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

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

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

It's about an 1200 year block between the 4th and 16th centuries. I was pointing out that the Reformation didn't happen right after the canonical councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage. Did you know, for instance, that during the so called "dark ages" the Catholic Church eliminated slavery in the entire continent of Europe? It's the first time in world history that a significant portion of the globe was free of slavery.

[The_Phoenix]

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.

Good Points. The calling of Paul by Christ himself was a declaration that revelations from heaven would continue. The Book of Revelation to John on the Isle of Patmos is another. The Day of Pentecost was a day of marvelous revelation to the Saints. Then our own Day of Pentecost, given in D&C 110, along with the many independent witnesses to that day’s events.

[The_Phoenix]

Not sure what this means or proves

That many of the writings of the Apostles, (Epistles although available) were not included in canon. Also some of Christ own words as he repeated certain doctrines from the OT which do not appear.

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.

One example is William Tyndale, who was killed for translating the Bible into English. I did not single out the Catholic Church; I spoke of the reformed Church as well. I listed all in a single timeline. I am not writing a book so I do not know of the ignorance you speak of, unless you are making the statement to stop dialogue. I don’t know anyone here, so I am finding my way as I go. If you want other examples read Fox’s Book of Martyrs,

Here is a rundown of Chapters and I will provide a link.

About the book and the author

Chapter I -- History of Christian Martyrs to the First General Persecutions Under Nero

Chapter II -- The Ten Primitive Persecutions

Chapter III -- Persecutions of the Christians in Persia

Chapter IV -- Papal Persecutions

Chapter V -- An Account of the Inquisition

Chapter VI -- An Account of the Persecutions in Italy, Under the Papacy

Chapter VII -- An Account of the Life and Persecutions of John Wickliffe

Chapter VIII -- An Account of the Persecutions in Bohemia Under the Papacy

Chapter IX -- An Account of the Life and Persecutions of Martin Luther

Chapter X -- General Persecutions in Germany

Chapter XI -- An Account of the Persecutions in the Netherlands

Chapter XII -- The Life and Story of the True Servant and Martyr of God, William Tyndale

Chapter XIII -- An Account of the Life of John Calvin

Chapter XIV -- Prior to the Reign of Queen Mary I

Chapter XV -- An Account of the Persecutions in Scotland During the Reign of King Henry VIII

Chapter XVI -- Persecutions in England During the Reign of Queen Mary

Chapter XVII -- Rise and Progress of the Protestant Religion in Ireland; with an Account of the Barbarous Massacre of 1641

Chapter XVIII -- The Rise, Progress, Persecutions, and Sufferings of the Quakers

Chapter XIX -- An Account of the Life and Persecutions of John Bunyan

Chapter XX -- An Account of the Life of John Wesley

Chapter XXI -- Persecutions of the French Protestants in the South of France, During the Years 1814 and 1820

Chapter XXII -- The Beginnings of American Foreign Missions

Sorry the link was to a blog, so I did not inculde.

So the answer is yet another denomination or schism?

It must be so, with no untied authority whom can effect change in all; a new “Restored Church” is the only way to return back to the foundation of Prophets and Apostles as established by Christ.

[Traveler]

It's about an 1200 year block between the 4th and 16th centuries. I was pointing out that the Reformation didn't happen right after the canonical councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage. Did you know, for instance, that during the so called "dark ages" the Catholic Church eliminated slavery in the entire continent of Europe? It's the first time in world history that a significant portion of the globe was free of slavery.

I would not agree that Europe was free of slavery - The Christian powers of Europe just changed the face of it and created a new definition. It would be hard to argue that the serfs of Europe during the Dark Ages were socially, politically, and economically more advanced than the ancient slaves of Rome. It cannot even be argued that they were even more educated. At least the slaves of Rome had a chance at freedom and independence. The inclusion of northern Europe into Christianity resulted in the loss of more lives (men, women and children) than from the dreaded Black Plague and the man responsible for it was pronounced “Defender of the Faith”.

It was not until 1649 before any Christian society with power to enact laws finely enacted a law to prevent the killing and depriving a person of possessions because they were not the popular religion. The Toleration Act of 1649 was the result of a Protestant slaughter of English speaking Catholics in the Americas that came to the Americas to escape persecution in Europe because English speaking Catholics were not welcome anywhere in Europe. (Not very Christ like at all) But the Toleration Act only protected Trinitarian Christians.

As I said - We should be building bridges rather than battlements - but history does not indicate that following the carnage of Jerusalem about 74 AD and the death of the Apostles that mankind entered an era of enlightenment. And when “enlightened” progress seemed to be taking place - it does not appear that the Christian religious institutions have been at the front helping the advancement. But rather seem to take a very un-enlightened stance as with Galileo.

The Traveler

[Blackmarch]

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.

The concept of revelation and the concept of infallibility are two seperate things for me: one allows God to speak to an individual, the other would keep one on the path with no possibility of falling off. Only one of the two are shown in the scriptures.

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.

And how did it mitigate to the apostles? Yes apostle is a title as well as a position. If they were in no way inferior, why aren't all their (bishops) words canonized?

Just double checking with this; Are you saying that the only thing that differentiates between an apostle and a bishop is that one was personally chosen by Christ?

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.

None of them indicate that the ages of prophets were to cease either. Part of the new covenant was the church, and how it was structured. Get rid of Prophets and apostles and you get rid of that part of the new covenant.

Any time there God has had people on the world that were his, he's always had leaders calling them back to him... That's what abraham did, that's what moses did, thats what all the OT prophets did, that's what Christ did, that's what all the apostles did, even after Christ's Ascension. Neither were they alone.

Prophets are the ones that direct that city on the hill, so that it may shine.

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. ...

Only for what was granted with that, and only with the proper means, and only until Christ taken it from them.

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.

I do not see where God says that the means of revelation will change or that he will take away the need or necessity of having mouthpieces for God. Nor do I see where it says that old laws were made obsolete. Or where he's giving every member the same authority and rights until after the second coming.

He's giving them a higher covenant than the old because the old one had served its purpose- to teach. the new one is built upon the old one in essence they had learned how to add and subtract and are being taken out of kindergarten and being put into the serious stuff. They had learned Justice, now they needed to take the lessons from that and learn mercy and love.

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.

yes the priesthood is the exact same, however I note that matthais was given the position of apostle rather than bishop. Yes a bishop has the same priesthood, however having the priestood itself alone does not grant the every right of what you can do in it -hence the differentations between the positions (IE Apostles, Evangelists, deacons, bishops, etc..)- Different positions had different rights and duties. For example, Christ did not Grant the apostles right to be able to atone for other people.

Were the whole of the LDS church to be wiped out I would still not be eligible to recieve Revelation for the world, or to ordain High priests, apostles, or seventies, because i have not been granted the right within the priesthood even tho it's the exact same priesthood which the prophet holds, which is the exact same priesthood that JS held which is the exact same priesthood that Peter James and John held which is the exact same priesthood that Christ held which is the exact same Priesthood that God the Father holds. Neither can I take that right upon myself.

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.

can't say that I hold any leaders in other sects as mouthpieces of God, or able to frustrate gods purposes.

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.

I didn't buy his story. God let me know Joseph Smith was his servant. Nor do I expect anyone else to believe JS until God reveals it to them.

I caution you about hate and anger. I only know of three individuals who can wield it with impunity.

Edited March 18, 2011 by Blackmarch

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

The concept of revelation and the concept of infallibility are two seperate things for me: one allows God to speak to an individual, the other would keep one on the path with no possibility of falling off. Only one of the two are shown in the scriptures.

Incorrect my friend. Aside from the Mormon habit of utilizing sola scriptura when it suits them and abandoning it when it doesn't, our understanding of one of Christ's promises "When He, the Spirit of Truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth." (Jn 16:13) Not only is this promise important, but who it's spoken to throws it into sharp relief. The concept of office is not lost on Mormons, but they, like Protestants, often fail to differentiate between Christ's exclusive teachings to his apostles and his general teachings to the masses. This promise is to the Apostles as they carry out their apostolic office.

And how did it mitigate to the apostles? Yes apostle is a title as well as a position. If they were in no way inferior, why aren't all their (bishops) words canonized?

Just double checking with this; Are you saying that the only thing that differentiates between an apostle and a bishop is that one was personally chosen by Christ?

Good. You understand perfectly. Unless you can cite a specific reason why all of Christ's authority would be passed to the Apostles but only a portion to the bishops they appointed, its an unassailable argument that this authority passed on undiminished. The words of the apostles are weightier because they heard directly from the Savior Himself, but the authority is the same.

None of them indicate that the ages of prophets were to cease either. Part of the new covenant was the church, and how it was structured. Get rid of Prophets and apostles and you get rid of that part of the new covenant.

Any time there God has had people on the world that were his, he's always had leaders calling them back to him... That's what abraham did, that's what moses did, thats what all the OT prophets did, that's what Christ did, that's what all the apostles did, even after Christ's Ascension. Neither were they alone.

Prophets are the ones that direct that city on the hill, so that it may shine.

In the simplistic apostle = prophet, I can see that. Is this just a matter of linguistics? The claim here is that Joseph Smith was a prophet in the order of Samuel, Nathan, Elisha, Elijah, etc is a reverting to outdated and outmoded Old Testament leadership structures. Yes, that age has ended and I disagree that Joseph Smith was a prophet.

I do not see where God says that the means of revelation will change or that he will take away the need or necessity of having mouthpieces for God. Nor do I see where it says that old laws were made obsolete. Or where he's giving every member the same authority and rights until after the second coming.

Yes, the vessel of revelation has changed and the Church decided early on that the Jews were no longer the oracles of God, but rather the Church of the New Covenant. The rescinding of circumcision as a requirement and the changing of the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday were part of a separation process by which the Church struck out on the singular authority given in by Jesus Christ. It's important to note that not all members are given the same authority. The commission from Christ to the apostles was passed to the bishops who ordain presbyters (priests) acting in their stead. This is why only clergy can perform certain acts such as holy Mass, hearing confessions, and so on.

He's giving them a higher covenant than the old because the old one had served its purpose- to teach. the new one is built upon the old one in essence they had learned how to add and subtract and are being taken out of kindergarten and being put into the serious stuff. They had learned Justice, now they needed to take the lessons from that and learn mercy and love.

I think we're on the same page here. The Old Covenant was a tutor, a foundation for a new and better covenant where: "Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation." (Hebrews 9:11). The doing away with the sacrificial system, the ability to "come boldly to the thrown of grace," and the filling of the Holy Ghost are but a few ways in which we have become recipients of a better covenant.

yes the priesthood is the exact same, however I note that matthais was given the position of apostle rather than bishop.

Not really. Apostles are appointed by Jesus Christ himself. I thought we covered this.

Were the whole of the LDS church to be wiped out I would still not be eligible to recieve Revelation for the world, or to ordain High priests, apostles, or seventies, because i have not been granted the right within the priesthood even tho it's the exact same priesthood which the prophet holds, which is the exact same priesthood that JS held which is the exact same priesthood that Peter James and John held which is the exact same priesthood that Christ held which is the exact same Priesthood that God the Father holds. Neither can I take that right upon myself.

You're right. "No man can take this honor upon himself, but he who is called by God." (Heb 5:1) But God the Father does not hold a priesthood. The role of a priest is that of an intercessor. Jesus is the Great High Priest forever according to the order of Melchizadek precisely because he intercedes for the people before God the Father. Without getting into Mormon beliefs about progressive godhood (because I don't buy it) God the Father answers to no one.

I didn't buy his story. God let me know Joseph Smith was his servant. Nor do I expect anyone else to believe JS until God reveals it to them.

I think we can agree that someday there will be a great cause for vindication or a great cause for embarassment when we stand before God and find out just what JS was full of.

EDIT: Possible inflammatory comments about Joseph Smith removed.

Edited March 19, 2011 by Saintmichaeldefendthem1

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

One example is William Tyndale, who was killed for translating the Bible into English. I did not single out the Catholic Church; I spoke of the reformed Church as well. I listed all in a single timeline. I am not writing a book so I do not know of the ignorance you speak of, unless you are making the statement to stop dialogue. I don’t know anyone here, so I am finding my way as I go. If you want other examples read Fox’s Book of Martyrs,

Here is a rundown of Chapters and I will provide a link.

About the book and the author

Chapter I -- History of Christian Martyrs to the First General Persecutions Under Nero

Chapter II -- The Ten Primitive Persecutions

Chapter III -- Persecutions of the Christians in Persia

Chapter IV -- Papal Persecutions

Chapter V -- An Account of the Inquisition

Chapter VI -- An Account of the Persecutions in Italy, Under the Papacy

Chapter VII -- An Account of the Life and Persecutions of John Wickliffe

Chapter VIII -- An Account of the Persecutions in Bohemia Under the Papacy

Chapter IX -- An Account of the Life and Persecutions of Martin Luther

Chapter X -- General Persecutions in Germany

Chapter XI -- An Account of the Persecutions in the Netherlands

Chapter XII -- The Life and Story of the True Servant and Martyr of God, William Tyndale

Chapter XIII -- An Account of the Life of John Calvin

Chapter XIV -- Prior to the Reign of Queen Mary I

Chapter XV -- An Account of the Persecutions in Scotland During the Reign of King Henry VIII

Chapter XVI -- Persecutions in England During the Reign of Queen Mary

Chapter XVII -- Rise and Progress of the Protestant Religion in Ireland; with an Account of the Barbarous Massacre of 1641

Chapter XVIII -- The Rise, Progress, Persecutions, and Sufferings of the Quakers

Chapter XIX -- An Account of the Life and Persecutions of John Bunyan

Chapter XX -- An Account of the Life of John Wesley

Chapter XXI -- Persecutions of the French Protestants in the South of France, During the Years 1814 and 1820

Chapter XXII -- The Beginnings of American Foreign Missions

Sorry the link was to a blog, so I did not inculde.

I hardly know what to think of your paste job. The one example you singled out, William Tyndale, is often cited as a martyr when he was far from it. He was a priest who was denied an imprimatur from the Bishop of London because of past acts of insurrection and hostility toward the Catholic Church. When he left England he wrote a version full of errors and outright calumnies; scriptures twisted to cast aspersions on the Church. King Henry VIII, after breaking from Rome, said, "the translation of the Scripture corrupted by William Tyndale should be utterly expelled, rejected, and put away out of the hands of the people." It was not the translation of the Bible into vernacular as many authorized English translated versions were already in existence, but rather the mistranslation that violated the 1408 law.

The common thread in citing all these supposed acts of persecution by the Catholic and Anglican churches is that they often leave out many facts that provide a different context. Which context would you like me to learn about the Mountain Meadows Massecre, for instance? Should I listen to the version with all the facts or the one that leaves a few out?

[Traveler]

...

Yes, the vessel of revelation has changed and the Church decided early on that the Jews were no longer the oracles of God, but rather the Church of the New Covenant. The rescinding of circumcision as a requirement and the changing of the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday were part of a separation process by which the Church struck out on the singular authority given in by Jesus Christ. It's important to note that not all members are given the same authority. The commission from Christ to the apostles was passed to the bishops who ordain presbyters (priests) acting in their stead. This is why only clergy can perform certain acts such as holy Mass, hearing confessions, and so on.

...

I agree that the vessel of revelation was indeed changed. I also agree that the change was new and very different from the ancient structures that had always existed before among the covenat peoples of G-d but not so different from other vessels of ancient times. For example as I view history - it appears to me that the new vessel of which you draw reference more closely resembled the ancient structure and behavior of the Roman Empire than any vessel spoken of or referenced in scripture. The new vessel became politically, economically and spiritually centered according to Roman influences to select Rome as it head and turn away from Jerusalem thus according to the prophises to become mingled (as unleven bread) with the Gentiles.

The Traveler

[volgadon]

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.

I'm afraid I don't follow. The Septuagint reflects one version of a textual tradition relating to the Bible. We know of several others. from the same time. Do not confuse popularity with reliability.

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.

Johanine comma anyone?

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

I agree that the vessel of revelation was indeed changed. I also agree that the change was new and very different from the ancient structures that had always existed before among the covenat peoples of G-d but not so different from other vessels of ancient times. For example as I view history - it appears to me that the new vessel of which you draw reference more closely resembled the ancient structure and behavior of the Roman Empire than any vessel spoken of or referenced in scripture. The new vessel became politically, economically and spiritually centered according to Roman influences to select Rome as it head and turn away from Jerusalem thus according to the prophises to become mingled (as unleven bread) with the Gentiles.

The Traveler

In what way does the hierarchy of the Church resemble the Roman Empire? Because they have an authority structure? Not unlike the Jewish authority structure. In fact, the Church is far more a cousin to the Jewish system because both are priesthoods. The Jewish system was the priesthood according to the order of Aaron and the Christian system according to the order of Melchizadek, a more ancient and superior order that has displaced the previous. Jesus being High Priest forever according to the order of Melchizadek is head of the new order and then the bishops, the presbyters, and so on. There are many key differences between these two orders, one of which is the new order is one which all baptized Christians are called to. Though not everyone holds an office, we are a "royal priesthood" (1Peter 2:9) and all of us intercessors representing the world to God and God to the world. Compare that to the Jewish system where only one tribe of twelve was given priesthood duties.

I find little comparison between the Church and the Roman Empire, but I see a rich and deep connection between the order of the New Covenant, the Melchizadekan priesthood and the priesthood that sustained Israel for many centuries.

[The_Phoenix]

I hardly know what to think of your paste job. The one example you singled out, William Tyndale, is often cited as a martyr when he was far from it. He was a priest who was denied an imprimatur from the Bishop of London because of past acts of insurrection and hostility toward the Catholic Church. When he left England he wrote a version full of errors and outright calumnies; scriptures twisted to cast aspersions on the Church. King Henry VIII, after breaking from Rome, said, "the translation of the Scripture corrupted by William Tyndale should be utterly expelled, rejected, and put away out of the hands of the people." It was not the translation of the Bible into vernacular as many authorized English translated versions were already in existence, but rather the mistranslation that violated the 1408 law.

The common thread in citing all these supposed acts of persecution by the Catholic and Anglican churches is that they often leave out many facts that provide a different context. Which context would you like me to learn about the Mountain Meadows Massecre, for instance? Should I listen to the version with all the facts or the one that leaves a few out?

And for this he deserved to die? Defending any church in error is wrong. The cut / paste was to give other examples since I could not cite the entire book. When a Church takes up the sword to enforce belief it loses it Heavenly Mandate.

[The_Phoenix]

It's about an 1200 year block between the 4th and 16th centuries. I was pointing out that the Reformation didn't happen right after the canonical councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage. Did you know, for instance, that during the so called "dark ages" the Catholic Church eliminated slavery in the entire continent of Europe? It's the first time in world history that a significant portion of the globe was free of slavery.

Nor did what I said so imply.

[The_Phoenix]

I hardly know what to think of your paste job. The one example you singled out, William Tyndale, is often cited as a martyr when he was far from it. He was a priest who was denied an imprimatur from the Bishop of London because of past acts of insurrection and hostility toward the Catholic Church.

Somehow I think no example would do and not warrant a rewrite of the events in a Catholic Apologetic form. I was not attacking Catholicism. I was speaking of an overall apostasy from the death of the Apostles into the 19th century.

[The_Phoenix]

I'm afraid I don't follow. The Septuagint reflects one version of a textual tradition relating to the Bible. We know of several others. from the same time. Do not confuse popularity with reliability.

Ditto to you sir, I hope sir. :)

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

And for this he deserved to die? Defending any church in error is wrong. The cut / paste was to give other examples since I could not cite the entire book. When a Church takes up the sword to enforce belief it loses it Heavenly Mandate.

The 1408 law was passed as a result of John Wycliff's horribly twisted translation. That's why there is an imprimatur process and a penalty for violating it. As an armchair historian, you can second guess the methods the Catholic Church used to keep the holy Scriptures pure from error and corruption. I cannot.

Somehow I think no example would do and not warrant a rewrite of the events in a Catholic Apologetic form. I was not attacking Catholicism. I was speaking of an overall apostasy from the death of the Apostles into the 19th century.

An "overall" apostacy? That's painting in some mighty broad strokes. The accusation of apostacy confers scandal not upon the Church but upon Christ himself who promised to preserve His church lest the gates of hell prevail against it. Pointing to a few examples of corruption while ignoring the centuries of Christian piety with many faithful saints who defended and spread the gospel and even lost their lives for it is a butchering of history to promote an agenda. In order to sustain this revision of history, some Mormons have become in league with Catholic haters who twist and malign history. The stench of hypocricy is nausiating since this is the very thing Mormons hate to have done to them.

[Blackmarch]

Incorrect my friend. Aside from the Mormon habit of utilizing sola scriptura when it suits them and abandoning it when it doesn't, our understanding of one of Christ's promises "When He, the Spirit of Truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth." (Jn 16:13) Not only is this promise important, but who it's spoken to throws it into sharp relief. The concept of office is not lost on Mormons, but they, like Protestants, often fail to differentiate between Christ's exclusive teachings to his apostles and his general teachings to the masses. This promise is to the Apostles as they carry out their apostolic office.

actually I was thinking of various other events in the bible (such as with Paul). I generally take multiple readings of the bible, both literal and otherwise. I use the bible because I've found much of it to be true.

Now you are mirroring here the same mistake as you're claiming the LDS make-Christs does not say its only to the apostles, nor is there any indication that it was meant only for the apostles, so to say that Jn 16:13 was only meant for the apostles requires not only Sola Scriptura/literalism but that you also have to insert extra wording. At best with a true sola scriptura reading of that for an individual cannot go either way as there is no direct text there to indicate that was only for the apostles, or if it was something they were to teach to the masses eventually (altho having it included in the the scriptures would seem to indicate it was for the whole of the church)

It's fine with me if you want to go with either.

While there may have been things only for the apostles (which i'm quite sure there was, just not recorded in the scripture) things like this make absolutely no sense if the apostleship was meant to be a one-off thing (apostle being defined by you as having a personal interaction with the savior, or as a bishop that had personal interaction with the Lord)

I tend to be websterian, so if the catholic context of the word makes it significantly different it might help to make a note or something.

My best source for what CHrist built is the bible... if you want to use something other than the bible thats fine, either mention it or or link to it, if you'd be so kind.

Good. You understand perfectly. Unless you can cite a specific reason why all of Christ's authority would be passed to the Apostles but only a portion to the bishops they appointed, its an unassailable argument that this authority passed on undiminished. The words of the apostles are weightier because they heard directly from the Savior Himself, but the authority is the same.

Perhaps- I tend to be legalistic, and I understand Justice very well, and I understand authority and how it is used as I understand it.

Other than the one than the lack of scriptural evidence that Bishops are the same as apostles? They were given different duties. If they were equal to the apostles how come the flow in the scripture is from apostle to bishop and never the other way? From things I've read, apostles were set over the whole church while bishops were set over parts of it, right there that indicates a differences a difffernece in level of authority or in what rights they have to use that authority (certainly not proof tho)

In the simplistic apostle = prophet, I can see that. Is this just a matter of linguistics? The claim here is that Joseph Smith was a prophet in the order of Samuel, Nathan, Elisha, Elijah, etc is a reverting to outdated and outmoded Old Testament leadership structures. Yes, that age has ended and I disagree that Joseph Smith was a prophet.

It could be a linguistics problem... The LDS view the authority of God as the authority of God and that it doesnt change so we see the apostles in the same light as the old testament prophets, same with modern ones.

the problem with the quote is that the bible does not show a difference or state a difference, nor does it show or state that Pre-atonement and Post-atonement authority for one who's God's mouthpiece has changed.

What's changed are the ordinances (the rules and rites) which are done by the authority, but are not the authority, and who held the authority.

Yes, the vessel of revelation has changed and the Church decided early on that the Jews were no longer the oracles of God, but rather the Church of the New Covenant. The rescinding of circumcision as a requirement and the changing of the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday were part of a separation process by which the Church struck out on the singular authority given in by Jesus Christ. It's important to note that not all members are given the same authority. The commission from Christ to the apostles was passed to the bishops who ordain presbyters (priests) acting in their stead. This is why only clergy can perform certain acts such as holy Mass, hearing confessions, and so on.

Where was this passing on of the exact same commission recorded? Or was this an oral tradition that was handed down before being recorded?

I'd like to clarify- As much as moses wanted all israel to be prophets, they were not due to wickedness and pride, and that never changed. The reason That jews were God's people and that he Chose his oracles from among them was because of covenants that were made. Once the jews broke their part of the covenant, and God fulfilled his it freed God to let expand that sphere to all others who would come into it.... The Apostles would have loved to have all to be prophets just as Moses would have had all israel, but could not because of wickedness and sin... (and that level probably won't happen till after the second coming)

It seems to me that from what your saying or showing anyways is that the authority comes from the law, and since the law was changed/replaced the mode of authority is likewise changed/replaced

My view is that the law comes from the authority, and it was by that authority that it was made or changed.

I think we're on the same page here. The Old Covenant was a tutor, a foundation for a new and better covenant where: "Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation." (Hebrews 9:11). The doing away with the sacrificial system, the ability to "come boldly to the thrown of grace," and the filling of the Holy Ghost are but a few ways in which we have become recipients of a better covenant.

On a side note here I"d like to clarify; sacrifice was not elimnated rather a simple form was swapped out for a more better form of it- the system was changed or replaced as was the rest of the law of moses it went from something small to something larger, now we are not currently required to do blood sacrifice, but we are required to sacrifice our thoughts-Remember christ (IE such as the sacrament/mass),sacrifice our pride, sacrifice the natural man, sacrifice our hate and anger, and eventually we are to sacrifice everything to follow the Lord. - This is a far harder and stronger command than just having to sacrifice an unblemished firstborn lamb and etc..

But ya I think we have quite a bit of overlap as well lol.

Not really. Apostles are appointed by Jesus Christ himself. I thought we covered this.

Yes that is the definition you gave me, and matthias throws a loop in it-

He did not have the personal interaction with CHrist yet still became an Apostle rather than a bishop... I think you said because the spirit of CHrist is present or something like that, but if that's the case, then does that mean that Christ's spirit was not present for the authorizing of bishops?

In short the calling of apostles by the apostles starts throwing loops in to this line of reasoning as i understand it so far.

I am also still confused how the authority is mitigated. (from the catholic view)

In the current LDS system of authority as given to us through the doctrine and covenants which has specific and precise wordage on how each level of authority can be used- those that are higher up generally can officiate for lower functions but there isn't anything that I can find or recall at the moment that allows someone in a lower position to fill in for a higher position without first being called by someone that's in that position (or higher), and being given the authority and rights for whatever duty.

Now this pattern seems to fit biblical examples better than other forms i've heard from what I've seen in the bible.

You're right. "No man can take this honor upon himself, but he who is called by God." (Heb 5:1) But God the Father does not hold a priesthood. The role of a priest is that of an intercessor. Jesus is the Great High Priest forever according to the order of Melchizadek precisely because he intercedes for the people before God the Father. Without getting into Mormon beliefs about progressive godhood (because I don't buy it) God the Father answers to no one.

Almost. God does answer to someone; himself- He is bound by what he says (becauses he chooses to do so). Priesthood or whatever you want to call the system that God uses his power and grants authrority, currently Priesthood is the best word I can think of that describes this, and does so with a holy connotation.

Without God as part of that system, everything breaks apart, and Christ would not have had power to do what he did, nor wwould he be able to empower the apostles and etc..

AS for progresssion of gods, for the sake of simplicity in this discussion let us assume theres no progression of Gods above God the Father.

I think we can agree that someday there will be a great cause for vindication or a great cause for embarassment when we stand before God and find out just what JS was full of.

Oh I'm sure that there'll be vindication and embarrassment aplenty. However for those who are truly seeking God, none of it will be on choosing to accept JS as a prophet, whether he was or not.

EDIT: Possible inflammatory comments about Joseph Smith removed.

They weren't inflammable, I was just somewhat surprised to see stronger wording used in regards from someone who hasn't acted like the general people I run across that use the same wording to describe JS, who really shouldn't care about JS if what they believe is true. This has been something puzzles me a lot- I don't get those feelings even when I read about other religious leaders whose actions were far worse than anything JS could possibly have done.

Those people just don't matter.

I don't see how someone outside anothers faith (if they believ their faith is the truth)should be able to raise such ire.

[ryanh]

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.

"The" Septuagint? As I understand it, there were many versions of the Septuagint. And it underwent many revisions and modifications in the centuries immediately preceding Christ's birth. So, pointing to the Septuagint as a stable foundation seems to be a bit of a fallacy. Edited March 23, 2011 by ryanh
Corrected spelling of Septuagint

[ryanh]

Joseph F. McConkie, emeritus professor of Ancient Scripture at BYU, makes an interesting observation about the phrase "insofar as translated correctly". Dravin hit upon this thought a little bit.

Joseph F. McConkie indicated that we often use the word translation as singularly meaning the process of changing from one language to another. However, the latin root of the word means 'to hand over', or to 'bear across'. The issue is about transmission of texts, not the issue of the actual act of changing from one language to the other. He gave his opinion that the correct reading of the meaning of the phrase should be read as "insofar as it is transmitted correctly."

In short, there is much missing from canonized texts. Not so much the fault of inept or corrupt translators, but that through the process of selecting what to include it the Septuagint, and other canonized tests, there was a failure to transmit important parts. Many plain and precious parts were lost in this manner.