More Questions From a Newbie


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Blueskye2 said:

3) History supports Catholicism, in that, the Apostles did not ordain Apostles they ordained their successors, and called them by different names, ie, overseer or presbyter.  The only new Apostle  ordained was to replace Judas, and Acts clearly defines the requirement for Judas’ replacement.  No man anywhere, meets those requirements today.  

The bolded statement above is false.  Even in Catholic doctrine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

This point was discussed earlier this thread (or was it another similar one just recently?).  The phrase "the last apostle died" is with the disclaimer of not including John.  

When talking about "the Great Apostasy", we're talking about Old World apostasy.   The New World apostasy is a different discussion, and thoroughly talked about in the Book of Mormon.

So John the Apostle didn't die? Can someone give me a link to the official LDS teaching on this?

And if possible on the three nephites that still live as well?

Thanks heaps :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Blueskye2 said:

3) History supports Catholicism, in that, the Apostles did not ordain Apostles they ordained their successors, and called them by different names, ie, overseer or presbyter.  The only new Apostle  ordained was to replace Judas, and Acts clearly defines the requirement for Judas’ replacement.  No man anywhere, meets those requirements today.  

So despite the fact that the Bible very clearly shows Judas being replaced, you maintain an argument from silence -- that since the Bible doesn't then talk about more apostles being replaced, therefore they weren't. This goes beyond merely illogical into the absurd. It's like saying that your parents had a baby, but that was only under very special circumstances, so obviously there is no possible way that you could have a baby, too.

Interesting, too, that the Catholic Church does not consider Paul to have been an apostle. Surprising might be a better word. Or perhaps unbelievable.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/4/2017 at 2:10 AM, Blossom76 said:

Still trying to understand the LDS perspective on the validity of the bible.  If the the church was in apostasy by 110AD then you can't trust anything that was being taught right; because it no longer has any authority, so how can you trust the canonisation of the bible almost 300 years later by a church with no authority?  

You would have to assume that the books at least in the New Testament of the bible couldn't possibly be inspired of God, I mean they were chosen by an apostate church that was spreading lies and hiding the truth of the true church Jesus set up.  It makes no sense to me and it's doing my head in!

Is there any church teaching or document or lecture or something that explains this?

I think this is an interesting point.  If you read the Doctrine and Covenants, the scripture where Joseph Smith documents many of his revelations, oftentimes, he starts with a question, just as you have, and takes it to the Lord.  And the lord reveals the answer.   This is how many of the doctrinal truths were clarified.

In this example, Joseph Smith was pondering the validity of the Bible, just as you have, and wondered if there is wisdom in studying the Apocrypha, and whether the Bible was accurate.   His revelation is recorded here:  https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/91?lang=eng

And this issue with imperfections in the Bible continued to where he actually began but never completed a "translation" of the Bible.  Really it was an inspired clarification, and not necessarily a word for word translation as the Book of Mormon was.  He would read the Bible, and make notes of clarification, sometimes just changing a single word, and sometimes making large changes.  The work was never canonized, although in this effort he did have what was later canonized as the Book of Moses a clarifying revelation and retelling of Genesis, which can be found in the collection we call the Pearl of Great Price.  The LDS edition of the Bible contains footnotes for the "JST - Joseph Smith Translation" but again, they are considered study helps, and we stick with the standard KJV translation of the Bible.

So, we trust the Bible, but we have clarification as well.  We know some things are wrong, we know some things are less useful, but we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, and we don't diminish what the Lord has preserved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I find most interesting about LDS doctrine, is that most of the "crazy" ideas don't come from a random revelation here or there, but from clarification of something in the Bible, and then, as someone else pointed out, you read the Bible and go, "oh, now I get it.  It's right there in the bible" But if you never had the clarifying revelation, the Bible verse may be vague or misunderstood, or most likely, just ignored.   Taking an example someone else brought up, the mount of Transfiguration takes on a whole new level of depth from an LDS perspective, as does Peter's discussions of spirit prison in the context of LDS theology, something generally ignored in my experience with other faiths.

Edited by bytebear
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/4/2017 at 2:10 AM, Blossom76 said:

Still trying to understand the LDS perspective on the validity of the bible.  If the the church was in apostasy by 110AD then you can't trust anything that was being taught right; because it no longer has any authority, so how can you trust the canonisation of the bible almost 300 years later by a church with no authority?  

You would have to assume that the books at least in the New Testament of the bible couldn't possibly be inspired of God, I mean they were chosen by an apostate church that was spreading lies and hiding the truth of the true church Jesus set up.  It makes no sense to me and it's doing my head in!

Is there any church teaching or document or lecture or something that explains this?

It appears I never responded to this, but I think I intended to. Others (e.g. @zil, @Jane_Doe) may have already covered this ground.

The Bible is a collection of early Christian documents deemed sacred. Was the Church in apostasy well before our New Testament was compiled? Unquestionably. But a state of apostasy does not mean the sacred documents suddenly vanished, or that there were no good, sincere, reasonable people left. Good, sincere, reasonable people can treasure up valuable documents. Even hundreds of years into the apostasy, decent people of true intent can sort through those documents and choose out those they consider most valuable, relevant, and true. To the extent possible, they may well have been guided by the Holy Spirit in some of their choices.

Did they make mistakes in their choices? Without doubt. I am sure they excluded from the canon some authentic and valuable works, because the doctrine was so different (e.g. premortal life) that they couldn't rectify it with the beliefs that were becoming standardized. On the other hand, there was a lot of spurious and downright nonsensical stuff floating around, purporting to be early histories of the Church or of Jesus (e.g. the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, which is straight-up nonsense and fairy tales). Imagine having the responsibility of sifting through dozens or even hundreds of such documents, trying to figure out which are authentic. At some point, you become very quick to exclude a document that's too far "out there". I'm rather shocked that the Revelation made the cut.

So no, the New Testament is in nowise a comprehensive record of Jesus' ministry and teachings, nor is it a complete collection of sacred documents generated by the apostles and other eyewitness followers of Jesus. But it is an invaluable collection of documents detailing Jesus' work and ministry. Its worth is beyond price.

About 35 or so years ago, an apostle (Bruce R. McConkie) voiced the view that one day, the Bible will be perfected and completed with books and revelations we don't currently have, and will be the word of God to the world. For now, the Bible exists only in the form we have it; the Book of Mormon is the scripture given specifically to our dispensation, and testifies most forcefully of Christ and his work to our modern generation. But while the importance of the Book of Mormon to us cannot be overstated, few Latter-day Saints (or others) have any clear conception of the glorious destiny of the word of God as contained in the Bible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will just "dido" what Vort said, and draw your attention back to his comment. An apostasy does not mean all sacred records were lost and that the Lord is not able to make sure specific truths pass through.

This wasn't the first apostasy that correct records were still able to be passed on to other generations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/5/2017 at 3:24 PM, Vort said:

So despite the fact that the Bible very clearly shows Judas being replaced, you maintain an argument from silence -- that since the Bible doesn't then talk about more apostles being replaced, therefore they weren't. This goes beyond merely illogical into the absurd. It's like saying that your parents had a baby, but that was only under very special circumstances, so obviously there is no possible way that you could have a baby, too.

Interesting, too, that the Catholic Church does not consider Paul to have been an apostle. Surprising might be a better word. Or perhaps unbelievable.

Acts is not silent. It lists in chapter 1 the requirements to replace one of the Twelve. It names two men who met the requirement. Just two. No more. Certainly no one born during or after Jesus’ selection of the Twelve, would meet the qualifications laid out in Acts 1

21 Therefore, it is necessary that one of the men who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us,22beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which he was taken up from us, become with us a witness to his resurrection.” 23So they proposed two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justus, and Matthias.

Your comparison is illogical. 

I said Paul was not an Apostle, with a capital A, meaning he was not one of the Twelve.

The word apostle means one who is sent. Paul, with Barnabas, were set apart for the special evangelization of the gentiles. Paul is the “Apostle to the Gentiles”. Barnabas was also called an apostle, one who is sent, in chapter 14 of Acts  he too, was not one of the Twelve.

No doubt, Paul has a revered place in Catholicism, the ending of Acts has him arriving in Rome. With Peter, they are celebrated together as Sts. Peter and Paul, the founders of the See of Rome. Beside the Gospels in the NT, it’s Paul’s writings that make up the majority of the NT. There are many reasons for this, but an overriding one is his developed theology, that has its pinnacle in his Letter to the Romans. 

As a side note, the Catholic and Orthodox churches have given the title of apostle (lower case) to other people. One of my favorites is Mary Magdalene, who we call the “Apostle to the Apostles”, because she was sent by Jesus, to tell the Twelve of the Good News of Christ Risen. 

file

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Blueskye2, the is the "Learn about the Mormon Church" sub-forum, where the OP specifically asked about the LDS beliefs.  Therefore, I'm going to explain LDS beliefs here.  I respect that your beliefs are different and that's fine (after all, LDS believe you have the right to worship how and what you may).  If you wish to discuss non-LDS beliefs, I would invite you to start a thread in the sub-forum specifically for that (I do enjoy hearing your perspective and thank you for sharing it).  Let's just keep this thread on "Learning about the Mormon Church" and respecting the OP's wishes.

When one of the Twelve Apostles passes away he was/is replaced, such as in Acts 21 they describe Matthias replacing Judas.  It is the same nowadays.  One of the Twelve Apostles recently passed away (Robert Hales last month) and will again be replaced.    In the Lord's church there are always Twelve Apostles.  All Apostles serve as witnesses of Christ's baptism, resurrection, and every deed in between, regardless of whether or not they were literally there in 30 AD.  Such literal attendance is not required, rather the Holy Spirit testifies of the Truth of these events to all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/3/2017 at 4:43 PM, Blossom76 said:

Since the church started, if there was no great apostasy then there was no need to start the LDS church, it was the whole reason Joseph Smith started the LDS church in the first place.  So it is a big claim, if there was no apostasy then that means there was no need for a restoration.  That's why it is so important.  I just assumed that the LDS church would have more definite information on such an important event.

Again, I need clarification.  the DATE.  You claimed that the DATE (you know, 1820) was a big claim of the Church.  "Why 1820".  When have we ever made the claim that 1820 was an important number?  As a matter of history, we mark it because that is when it happened.  But when you ask the question,"Why 1820?" it sounds like there was some cosmic aligning of stars on that date which meant it HAD to be that number as if it had some gematriot or astrological significance.  It doesn't.

If that was not what you meant, I'm asking for clarification about the focus on "why 1820".

If you're just asking about information regarding the apostasy and the restoration, please clarify.  Because sometimes, I'm just dense enough that I don't understand something unless it's spelled out for me.  English isn't my first language, after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Again, I need clarification.  the DATE.  You claimed that the DATE (you know, 1820) was a big claim of the Church.  "Why 1820".  When have we ever made the claim that 1820 was an important number?  As a matter of history, we mark it because that is when it happened.  But when you ask the question,"Why 1820?" it sounds like there was some cosmic aligning of stars on that date which meant it HAD to be that number as if it had some gematriot or astrological significance.  It doesn't.

If that was not what you meant, I'm asking for clarification about the focus on "why 1820".

If you're just asking about information regarding the apostasy and the restoration, please clarify.  Because sometimes, I'm just dense enough that I don't understand something unless it's spelled out for me.  English isn't my first language, after all.

You're misunderstanding.  She didn't say the Church claimed the date (1820 or the date the Great Apostasy "started") was important.  She said the Church claimed the Great Apostasy was important, since without it a restoration wouldn't be required.

"Why 1820?" was the title of a BYU-I devotional she referenced.

IMO, the Church only claims this by implication - we don't spend a lot of time on it, but how would she know that, and from her perspective as a Catholic, it makes sense for the Great Apostasy to be pivotal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this video explains how the great apostasy may have happened, its not an LDS produced video but its certainly not anti-mormon at all (if anything its anti-catholic, but not in a vicious way, in a factual way) so feel free to watch it, I found it very informative.  I didn't realise that there were groups of christians calling out the apostasy of the church well before the 1500s.  Very interesting (warning it goes for over 2 hours!)

Edited by Blossom76
I still can't spell!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/8/2017 at 9:10 AM, zil said:

You're misunderstanding.  She didn't say the Church claimed the date (1820 or the date the Great Apostasy "started") was important.  She said the Church claimed the Great Apostasy was important, since without it a restoration wouldn't be required.

"Why 1820?" was the title of a BYU-I devotional she referenced.

IMO, the Church only claims this by implication - we don't spend a lot of time on it, but how would she know that, and from her perspective as a Catholic, it makes sense for the Great Apostasy to be pivotal.

OK.  got it.  that makes sense.  Like I said, I do get dense sometimes.

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