LDS Canon of Scriptures


Recommended Posts

When did this occur? Did someone write anything about the priesthood being removed? How did anyone know the difference? Did anyone plead with God before the priesthood was taken from man? Also, isn't that what the Protestant Reformation was all about? The "restoring" of the Old Church?

The exact timeframe of complete apostasy is not known. But, from studying Catholic Papal History we can pretty much conclude that complete apostasy has occured by the 8th century.

The Protestant Reformation is an attempt to restore the teachings of the Church to Orthodoxy. Those in protest did not have the priesthood keys to preside over the church either and surely not to start their own version of the church.

So, in my own interpretaton of events, there are only two possibilites of which is the true Christian church - the Roman Catholic or the LDS. Both are the only ones who have a reasonable claim to Apostolic Authority. All the others don't bother claiming one (okay, so the Eastern claim apostolic authority but they lack leadership).

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I just want to make sure I understand what you are saying... you don't trust the LDS Church for guidance but on the Prophets and you're own interpretations of personal revelations that you feel are from God and the Holy Spirit?

I am not sure how you could misinterpret my words, but I will repeat myself. We do not place trust in any church, we place our trust in God and his Holy Spirit and in God's guidance through his servants the prophets.

What church did Noah belong to? What church did Abraham belong to?

We trust in God. We trust in God's chosen servants. The Church is merely a vehicle to help us along the path.

We trust in the same personal revelation that brought Peter to say, "Thou art the Christ."

Personal revelation isn't a personal "interpretation", it is something that is received. When Peter received witness that Jesus was the Christ, was this his "own interpretation"? No, it was revelation received from our Heavenly Father.

I place trust in God and his chosen servants. Not really to hard to grasp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I oversimplifying?

Yes- and I begin to suspect you are doing so deliberately.

You said it is an experience that you feel emotionally, spiritually and intellectually. And that that feeling is interpreted as confirmation from the Holy Spirit.

Read the very post from me that you just quoted, and show me where I used the word "feel".

The actual word I used was "experienced".

You are ignoring what I have posted in order to minimize the experience as mere "warm feelings" or "fuzzy-wuzzies".

You have deliberately disregarded the intellectual and rationale components in order to denigrate what you perceive to be the weakest aspect of the three.

If you are going to dismiss what you are told simply because it does not fit your preconceived world view, then you will never understand us.

Are you trying to understand us? Or simply to prove Catholicism (as you perceive it) is superior?

If it is the latter, then there's really no point in continuing the discussion-

no matter how many truths we tell you, you will simply reject them in favor of that which is comfortable to you.

All I'm saying is that truth is independent of my feelings.

It is EQUALLY independent of your derision, bias, and prejudice.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I'm saying is that truth is independent of my feelings.

Yes, truth is truth regardless of how you feel about it. BUT, the only way for YOU to know it is true is if you FEEL it is such... FEEL, in this usage, of course, is not limited to hot-cold-happy-sad... FEEL is an overall experience of the senses...physical and spiritual. As we can't SEE nor HEAR the Spirit, you have no other way to know what he has to say unless you FEEL it - in the same manner you feel a breeze on your face. Umistakeable. Undeniable.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest DeusCaritasEst

How would we know if they did?

We have only a tiny fraction of the conversations and correspondance that took place in the first few centuries of the Christian Church.

Moreover, all of the surviving extant records were maintained (and copied, altered, and redacted) by an organization whose legitimacy is predicated on retaining that authority.

The Catholic Church's ONLY claim to authority is that the Pope succeeded the Apostles- but we have only their word that this is the case.

The phrase "conflict of interest" doesn't begin to cover the magnitude of the problem.

Couldn't the same be said for the LDS? How do you know that you are a member of the faction God intended to be intact after Joseph was gone? How do you know others who had a lot to gain didn't step in? How do you know the brass plates were translated correctly?

As far as the Holy Bible is concerned, there are thousands of manuscripts(more than any text to exist) and all of them can be referenced and cross-checked for consistency. Even if the Catholic Church owned all the manuscripts in the first few centuries, they weren't in the possession by a single person so there is a lot of room for errors in theology. However, they can all be guaranteed to be more accurately translated than the Iliad and the Odyssey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest DeusCaritasEst

I am not sure how you could misinterpret my words, but I will repeat myself. We do not place trust in any church, we place our trust in God and his Holy Spirit and in God's guidance through his servants the prophets.

What church did Noah belong to? What church did Abraham belong to?

We trust in God. We trust in God's chosen servants. The Church is merely a vehicle to help us along the path.

We trust in the same personal revelation that brought Peter to say, "Thou art the Christ."

Personal revelation isn't a personal "interpretation", it is something that is received. When Peter received witness that Jesus was the Christ, was this his "own interpretation"? No, it was revelation received from our Heavenly Father.

I place trust in God and his chosen servants. Not really to hard to grasp.

Sorry I misunderstood you, I am just confused that you don't trust any church but it is the "vehicle" you use to help you along?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest DeusCaritasEst

Yes- and I begin to suspect you are doing so deliberately.

Read the very post from me that you just quoted, and show me where I used the word "feel".

The actual word I used was "experienced".

You are ignoring what I have posted in order to minimize the experience as mere "warm feelings" or "fuzzy-wuzzies".

You have deliberately disregarded the intellectual and rationale components in order to denigrate what you perceive to be the weakest aspect of the three.

If you are going to dismiss what you are told simply because it does not fit your preconceived world view, then you will never understand us.

Are you trying to understand us? Or simply to prove Catholicism (as you perceive it) is superior?

If it is the latter, then there's really no point in continuing the discussion-

no matter how many truths we tell you, you will simply reject them in favor of that which is comfortable to you.

It is EQUALLY independent of your derision, bias, and prejudice.

It is my understanding that feelings are events that the body experiences, where am I wrong in this? Are you saying that I only accept doctrine that is "easy to swallow"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry I misunderstood you, I am just confused that you don't trust any church but it is the "vehicle" you use to help you along?

What LDS Church did Joseph Smith belong to before 1830? None. When Joseph Smith began preaching along with others converting people to the gospel of Jesus Christ before 1830? None.

Our trust is in God. Our trust is within the gospel of Jesus Christ. Our trust is in the same place Adam trust, Noah trusted, Abraham trusted -- in God.

Would you be able to advise me regarding the Church Abraham established, Noah perhaps? The Church allows believers to come together to worship and learn about the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I don't see any reason to place my trust in a church. There are many churches, some claim truth through history, some claim truth through the same history while denying or rejecting other aspects others believe about history. All these churches teach faith in Jesus Christ, which church should I trust, if I solely trust in a church? The one that claims "history" as their truth -- longest history? Well, the Jewish faith, and their churches are able to claim a longer history than the Catholic Church, is their history because it dates 2000 years longer than Catholicism more accurate and more truthful. What about other religions with churches whose history dates further back than Catholicism?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couldn't the same be said for the LDS? How do you know that you are a member of the faction God intended to be intact after Joseph was gone? How do you know others who had a lot to gain didn't step in? How do you know the brass plates were translated correctly?

And this is EXACTLY what a personal revelation is for. Nobody can tell you it is true. You have to experience that Spiritual witness for yourself.

As far as the Holy Bible is concerned, there are thousands of manuscripts(more than any text to exist) and all of them can be referenced and cross-checked for consistency. Even if the Catholic Church owned all the manuscripts in the first few centuries, they weren't in the possession by a single person so there is a lot of room for errors in theology. However, they can all be guaranteed to be more accurately translated than the Iliad and the Odyssey.

Yes, but we're not talking about the closest to the truth. We're talking about the exact truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couldn't the same be said for the LDS?

Yes- and it often is.

How do you know that you are a member of the faction God intended to be intact after Joseph was gone?

Because I have the ratification of the Spirit of God affirming that to me.

I don't need to take the word of a man for it- I can (and have) ask of God.

How do you know others who had a lot to gain didn't step in? How do you know the brass plates were translated correctly?

Same answer as above.

I don't need to take my Bishop's (or priest's) word for it- I have the truth straight from the source.

As far as the Holy Bible is concerned, there are thousands of manuscripts(more than any text to exist) and all of them can be referenced and cross-checked for consistency.

It would be more accurate (and more intellectually honest) to say that there are many thousands of fragments, rather than complete manuscripts.

According to Wikipedia (a source I do not altogether trust, but which is sufficient for this conversation):

Parts of the New Testament have been preserved in more manuscripts than any other ancient work, having over 5,800 complete or fragmented Greek manuscripts, 10,000 Latin manuscripts and 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient languages including Syriac, Slavic, Gothic, Ethiopic, Coptic and Armenian. The dates of these manuscripts range from c. 125 (the John Ryland's manuscript, P52; oldest copy of John fragments) to the introduction of printing in Germany in the 15th century. The vast majority of these manuscripts date after the 10th century. Although there are more manuscripts that preserve the New Testament than there are for any other ancient writing, the exact form of the text preserved in these later, numerous manuscripts may not be identical to the form of the text as it existed in antiquity. Textual scholar Bart Ehrman writes: "It is true, of course, that the New Testament is abundantly attested in the manuscripts produced through the ages, but most of these manuscripts are many centuries removed from the originals, and none of them perfectly accurate. They all contain mistakes - altogether many thousands of mistakes. It is not an easy task to reconstruct the original words of the New Testament...."[

Biblical manuscript - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And (if memory serves) none of those fragments date to much before the fourth century.

Even if the Catholic Church owned all the manuscripts in the first few centuries, they weren't in the possession by a single person so there is a lot of room for errors in theology.

Thank you for making my point.

Very, very few of the fragments date to much before the fourth century, and the vast majority were made after the 10th century.

All of them contain contradictions, errors, and revisions.

None of them represent the whole (or even majority) of what the Savior and his disciples taught.

Sola scriptura is a comforting fantasy, but it remains merely a fantasy.

As such, your argument that absent a record of the withdrawal of Priesthood authority, the Catholic Church is true is, at best, an argument from silence.

However, they can all be guaranteed to be more accurately translated than the Iliad and the Odyssey.

Really? According to whom, exactly?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is my understanding that feelings are events that the body experiences, where am I wrong in this?

"Feelings" are purely emotional responses, and are thus both unreliable and easily manipulated (anything written by John Williams being a prime example).

Where you are going wrong (at least in your attempt to summarize what we are telling you) is that you are ignoring both the intellectual and spiritual aspects which are equally intrinsic to the event.

Revelation is NOT the same as "feelings", and any attempt to reduce it to such is inescapably an effort to denigrate it.

Are you saying that I only accept doctrine that is "easy to swallow"?

No- I am "suggesting" that there are two possibilities:

1) that you are having trouble overcoming your Catholic upbringing (and conditioning) in your attempts to understand us, or

2) are not seeking to understand but to criticize.

I hope that it is the former, but I have dealt with the latter quite often, as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest DeusCaritasEst

Very, very few of the fragments date to much before the fourth century, and the vast majority were made after the 10th century.

All of them contain contradictions, errors, and revisions.

None of them represent the whole (or even majority) of what the Savior and his disciples taught.

Really? According to whom, exactly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest DeusCaritasEst

I don't need to take the word of a man for it- I can (and have) ask of God.

I don't need to take my Bishop's (or priest's) word for it- I have the truth straight from the source.

And by this do you mean that you prayed to the Holy Spirit for insight and read the Word of God for an answer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest DeusCaritasEst

The list of Biblical scholars in two separate articles I've linked in this thread thus far, for starters.

could you provide the post #s so I can reference them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is in reply to both selek and skalenfehl:

As I have been asked to provide objective proof for the existence of documents and events, I would like to ask for the same in return.

Please provide objective proof that the golden or brass plates existed and that Joseph translated them correctly.

I think that is only fair.

Objective proof: Let us assume you have never tasted salt. I can explain to you what it tastes like, describe it to you, provide scholars and scientists to explain the physical properties of salt and all its uses. It will be up to you to determine whether or not I and these witnesses are credible, honest and upright. But until you personally have placed some in your mouth, you will never know what salt really tastes like.

I have the testimony of many prophets who have written upon and also the witnesses who have with their own eyes, and held with their own hands the plates to which your refer. I give to you eleven accounts of their testimony. It is up to you to determine if they were credible and honest and upright men. And if you ask of the Father and He gives to you a witness by the power of the Holy Ghost, then you will have received the most important witness of all. And that will be your twelfth witness of the existence of the plates, for God cannot lie. Once you have "tasted" for yourself, there can be no more unbelief. But it requires you to seek Him. "Seek and ye shall find. Ask and it shall be given. Knock and it shall be opened unto you."--Jesus Christ (Matthew 7:7)

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken. And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true.

And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And it is marvelous in our eyes. Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things.

And we know that if we are faithful in Christ, we shall rid our garments of the blood of all men, and be found spotless before the judgment-seat of Christ, and shall dwell with him eternally in the heavens. And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.

Oliver Cowdery

David Whitmer

Martin Harris

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.

Christian Whitmer

Jacob Whitmer

Peter Whitmer, Jun.

John Whitmer

Hiram Page

Joseph Smith, Sen.

Hyrum Smith

Samuel H. Smith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really appreciate the way Joshua expressed himself.

I was reading through some of the comments and one of the individuals knew everything. He even provided a Flow-Chart about critical thinking.

Then when you read #1 on the critical thinking, Joshua should of ended the argument, because the individual wasn't going to be convinced either way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
 Share