (or transmission) would seem to be a topic for academics and apologists to hammer out, not a foundational doctrine. So, if Joseph Smith was simply stating fact, and did not mean to highlight potential problems and limitations with the Bible, why did this caveat rise to such prominence that it became canon, and is indeed part of the Church's core instruction?

Because PC, independent of the Articles of Faith or any statement on the matter by Joseph Smith that the Bible has lost plain and precious truths is doctrine. Read 1st Nephi 13, if we accept that as scripture we're kinda tied in accepting the Bible as it exists as a pristine rendition of God's word.

Now, and I think this is what you are getting at, the position is one less of scholarship and one more of doctrine/belief. On a technical level any translation has errors and we don't have original documents to compare with so we can't claim it's the same as them, but the caveat is primarily one of doctrine. Taken literally we must admit that any non-English language copies of the Book of Mormon are also only the Word of God as far as they are translated correctly (heck, even the English version). And while I'm more than happy to say that is 100% correct, you also don't see it given as much serious attention.

I think the academic argument is primarily apologetic in nature, if we can demonstrate that the Bible has gotten some bumps and bruises along the way from original pen/quill to current editions then it strengthens the plausibility of our position that plain and precious truths were lost.

[Dravin]

While there is a certain logic to having Joseph smith go over and correct the bible first, this doesn't seem to fit how God has worked in the bible (otherwise we should only have the pentateuch). Eventually Joseph smith did go over the bible and did correct it or much of it, altho i'm fairly sure it was a version that did not have the apocrypha.

It should be noted that Joseph Smith asked the Lord if he should go over the Apocrypha and was told it wasn't needful.

1Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning the Apocrypha—There are many things contained therein that are true, and it is mostly translated correctly;

2There are many things contained therein that are not true, which are interpolations by the hands of men.

3Verily, I say unto you, that it is not needful that the Apocrypha should be translated.

4Therefore, whoso readeth it, let him understand, for the Spirit manifesteth truth;

5And whoso is enlightened by the Spirit shall obtain benefit therefrom;

6And whoso receiveth not by the Spirit, cannot be benefited. Therefore it is not needful that it should be translated. Amen.

And I don't blame the Catholics amongst us who see that and think it sounds like a Protestant 'exchange'.

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

Except that much of the Hebrew text came down through oral traditions. If these narrations were incorrect the error would continue into translation and the Greek would be useless since it sprang forth from the Hebrew text.

That's right. The Septuigent is perhaps the most reliable OT text as a written text preserved through the centuries and it was also divisive among the Jewish community some accepting and some rejecting it. It's important to note that this was the version included in the original Christian canon and was the basis for translations into Latin and other vernaculars. Ultimately, trust in any version of the Christian Bible categorically requires a rejection of the LDS teaching that the Church apostized for over 1000 years. If that were the case, then the holy Scriptures, carefully preserved through the centuries by Catholic monks and scribes, would be subject to question. Only an act of the Holy Spirit could protect the Scriptures from corruption and error for those many centuries. This even Martin Luther acknowledged.

[The_Phoenix]

That's right. The Septuigent is perhaps the most reliable OT text as a written text preserved through the centuries and it was also divisive among the Jewish community some accepting and some rejecting it. It's important to note that this was the version included in the original Christian canon and was the basis for translations into Latin and other vernaculars. Ultimately, trust in any version of the Christian Bible categorically requires a rejection of the LDS teaching that the Church apostized for over 1000 years. If that were the case, then the holy Scriptures, carefully preserved through the centuries by Catholic monks and scribes, would be subject to question. Only an act of the Holy Spirit could protect the Scriptures from corruption and error for those many centuries. This even Martin Luther acknowledged.

But Joseph was not afraid to make corrections as needed, but if the text carried the same message as related to doctrine he left it untouched for the most part. In short if the KJV was correct, why not reflect the same words: since the source was from the same God? The “canon” of which you speak was decided by men who were not, and did not claim to be Prophets, but merely translators.

From the Bible Dictionary:

Lost books

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

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

Matthew’s reference to a prophecy that Jesus would be a Nazarene (2:23) is interesting when it is considered that our present O.T. seems to have no statement as such. There is a possibility, however, that Matthew alluded to Isaiah 11:1, which prophesies of the Messiah as a Branch from the root of Jesse, the father of David. The Hebrew word for branch in this case is netzer, the source word of Nazarene and Nazareth. Additional references to the Branch as the Savior and Messiah are found in Jer. 23:5; 33:15; Zech. 3:8; 6:12; these use a synonymous Hebrew word for branch, tzemakh.

The Book of Mormon makes reference to writings of O.T. times and connection that are not found in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, or in any other known source. These writings are of Zenock, Zenos, and Neum (1 Ne. 19:10; Alma 33:3–17). An extensive prophecy by Joseph in Egypt (which is not in the Bible) is also apparent from 2 Ne. 3:4–22, and a prophecy of Jacob (not found in the Bible) is given in Alma 46:24–26. These writings were evidently contained on the plates of brass spoken of in the Book of Mormon (1 Ne. 5:10–13).

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

But Joseph was not afraid to make corrections as needed, but if the text carried the same message as related to doctrine he left it untouched for the most part. In short if the KJV was correct, why not reflect the same words: since the source was from the same God? The “canon” of which you speak was decided by men who were not, and did not claim to be Prophets, but merely translators.

From the Bible Dictionary:

Here's where I believe the LDS fall into serious error. The vessel of revelation after Christ ascended is the Church, not the prophets. Jesus instructed the apostles to teach the nations all they had learned from Him and that was the birth of Christianity. The first revelation since the assension is recorded in the Council of Jerusalem in the book of acts and since that time, all further revelations came about by councils. It was quickly determined that the Jews were no longer the oracles of God, neither are their prophets. Under the New Covenant, it's the universal church and its bishops acting through the councils that constitute the ongoing divine revelation of Jesus Christ. Not the Prophets. The age of the Prophets is over.

The men who formed the canon at the Synods or Rome and Hippo were neither prophets nor translators. They were bishops who could trace their decendency from the Apostles themselves. The process of apostolic succession began in Acts with the appointment of Matthias to replace Judas, a sure sign that Judas held an authoritative office that needed to be filled when he vacated it.

You say that the KJV is correct, but the KJV as well as any translation is a derivative of the councils that formed the original canon. My point about Joseph Smith is a sound one. If he wanted to restore the original church, starting with the original Bible with all 73 books as recorded, would have been a good start.

[RipplecutBuddha]

It is a sound point IF all 73 books were selected by revelation, Something that has never been claimed. Yes the men were bishops, but a bishop is not an apostle, nor is it relevant to claim that one has equal authority with the other (else why the different title?)

The apostles were prophets. They recieved revleations from God, and relayed them by word and writing to the world. Bishops were the next authority in line when the apostles were gone, but that doesn't make them apostles.

Eph 2:19-20

19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God.

20 And are built upon the foundation of apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.

Eph 4:10-15

10He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)

11And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

14That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

15But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

I merely cite these verses in question of your claim that the age of prophets is over. By just these two citations, it seems to me Jesus intended prophets and apostles to be part of the church he established, and that he intended for them to be so to the end.

For example, the second quote, verse 13. I can honestly say I don't think we're at that point yet in our common belief in Christ. There remains deep divisions about him throughout all of Christianity to this day. By this verse, it seems we very much need apostles and prophets still.

If Joseph Smith really was a prophet of God, and God told him not to worry about the apocrypha....If God told him the protestant KJV bible was sufficient for doctrinal foundation, then any argument otherwise is a loss. God is in charge, and we are taking dangerous steps in questioning his actions.

I understand that it's a very big IF regarding Joseph Smith being a prophet, but then, we've been aware of that from the beginning of the LDS church itself. Even Joseph said he wouldn't have believed his life if it were someone else and he was told about it.

The doctrinal differences are what they are between the LDS church and every other Christian religion. I don't mean to begin a re-hash of them here. I merely want to point out that our position can be, and always has been, supported by biblical precedent regarding ongoing revelation, prophets, and so on.

Edited March 18, 2011 by RipplecutBuddha

[The_Phoenix]

Here's where I believe the LDS fall into serious error. The vessel of revelation after Christ ascended is the Church, not the prophets. Jesus instructed the apostles to teach the nations all they had learned from Him and that was the birth of Christianity. The first revelation since the assension is recorded in the Council of Jerusalem in the book of acts and since that time, all further revelations came about by councils. It was quickly determined that the Jews were no longer the oracles of God, neither are their prophets. Under the New Covenant, it's the universal church and its bishops acting through the councils that constitute the ongoing divine revelation of Jesus Christ. Not the Prophets. The age of the Prophets is over.

The men who formed the canon at the Synods or Rome and Hippo were neither prophets nor translators. They were bishops who could trace their decendency from the Apostles themselves. The process of apostolic succession began in Acts with the appointment of Matthias to replace Judas, a sure sign that Judas held an authoritative office that needed to be filled when he vacated it.

You say that the KJV is correct, but the KJV as well as any translation is a derivative of the councils that formed the original canon. My point about Joseph Smith is a sound one. If he wanted to restore the original church, starting with the original Bible with all 73 books as recorded, would have been a good start.

A couple of things,

First, the Apostles were all over the place and did not have any means of mass communication other than the epistles. These epistles are not all included in the Bible, in addition to the books listed in my earlier post. Even the Apostle Paul, called from the heavens by Christ himself, stated that in this life “we see through a glass darkly”, admitting that none of us have all the answers. Paul only spent a few weeks of his life with the Chief Apostle; Simon Peter.

Second, the councils of which you speak later deiced what was “canon”, (in some cases centuries later) with a straight up or down vote; the same with the Nicene Creed, redefining God. This creed has been used for centuries now to identify “Christians” and label “Cults”, and to justify the persecution and killing those labeled “heretics” (as so defined by an ever increasing Church vested with more and more political power). After a time the Bishop’s began excommunicated one another and the Church became splintered because of the lack of Apostles and Prophets. Then comes the reformers, Luther (Big time anti-Semite) and Calvin (a little less anti-Semitic) to name a couple. As a result, there were further divisions within the Christian Church; at this point all but lost, if not completely.

These divisions in theology gave birth to other Denominations and Schisms. Thus, I believe the need for the restoration of the Christian Church, in preparation to the second coming of Christ.

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

First, the Apostles were all over the place and did not have any means of mass communication other than the epistles. These epistles are not all included in the Bible, in addition to the books listed in my earlier post. Even the Apostle Paul, called from the heavens by Christ himself, stated that in this life “we see through a glass darkly”, admitting that none of us have all the answers. Paul only spent a few weeks of his life with the Chief Apostle; Simon Peter.

Not sure what this means or proves

Second, the councils of which you speak later deiced what was “canon”, (in some cases centuries later) with a straight up or down vote; the same with the Nicene Creed, redefining God. This creed has been used for centuries now to identify “Christians” and label “Cults”, and to justify the persecution and killing those labeled “heretics” (as so defined by an ever increasing Church vested with more and more political power). After a time the Bishop’s began excommunicated one another and the Church became splintered because of the lack of Apostles and Prophets. Then comes the reformers, Luther (Big time anti-Semite) and Calvin (a little less anti-Semitic) to name a couple. As a result, there were further divisions within the Christian Church; at this point all but lost, if not completely.

Your version of church history leaves a large gap, but that aside, the creeds and the canon were not established for the purpose of persecutions, but rather to battle infiltrating heresies by defining Christian belief. It seems you are willing to make rash generalizations about the Catholic Church, saying that we persecuted and killed heretics, but I bet you would be the first to take umbridge if the same tactic were used on Mormon history. Unless you have specific events you'd like to cite, I don't want to indulge your ignorance of church history.

These divisions in theology gave birth to other Denominations and Schisms. Thus, I believe the need for the restoration of the Christian Church, in preparation to the second coming of Christ.

So the answer is yet another denomination or schism? The reason that I said that the LDS was cut from the Protestant template or, as I otherwise deem it, error springing from error, is that Joseph Smith and his entire body of followers were former Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists, Quakers, etc. So instead of coming up with something new, Joseph Smith merely came up with another Protestant denomination with a few extra quirks. The LDS are a lot of things: a beautiful people, a vibrant faith, charitable, friendly, missionaries, etc. The accolades are very impressive indeed. But they aren't the "restoration" of the Church because the Church never lapsed.

[Backroads]

Your version of church history leaves a large gap, but that aside, the creeds and the canon were not established for the purpose of persecutions, but rather to battle infiltrating heresies by defining Christian belief. It seems you are willing to make rash generalizations about the Catholic Church, saying that we persecuted and killed heretics, but I bet you would be the first to take umbridge if the same tactic were used on Mormon history. Unless you have specific events you'd like to cite, I don't want to indulge your ignorance of church history.

May I ask what parts of church history are missing?

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

It is a sound point IF all 73 books were selected by revelation, Something that has never been claimed.

All Church councils are an act of divine revelation. Pope Damascus was speaking ex cathedra in saying, "Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus..." In this capacity, as the Catholic Church teaches, the Pope is speaking by the Holy Spirit and as such is infallible (free from error). It's hard to make the case that divine revelation is not being claimed.

Yes the men were bishops, but a bishop is not an apostle, nor is it relevant to claim that one has equal authority with the other (else why the different title?)

Bishops are in no way inferior to Apostles. The rite of apostolic succession means that the authority Jesus transferred to the apostles would likewise be transferred, unmitigated, to the bishops they appointed. Apostle is an honorary title, it is a title conferred upon those who were personally commissioned by Jesus Christ, Paul being among them.

I merely cite these verses in question of your claim that the age of prophets is over. By just these two citations, it seems to me Jesus intended prophets and apostles to be part of the church he established, and that he intended for them to be so to the end.

Thank you for your citations. None of them indicate that the age of prophets continues. The last prophet was John the Baptist. The change between the old and new covenants included a change in the vessel of revelation which would be the holy Church. There is no more lone prophet calling out to a backward people to return to God. Instead, the Church is a shining city on a hill, a visible representation of Christ complete with an authority structure, defined body of doctrine, and a holy See.

Jesus one time told the apostles regarding the pharisees, "Do as they say for they sit in the seat of Moses but don't do as they do, for they say and do not do." A seat of authority in the Old Covenant would necessarily bequeath a seat of authority in the New Covenant, the seat of Peter. The chosen conduit of God's divine revelation is a sturdier and more reliable thing than some "prophet" claiming he was visited by an angel and shown golden plates and seer stones. So when I say that the age of prophets is over, that is not a denial of the gift of prophesy or those called to be prophets in that capacity, it's a change of venue:

Hebrews 8

13 In that He says, “A new covenant, ” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

The problem I see with mainline protestantism, LDS included, is a "going back to Egypt" mentality of trying to revert to Old Testament and Old Covenant trappings, where prophets would arise to lead a straying people back to God. We have a new, better, and everlasting New Covenant as seen here:

Hebrews8

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.

8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah—

9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the LORD.

10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them

Having a New Covenant that has replaced and superceded the old, there is no need to revert to outmoded and inferior venues of revelation as described in the Old Testament.

For example, the second quote, verse 13. I can honestly say I don't think we're at that point yet in our common belief in Christ. There remains deep divisions about him throughout all of Christianity to this day. By this verse, it seems we very much need apostles and prophets still.

The belief that Jesus still appoints apostles today is an endearing one, but it has a glaring error: The transfer of authority from Christ to the apostles was pluperfect. The appointment of Mathias to replace Judas was done by nothing less than the authority of Christ himself, though the appointment was made by his apostles. Thus the process of apostolic succession by which bishops are ordained, precludes the need that Jesus himself appoint these men, for they are appointed with the very same authority.

If Joseph Smith really was a prophet of God, and God told him not to worry about the apocrypha....If God told him the protestant KJV bible was sufficient for doctrinal foundation, then any argument otherwise is a loss. God is in charge, and we are taking dangerous steps in questioning his actions.

I do question his actions because I believe him to be a charlatan and not a prophet. Moreover, if God has said that the canon authorized by the synods of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage was valid then and not valid now, then the whole canon can fall into question, not just some selected portions. Joseph Smith is no different than Martin Luther in that he believed what was initiated by Church counsil can be undone by a single man claiming inspiration. I strongly disagree.

I understand that it's a very big IF regarding Joseph Smith being a prophet, but then, we've been aware of that from the beginning of the LDS church itself. Even Joseph said he wouldn't have believed his life if it were someone else and he was told about it.

Or he was on an incredulous verve that people actually bought into his story. Understand that the endearment I have for the LDS today in no way confers itself upon the scoundrel who started it. I can loath the man and love what his followers have become today.

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

May I ask what parts of church history are missing?

Everything between the canonical counsils and the reformation.

[Backroads]

Everything between the canonical counsils and the reformation.

Which are? (or where I can find them... eastern religious history fascinates me while I know very little about Catholic history.)