More Questions From a Newbie


Recommended Posts

Sorry to drive you all crazy with questions but I am loving the knowledge I am gaining from the LDS Church and community.

Last week at church I was being taught about the Great Apostasy and then how the Restoration was brought to the earth by Joseph Smith.  I was taught that the Great Apostasy happened with the death of the last living apostle (which I think is around 100-110 AD),  is there an official date on this or is it just approximate coinciding with the death of the last living apostle? (Obviously we dont have an official date for when the last apostle died but I thought maybe Joseph Smith had a revelation or was told by God and Jesus when this happened)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

just approximate coinciding with the death of the last living apostle

That.  If someone's nailed down an exact date, I never heard it (but then I don't care that much about dates).  I don't think it matters so much - "about then" seems more than close enough (to me).  Question (meant respectfully, but I don't know how to distinguish that from words that could also sound snarky, so I'm noting it here): Why the interest in an exact date?  (E.g. just curiosity, to try to link it to something else, to share with someone...?)  Just curious (probably because of my complete disinterest in exactly when things happened - I hated history classes ;) ).

What exactly are you confused about?  I don't have time to read the whole document, but I skimmed, and wonder if it's the multiple uses of "apostasy".  There were little ones, in various areas of the Church until finally, after the death of the last apostle, with no more apostles to correct them, the Church went entirely astray (how long it took each congregation to deviate far enough from truth to be called apostate is not likely knowable).

For future readers: The link is a PDF of:

"Why 1820"
Hyrum W. Smith
From a devotional given at Ricks College, 27 September 1988.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

Sorry to drive you all crazy with questions but I am loving the knowledge I am gaining from the LDS Church and community.

I don't accept apologies along the lines of "I'm sorry I just gave you a mountain of delicious chocolate and an all expense paid vacation to your favorite getaway location".  So you apology is not accepted. :P 

7 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

Last week at church I was being taught about the Great Apostasy and then how the Restoration was brought to the earth by Joseph Smith.  I was taught that the Great Apostasy happened with the death of the last living apostle (which I think is around 100-110 AD),  is there an official date on this or is it just approximate coinciding with the death of the last living apostle? (Obviously we dont have an official date for when the last apostle died but I thought maybe Joseph Smith had a revelation or was told by God and Jesus when this happened)

Well naturally it was Aug 19th 172 AD at 9:31 PM, Central Jerusalem time.  

(The above is a joke)  People loosing Truth is not like a light switch going off that you can pin a specific date on.  Rather it's a fire burning out as it no longer receives fresh fuel.  Clearly there were problems and some heresy's going around during the time of the Apostles (and all other times before then), but the Apostles were there continuing to reveal/re-teach God's Truth as His mouthpieces (just like all the Prophets before then).  After their deaths and when they were not replaced, things went downhill.  And again, it's not like a light-switch, but more like a starved fire.  Even today all Christian churches continue to some of His Truth, but without His mouthpieces they've also embraced some falsehoods.  A clear time we see this on a systematic level is 325 with the doctrine of consubstantion (pardon my lack of spelling). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

I just read this document and now I'm even more confused???

Why%201820.pdf

Why 1820.pdf

 

1 hour ago, zil said:

What exactly are you confused about?  I don't have time to read the whole document, but I skimmed, and wonder if it's the multiple uses of "apostasy".  There were little ones, in various areas of the Church until finally, after the death of the last apostle, with no more apostles to correct them, the Church went entirely astray (how long it took each congregation to deviate far enough from truth to be called apostate is not likely knowable).

For future readers: The link is a PDF of:

"Why 1820"
Hyrum W. Smith
From a devotional given at Ricks College, 27 September 1988.

There's nothing to be confused about.  The only relevant point to your question on the Great Apostasy is the loss of authority.  When disciples apostasized from the Church during the time of the Apostles it was not a complete apostasy because Jesus or any one of the Apostles had the Authority to correct false teachings.  A lot of Paul's letters are written just for this purpose.

The talk "Why 1820" goes beyond the Great Apostasy and goes into the Restoration.  It was a talk given to LDS members.  In my humble opinion, this is a toxic document if you give this to a devout Roman Catholic to read.  Catholics know their own history and they do not believe that errors of people means error of the church as a whole.  They will just take this as an attack on their faith and would just go and boomerang the same exact "errors" at the LDS Church starting with the 3 witnesses of the Book of Mormon leaving the LDS Church, Joseph Smith's polygamy, the Mountain Meadows Massacre, etc. etc.

In any case, the only relevant event in Why 1820 to the Great Apostasy is John, the last Apostle.  The Apostolic Authority ended with him and as we don't know when he died, we don't know an exact date of the Great Apostasy.  Whether Bishop Linus was a good disciple or not is irrelevant to the Great Apostasy.  Even the Catholic Church do not claim that Bishop Linus was ordained an Apostle.  Rather, they simply claim that Bishops were given the authority of the Apostles upon the death of Peter.  The LDS do not believe this, hence, the Great Apostasy.

The Great Apostasy is the loss of Apostolic Authority from when John passed to when Joseph Smith was ordained an Apostle.  A Catholic can only deposit faith on this statement if he appeals to the Holy Spirit.  No amount of Catholic history bashing will get you there especially by non-Catholics who do not understand how Apostolic Authority works in the Catholic faith (a bad pope does not cause a loss of Apostolic Authority because he is only one bishop of many who holds the same authority).

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

Sorry to drive you all crazy with questions but I am loving the knowledge I am gaining from the LDS Church and community.

Last week at church I was being taught about the Great Apostasy and then how the Restoration was brought to the earth by Joseph Smith.  I was taught that the Great Apostasy happened with the death of the last living apostle (which I think is around 100-110 AD),  is there an official date on this or is it just approximate coinciding with the death of the last living apostle? (Obviously we dont have an official date for when the last apostle died but I thought maybe Joseph Smith had a revelation or was told by God and Jesus when this happened)

 

For what-ever reason most think of the great Apostasy in terms of doctrine.  The actual apostasy was the usurping of the “Authority” of G-d on earth to establish holy or divine covenants.    The most obvious indication of the Great Apostasy is the ending of the authority to write holy scripture – which is a record of covenant obedience and apostasy (creating a false covenant).  The real meaning of Apostasy is not heresy (as many Traditional Christians claim) but the ending of the power on earth to record (create) covenants which are wirtten in the book of life which is used at the Judgment of G-d.   This power of covenant proctor was given to Peter and the claims of covenant proctor succession are invalidated with the ending of written scripture.

As a side note – this is why the authority of the Pharisees and the Sadducees was that of a false proctor and void of written scripture.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, anatess2 said:

 

There's nothing to be confused about.  The only relevant point to your question on the Great Apostasy is the loss of authority.  When disciples apostasized from the Church during the time of the Apostles it was not a complete apostasy because Jesus or any one of the Apostles had the Authority to correct false teachings.  A lot of Paul's letters are written just for this purpose.

The talk "Why 1820" goes beyond the Great Apostasy and goes into the Restoration.  It was a talk given to LDS members.  In my humble opinion, this is a toxic document if you give this to a devout Roman Catholic to read.  Catholics know their own history and they do not believe that errors of people means error of the church as a whole.  They will just take this as an attack on their faith and would just go and boomerang the same exact "errors" at the LDS Church starting with the 3 witnesses of the Book of Mormon leaving the LDS Church, Joseph Smith's polygamy, the Mountain Meadows Massacre, etc. etc.

In any case, the only relevant event in Why 1820 to the Great Apostasy is John, the last Apostle.  The Apostolic Authority ended with him and as we don't know when he died, we don't know an exact date of the Great Apostasy.  Whether Bishop Linus was a good disciple or not is irrelevant to the Great Apostasy.  Even the Catholic Church do not claim that Bishop Linus was ordained an Apostle.  Rather, they simply claim that Bishops were given the authority of the Apostles upon the death of Peter.  The LDS do not believe this, hence, the Great Apostasy.

The Great Apostasy is the loss of Apostolic Authority from when John passed to when Joseph Smith was ordained an Apostle.  A Catholic can only deposit faith on this statement if he appeals to the Holy Spirit.  No amount of Catholic history bashing will get you there especially by non-Catholics who do not understand how Apostolic Authority works in the Catholic faith (a bad pope does not cause a loss of Apostolic Authority because he is only one bishop of many who holds the same authority).

I would never give my husband this to read, I think you are right it would just upset him and make him angry.  Maybe that's why I don't understand it fully, because of my background?  

It was a lot of information to digest and I guess I wasn't expecting it to be so negative towards my current faith.  And you are right when you say most people don't believe errors of people mean errors of the church as a whole, every church has figures in authority who have made errors (The LDS included and I'm sure you don't think the entire church is in error because of the mistakes and bad behaviour of a few) so I guess its hard to accept that as reasoning for the great apostasy, which is where the confusion comes in. I think I was just looking for a concrete 'this is the reasoning and this is when it happened' and I didn't get that.

I don't know much about the 3 witnesses except that they did in fact leave BUT they never denied their testimony of the Book Of Mormon and that says a lot.  I dont know about the Mountain Meadows Massacre but it doesn't sound very nice and I don't fully understand celestial marriage and how polygamy ties in with that either but I can learn all that later when I have a strong testimony. I'm just trying to concentrate on the missionary lessons at the moment and any further information that is relevant to them.

Thank you for your response, it made the most sense to me

Back to prayer it is!  I might actually try fasting and praying on this one.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Blossom76, I'm not a fan of the "Why 1820" talk either.  I just don't feel it respectfully presents RCC's doctrines and history, and that's a mega problem in my mind.  Yes, obviously I'm not Catholic because I don't find those doctrines to be correct, but that doesn't mean anyone should be disrespecting other people and their beliefs.  We can talk and share about different beliefs and disagree without being disrespectful.

Edited by Jane_Doe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

I just read this document and now I'm even more confused???

Why%201820.pdf

Why 1820.pdf

I don't know who Hyrum W. Smith is, but I assume he's a descendant of Hyrum Smith, the Prophet Joseph Smith's brother and closest friend. Brother Smith is not a Church authority as far as I know, and his history should be taken with a grain of salt unless he can substantiate it better than just "because I said so". (Honestly, anyone who talks about Jesus being born in the Year 0, which does not exist in any year-counting system that I have ever heard of, casts serious doubt on his own reliability. Jesus was born in 1 AD, or at least that's the meaning of "1 AD".)

That said, I largely agree with his reasoning. The year 1820 was likely the earliest that Christ's Church could have been restored by revelation since the time of the apostasy, and the United States was likely the only place in 1820 that that restoration could have been successfully accomplished. And even at that, as Brother Smith notes, the Saints were chased out of the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

Sorry to drive you all crazy with questions but I am loving the knowledge I am gaining from the LDS Church and community.

Last week at church I was being taught about the Great Apostasy and then how the Restoration was brought to the earth by Joseph Smith.  I was taught that the Great Apostasy happened with the death of the last living apostle (which I think is around 100-110 AD),  is there an official date on this or is it just approximate coinciding with the death of the last living apostle? (Obviously we dont have an official date for when the last apostle died but I thought maybe Joseph Smith had a revelation or was told by God and Jesus when this happened)

As far as I know, the actual date of the apostasy has never been determined or given by revelation. Apostasy is a process that happens in steps. At what point did the kingdom become irretrievable? I don't know, but certainly after the apostles were all dead or banished.

You are not driving anyone crazy with questions. Ask away, and we'll answer as we can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, zil said:

 Why the interest in an exact date?  (E.g. just curiosity, to try to link it to something else, to share with someone...?)  Just curious (probably because of my complete disinterest in exactly when things happened - I hated history classes ;) ).

 

Because it is such a big claim of the LDS church, it is the reason for the LDS church being started.  And basically if the LDS Church is right about this and Joseph Smith is indeed a prophet of God then they are the True Church BUT if they are wrong then The Catholic Church is the true church (Or Protestant churches if you believe in the Luther's reformation).  So it matters a great deal to me. :) 

Also if this claim is true then the validity of the bible is also in question.  If the Great Apostasy occurred when the LDS church says it did then the Catholic Church did not hold the keys when the Christian Bible was canonised in 397AD, so how can we trust the bible?  If the church held no authority then they had no right to authorise the cannon, so the wrong books might be in the bible.

This is a very big deal and if true changes everything I have ever believed about Jesus, the Bible and the Church.  So I want as much information as I can possibly get my hands on so I can make the right decision. 

Edited by Blossom76
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Blossom76 said:

Because it is such a big claim of the LDS church, it is the reason for the LDS church being started.  And basically if the LDS Church is right about this and Joseph Smith is indeed a prophet of God then they are the True Church BUT if they are wrong then The Catholic Church is the true church (Or Protestant churches if you believe in the Luther's reformation).  So it matters a great deal to me. :) 

Also if this claim is true then the validity of the bible is also in question.  If the Great Apostasy occurred when the LDS church says it did then the Catholic Church did not hold the keys when the Christian Bible was canonised in 397AD, so how can we trust the bible?  If the church held no authority then they had no right to authorise the cannon, so the wrong books might be in the bible.

This is a very big deal and if true changes everything I have ever believed about Jesus, the Bible and the Church.  So I want as much information as I can possibly get my hands on so I can make the right decision. 

Theres a story by Elder Orson F. Whitney that is found in the beginning pages of "A Marvelous Work and a Wonder."

Quote

Many years ago a learned man, a member of the Roman Catholic Church, came to Utah....One day he said to me, "...If we have the apostolic succession from St. Peter, as we claim, there is no need of Joseph Smith and Mormonism; but if we have not that succession, then such a man as Joseph Smith was necessary, and Mormonism's attitude is the only consistent one. It is either the perpetuation of the gospel from ancient times, or the restoration of the gospel in latter days."

Also, for what it's worth, Mormons use the King James Version of the Bible and believe it to be the most correct version of the Bible available on earth today. It's kind of like trying to use your grandmother's recipe for stuffing when the measurements are in pinches and she never wrote it down. You'll get it mostly right, so there's no need to change everything.

Edited by seashmore
Punctuation
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jane_Doe said:

For the record I disagree with the the "LDS vs Catholic" mentality.  There are other churches besides RCC claiming direct Apostolic Succession, and other Restorationists churches besides LDS.   

I completely agree, which is why I included the Protestant reformation in my response. @seashmore I find it really surprising the LDS church hold the King James Version in such high regard, it has so many translation problems and errors in it.  How can it possibly be the most correct version of the bible on earth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

I completely agree, which is why I included the Protestant reformation in my response. @seashmore I find it really surprising the LDS church hold the King James Version in such high regard, it has so many translation problems and errors in it.  How can it possibly be the most correct version of the bible on earth?

Oh, I should respond to your post!

1 hour ago, Blossom76 said:

Also if this claim is true then the validity of the bible is also in question.  If the Great Apostasy occurred when the LDS church says it did then the Catholic Church did not hold the keys when the Christian Bible was canonised in 397AD, so how can we trust the bible?  If the church held no authority then they had no right to authorise the cannon, so the wrong books might be in the bible.

You ask God if this is correct.  Don't look to any group of men: ask God.  Neither LDS or Catholics are Bible-worshippers, rather we worship a living God.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

I completely agree, which is why I included the Protestant reformation in my response. @seashmore I find it really surprising the LDS church hold the King James Version in such high regard, it has so many translation problems and errors in it.  How can it possibly be the most correct version of the bible on earth?

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1992/08/news-of-the-church/first-presidency-statement-on-the-king-james-version-of-the-bible.p1?lang=eng

If we were using a grading scale, no Bible gets a perfect score, but the KJV gets the highest. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@seashmore

 that's just not true, The KJV Bible we use today is actually based primarily on the major revision completed in 1769, 158 years after the first edition, if the translation was so accurate it would not have gone through 3 major revisions.  The KJB has had more than 100,000 changes made to it in those revisions, mainly correcting translational errors.  Also some of the translations still in there are just plain incorrect.

Here is a very basic list of some of the more well known errors in this translation, there are plenty more

Here is a partial listing of King James Version translation errors:

Genesis 1:2 should read "And the earth became without form . . . ." The word translated "was" is hayah, and denotes a condition different than a former condition, as in Genesis 19:26.

Genesis 10:9 should read " . . . Nimrod the mighty hunter in place of [in opposition to] the LORD." The word "before" is incorrect and gives the connotation that Nimrod was a good guy, which is false.

Leviticus 16:8, 10, 26 in the KJV is "scapegoat" which today has the connotation of someone who is unjustly blamed for other's sins. The Hebrew is Azazel, which means "one removed or separated." The Azazel goal represents Satan, who is no scapegoat. He is guilty of his part in our sins.

Deuteronomy 24:1, "then let him" should be "and he." As the Savior explained in Matthew 19, Moses did not command divorcement. This statute is regulating the permission of divorce because of the hardness of their hearts.

II Kings 2:23, should be "young men", not "little children." 

Isaiah 65:17 should be "I am creating [am about to create] new heavens and new earth . . . ."

Ezekiel 20:25 should read "Wherefore I permitted them, or gave them over to, [false] statutes that are not good, and judgments whereby they should not live." God's laws are good, perfect and right. This verse shows that since Israel rejected God's laws, He allowed them to hurt themselves by following false man made customs and laws. 

Daniel 8:14 is correct in the margin, which substitutes "evening morning" for "days." Too bad William Miller didn't realize this.

Malachi 4:6 should read " . . . lest I come and smite the earth with utter destruction." "Curse" doesn't give the proper sense here. Same word used in Zechariah 14:11

Matthew 5:48 should be "Become ye therefore perfect" rather than "be ye therefore perfect." "Perfect" here means "spiritually mature." Sanctification is a process of overcoming with the aid of the Holy Spirit. 

Matthew 24:22 needs an additional word to clarify the meaning. It should say "there should no flesh be saved alive." 

Matthew 27:49 omits text which was in the original. Moffatt correctly adds it, while the RSV puts it in a footnote: "And another took a spear and pierced His side, and out came water and blood." The Savior's death came when a soldier pierced His side, Revelation 1:7. 

Matthew 28:1, "In the end of the sabbath as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week . . ." should be translated literally, "Now late on Sabbath, as it was getting dusk toward the first day of the week . . . ." The Sabbath does not end at dawn but at dusk. 

Luke 2:14 should say, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men of God's good pleasure or choosing." That is, there will be peace on earth among men who have God's good will in their hearts. 

Luke 14:26 has the unfortunate translation of the Greek word miseo, Strong's #3404, as "hate", when it should be rendered "love less by comparison." We are not to hate our parents and family!

John 1:31, 33 should say "baptize" or "baptizing IN water" not with water. Pouring or sprinkling with water is not the scriptural method of baptism, but only thorough immersion in water. 

John 1:17 is another instance of a poor preposition. "By" should be "through": "For the law was given by [through] Moses . . . ." Moses did not proclaim his law, but God's Law. 

John 13:2 should be "And during supper" (RSV) rather than "And supper being ended" (KJV).

Acts 12:4 has the inaccurate word "Easter" which should be rendered "Passover." The Greek word is pascha which is translated correctly as Passover in Matthew 26:2, etc.

I Corinthians 1:18 should be: "For the preaching of the cross is to them that are perishing foolishness; but unto us which are being saved it is the power of God", rather than "perish" and "are saved." Likewise, II Thessalonians 2:10 should be "are perishing" rather than "perish." 

I Corinthians 15:29 should be: "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the hope of the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the hope of the dead?" 

II Corinthians 6:2 should be "a day of salvation", instead of "the day of salvation." This is a quote from Isaiah 49:8, which is correct. The day of salvation is not the same for each individual. The firstfruits have their day of salvation during this life. The rest in the second resurrection. 

I Timothy 4:8 should say, "For bodily exercise profiteth for a little time: but godliness in profitable unto all things . . . ." 

I Timothy 6:10 should be, "For the love of money is a [not the] root of all evil . . . ." 

Hebrews 4:8 should be "Joshua" rather than "Jesus", although these two words are Hebrew and Greek equivalents. 

Hebrews 4:9 should read, "There remaineth therefore a keeping of a sabbath to the people of God." 

Hebrews 9:28 is out of proper order in the King James. It should be: "So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them without sin that look for him shall he appear the second time unto salvation." 

I John 5:7-8 contains additional text which was added to the original. "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." The italicized text was added to the original manuscripts. Most modern translations agree that this was an uninspired addition to the Latin Vulgate to support the unscriptural trinity doctrine. 

Revelation 14:4 should be "a firstfruits", because the 144,000 are not all the firstfruits. 

Revelation 20:4-5 in the KJV is a little confusing until you realize that the sentence "This is the first resurrection." in verse five refers back to "they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years" in verse four. 

Revelation 20:10, "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are [correction: should be 'were cast' because the beast and false prophet were mortal human beings who were burned up in the lake of fire 1,000 years previous to this time, Revelation 19:20], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever." The point is that Satan will be cast into the same lake of fire into which the beast and false prophet were cast a thousand years previously. 

Revelation 22:2 should be "health" rather than "healing."

I am shocked and very disappointed that this is the position of the LDS church and hope that they look into it and do some serious research on the subject.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

I was taught that the Great Apostasy happened with the death of the last living apostle (which I think is around 100-110 AD),  is there an official date on this or is it just approximate coinciding with the death of the last living apostle?

The Great Apostasy started on July 11th 104 AD at 2:00PM MET (Middle Earth Time), just after second lunch.  ;)  :D

I know the general rule is milk before meat, but just so you can better understand it from the perspective of a member of the Church, I am going to toss out something that some people would consider meat, or at least, unnecessary initial information.

If you get very technical, "the death of the last living apostle" is not something that ever actually happened.  According to LDS doctrine, John the Beloved (a.k.a. John the Revelator), is still living, has never actually died, and will not die until after the second coming of Jesus Christ.  I mention this only because I want to make it clear that the death of the apostles is not the cause of the Apostasy, although it certainly was a major factor leading into it, and is the most simple basis from which to understand its origin.

This is important to understand because if all of the Apostles on the Church today were to die, a grand scale apostasy would not occur because the instructions and protocols and authority exist to rebuild the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles through revelation, even without any of them existing.  (I am not going to go into an in depth explanation of any of this right now because it is incidental, rather than necessary information).

The cause of the Apostasy, was the wickedness and perversions of gospel truths brought about by the members of the Church in that time.  Without apostolic authority to receive revelation to correct the incorrect, 'ravenous wolves' entered into the flock.  The Bible is replete with Paul's reprimands and counsel to wayward saints who were preaching false doctrines and practices.  Ultimately, the lack of willingness, preparedness, and righteousness of the people themselves is what resulted in the Great Apostasy.  John was not instructed to repair the destruction they had caused, and even if he were, would enough people have known him and heeded him, or would they have cast him out as an impostor and followed their bishops anyway?

Honestly, is not the sheer number of differing Christian based religions a clear testament on it's own of an apostasy.  Even if the Catholic church were true, all other churches would technically have to be considered apostate/false churches.  There can't be more than one true Church, and I'm fairly certain most faithful Catholics would agree with that concept (although obviously differing on which church is the true one).  An interesting question to ponder: if the great apostasy did not occur, why does the Catholic church not have 12 apostles?  The Bible clearly indicates (Acts 1) that new apostles could be called to replace apostles that are dead/gone.

Anyway, as others have said in much fewer words, there's no official date, because just like for an individual, falling away from God's truth is a process that develops over time rather than an event that occurs in immediacy.

Edited by person0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

I completely agree, which is why I included the Protestant reformation in my response. @seashmore I find it really surprising the LDS church hold the King James Version in such high regard, it has so many translation problems and errors in it.  How can it possibly be the most correct version of the bible on earth?

I believe @seashmore misspoke. The LDS Church does not hold the KJV to be the "most correct" translation. On the contrary, the Prophet Joseph is recorded to have said regarding Martin Luther's Bible translation, "I find it to be the most correct that I have found."

As far as I can tell, we Latter-day Saints prefer the KJV for three reasons. In increasing order of importance, those reasons are:

  1. The language of the KJV is magnificent. At its best, no other Bible translation can match it.
  2. It was (and still is) very widely used. For a long time, the "Authorized Version" was the de facto English Bible translation for non-Catholic Christians. So it gives us a common base with other Christians.
  3. The Book of Mormon, which I consider to be the most important book of scripture available to us today, is rendered in KJV-style Jacobean(ish) English. So using the KJV enhances our study of the Book of Mormon, because we get accustomed to its turn of phrase and style.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Blossom76,

The KJV is not used because of being the most accurate version.  There are many reasons it is used.  Possibly some most important reasons in my mind are:

  • It more accurately conveys the honorific language that ought to be used in communications to and about God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.
  • The Book of Mormon translation was done by the gift and power of God through Joseph Smith, and the language used in the Book of Mormon most closely follows the more formal wording format.  If we were to use an alternative version of the Bible as a primary source,  it would not flow in verbiage with our other scriptures as revealed by God.
  • When Joseph Smith received revelations addressing errors in the Bible, those revelations did not change the tone or language, they merely provided missing information.
  • The First Presidency has issued an official statement that we will use the King James Version.

It is not that we believe that other versions are wrong or bad or incorrect, all books, including the Book of Mormon, contain errors of man.  However, I also believe the prose of the King James version of the Bible most accurately conveys the spirit of the intent of the messages contained within.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Vort said:

I believe @seashmore misspoke. The LDS Church does not hold the KJV to be the "most correct" translation. On the contrary, the Prophet Joseph is recorded to have said regarding Martin Luther's Bible translation, "I find it to be the most correct that I have found."

 

Luther's bible is brilliant to read, I have a copy of it myself, along with his translation of the 7 books protestants class as apocryphal (I have many different translations of the bible, including a very old copy of the KJB given to my father by his grandparents, the pictures are stunning)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

Because it is such a big claim of the LDS church, it is the reason for the LDS church being started.  And basically if the LDS Church is right about this and Joseph Smith is indeed a prophet of God then they are the True Church BUT if they are wrong then The Catholic Church is the true church (Or Protestant churches if you believe in the Luther's reformation).  So it matters a great deal to me. :) 

Also if this claim is true then the validity of the bible is also in question.  If the Great Apostasy occurred when the LDS church says it did then the Catholic Church did not hold the keys when the Christian Bible was canonised in 397AD, so how can we trust the bible?  If the church held no authority then they had no right to authorise the cannon, so the wrong books might be in the bible.

This is a very big deal and if true changes everything I have ever believed about Jesus, the Bible and the Church.  So I want as much information as I can possibly get my hands on so I can make the right decision. 

I need some clarification.  Zil had asked why the interest in the exact date being so important.  You responded that it is such a big claim of the Church.  Since when?

I do believe in Bro. Smith's line of reasoning that it took that long before the world was ready for the restoration.  But "exactly" 1820?  I don't see why that would have been so important.  What I do believe is that it was the time the Lord deemed the world ready to receive the restoration.  And it was as early as possible.

I don't see how any specific date means everything else in the world is turned upside-down.

EDIT: I personally believe in the interpretation of Daniel's 1260 or 1290 (whichever version you prefer) year haiatus.  That would be just enough time between the (possible) death of Moroni and the birth of Joseph Smith.  Again, I don't believe either number was intended to be exact.  But this time period is a lot closer than any other event in history.  I wonder what others claim this gap refers to?

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

I would never give my husband this to read, I think you are right it would just upset him and make him angry.  Maybe that's why I don't understand it fully, because of my background?  

It was a lot of information to digest and I guess I wasn't expecting it to be so negative towards my current faith.  And you are right when you say most people don't believe errors of people mean errors of the church as a whole, every church has figures in authority who have made errors (The LDS included and I'm sure you don't think the entire church is in error because of the mistakes and bad behaviour of a few) so I guess its hard to accept that as reasoning for the great apostasy, which is where the confusion comes in. I think I was just looking for a concrete 'this is the reasoning and this is when it happened' and I didn't get that.

I don't know much about the 3 witnesses except that they did in fact leave BUT they never denied their testimony of the Book Of Mormon and that says a lot.  I dont know about the Mountain Meadows Massacre but it doesn't sound very nice and I don't fully understand celestial marriage and how polygamy ties in with that either but I can learn all that later when I have a strong testimony. I'm just trying to concentrate on the missionary lessons at the moment and any further information that is relevant to them.

Thank you for your response, it made the most sense to me

Back to prayer it is!  I might actually try fasting and praying on this one.

 

That's exactly what I did.  I've been learning about the LDS faith for years, learning about things in LDS teaching that is not in Catholic teaching when I finally got stuck on one question:  There is only one "pin" to the entire thing.... did the Great Apostasy happen (basically, did Bishop Linus receive Apostolic Authority)?  Because if it did not, then the Catholic Church has the Authority and is the true church.  If it did, then the LDS Church has the Authority and is the true Church.  In this question rests whether LDS teaching is true or if Catholic teaching is true.  I was stuck and I was scared.  I didn't want the Great Apostasy to be true but the Holy Spirit was working with me.

So, I took an entire week of vacation and stayed in this oceanfront hotel to spend the time contemplating the mysteries of faith.  I sat on the beach and read the book the Great Apostasy (similar to Why 1820, I don't recommend it to Catholics either), fasted and prayed, and the Holy Spirit answered me.  It would take a couple more years of study and prayer before I finally asked to be baptized.

 

Edited by anatess2
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