More Questions From a Newbie

[mordorbund]

14 hours ago, Vort said:

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.

 

14 hours ago, person0 said:

• 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.

I would take this farther. There are phrases and words used in the KJV that turn up in The Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants. Imagine reading the KJV of the New Testament but the NIV of the Old. How many of the prophetic allusions do you think will get lost?

[mordorbund]

6 hours ago, Carborendum said:

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?

In my mind this relates to the degrees of glory discussion. For Latter-day Saints, we believe in something because of a revelation that was received. For the 3 degrees, it's because of the Vision (D&C 76). For the Restoration, it's because of the First Vision and the translation of the Book of Mormon, and the visitation of angels with keys, and additional revelations! With the 3 degrees revelation, we then look back to the Bible and see, gee whiz, there really is something to this. We didn't think there was before, because there's not a concise revelation on it in the Bible, but once we have that framework, we see how well the old texts fit.

With the restoration, we finally understand what Moses and Elias were doing on the Mount of Transfiguration! With the restoration, LDS historians begin to see how gradual deviations slid the Church from Christ and Peter's foundation. With the restoration, apologists better understand why Paul and Clement argued so passionately for the early saints to listen to the elders (respect priesthood authority) and return to the faith taught by apostles. 

Note that in the above, the first sentence is about the lay member, for whom the apostasy exists simply because the Restoration happened. That is typically the level of detail we get into with our regular curriculum. The other examples come up by people who want to then verify this assumption and begin looking for evidence of it. As @Blossom76 noted, it comes with varying degrees success and integrity.

By and large, the doctrine of the Church is that there was a Restoration, not particularly that there was an Apostasy - just as the doctrine of the Church is that there are 3 degrees of glory, not that the heaven/hell dichotomy is flawed.

[Blossom76]

4 hours ago, anatess2 said:

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.

 

That is exactly how I feel and why it is so important to me. Thank you, this really helps a lot

Edited November 3, 2017 by Blossom76

[Blossom76]

8 hours ago, Carborendum said:

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?

 

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.

Edited November 3, 2017 by Blossom76

[zil]

25 minutes ago, 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.

As noted by others, not a single instant in time style "event".  Further, it's not like Joseph Smith realized there had been an apostasy and therefore we needed a restoration.  He just wanted to know what church to join.  From our perspective, the restoration leads to a realization that there must have been an apostasy.

I understand your perspective that unless there was an apostasy, the "restoration" cannot be true.  We're both looking at the same thing, but you're looking at it from one direction and we tend to look at it from the other, that's all.

[Blossom76]

On 11/3/2017 at 1:14 PM, 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.

 

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?

[JoCa]

3 hours ago, 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'm sure there is a document or lecture somewhere.  So a few things to clear up.

Joseph Smith absolutely recognized the problems and errors with the KJV bible. So much so in fact that after he translated the Book of Mormon and had learned by experience how to receive direct revelation from God (i.e. how God could speak directly to his mind and heart), he went about producing his own translation of the KJV. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith_Translation_of_the_Bible

So if one believes JS was a legitimate Prophet of God (like unto Moses, Abraham, etc.) then he would have the authorization and ability to make corrections to the KJV as he recognized there were several parts that were wrong.  Why did he not use any other version of the bible?  Probably b/c in 1830 the common bible version used was the KJV.  Later in his life, he had access to other bibles (the Greek), but if wouldn't make much sense to translate the Greek version when the people he was among commonly used the KJV.

Currently, in the LDS Church we do use the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) but it appears as footnotes in the LDS version of the KJV.  A lot of the actual documentation for the JST the LDS Church doesn't hold "Smith was killed prior to the publication of the JST. At his death, the manuscripts and documents pertaining to the translation were retained by his widow, Emma Smith, who would not give them to the Quorum of the Twelve, although Willard Richards, apparently acting on behalf of Brigham Young, requested the manuscript from her. Consequently, when Young's followers moved to the Salt Lake Valley, they did so without the new translation of the Bible."

Article of Faith (core tenants) 7: We believe the bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

The other thing to keep in mind is that just because a Church, organization or individual falls into apostasy does not mean everything they produce is evil or of the devil. Just because one loses the authority to claim the right of leadership does not mean that everything in their life (or in the church) is dross. God can absolutely still inspire good men who are trying to do the right thing to do good works. And that's what we believe about the Bible; God inspired men to compile and put together the previous writings of Apostles and Prophets.  Now at the same time, they did quite a bit of modification too but by and large the Bible is absolutely inspired by God.

The Authority to proclaim "Thus Saith the Lord", i.e. the authority to write new scripture was lost (and this is key).  So if you notice in the Bible all the scripture is old scripture.  There are no books in the Bible that Bishop Linus wrote, there are no scriptures that Pope John XII wrote.  We might have their writings, but no new scripture.

The LDS Church most recent canonized scripture D&C 138 in 1918. Most recent pronouncement put into scriptures 1970. It would not surprise me if the 1995 Proclamation on the Family eventually becomes canonized.  

So in sum the Catholic Church had the ability and inspiration from God to compile previous written scripture by men who had Authority from God to receive direct revelation and authority from God, but they did not have the authority to create any new scripture-which that authority, i.e. to speak in God's name and to write revelation/scripture as one of the ancient Apostles and Prophets was lost.

Edited November 4, 2017 by JoCa

[zil]

3 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

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

The following, written by Joseph Smith :

Quote

8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

...if you haven't read all the the Articles of Faith (there are only 13), I recommend you do.

Just because they lost authority, it doesn't mean they couldn't compile the writings of the apostles who had been alive.  See this link, especially the last paragraph.

[Jane_Doe]

5 hours ago, 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?  

(Totally unrelated: cool new icon!)

The "how can you trust the Bible if you don't trust the council who assembled the Bible" is an excellent question for sola scriptura Protestants who believe solely in the authority of an infallible Bible and seemingly ignore the history of the Bible.  It points out so many of the errors in that particular theological ideas.

LDS aren't sola scriptura, don't take authority from the Bible, don't believe in an infallible Bible, and don't ignore the Bible's history.

Authority comes from God, not from a book.  God is the only infallible person/being/thing.  I don't trust the Bible because of what a council said.   I trust the Bible because I asked God about it and listen to Him-- I trust Him.  Same as I did with every other book of scripture and other subject.  God still lives and still speaks and He is the ultimate source of Truth.  

5 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

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 asked God if this is True.  No assuming, just asking God.

5 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

, I mean they were chosen by an apostate church that was spreading lies and hiding the truth of the true church Jesus set up.  

I wouldn't agree with that characterization of the early church at all.  Yes, they had lost Authority from God.  But they weren't sitting and plotting "this is how we can spread lies and hide God's Truth".  No, they were doing their upmost best to follow God and giving it their all.  But without God's continual Prophets and revelation, they were doing the best man can do and man is flawed so it went sideways.  But they were trying their hardest.  

 

[Blossom76]

Thanks so much, I will read all the information you gave me and fast and pray.

You guys rock!

[Blossom76]

8 hours ago, JoCa said:

 

Currently, in the LDS Church we do use the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) but it appears as footnotes in the LDS version of the KJV.  A lot of the actual documentation for the JST the LDS Church doesn't hold "Smith was killed prior to the publication of the JST. At his death, the manuscripts and documents pertaining to the translation were retained by his widow, Emma Smith, who would not give them to the Quorum of the Twelve, although Willard Richards, apparently acting on behalf of Brigham Young, requested the manuscript from her. Consequently, when Young's followers moved to the Salt Lake Valley, they did so without the new translation of the Bible."

 

 

Wow, why would Emma do that? Didn't she go with the church to salt lake? I know people do strange things in their grief, but to abandon the church her husband started? And to withhold the bible translation from them, thats odd to say the least. I'll have to do some research on Emma Smith, sounds like she was a complex interesting lady!

Edited November 4, 2017 by Blossom76

[my two cents]

54 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

 I'll have to do some research on Emma Smith, sounds like she was a complex interesting lady!

More like she had been through an awful lot.

[JoCa]

1 hour ago, Blossom76 said:

Wow, why would Emma do that? Didn't she go with the church to salt lake? I know people do strange things in their grief, but to abandon the church her husband started? And to withhold the bible translation from them, thats odd to say the least. I'll have to do some research on Emma Smith, sounds like she was a complex interesting lady!

Emma was very interesting.  The long and short is that she had a very big personality conflict with Brigham Young.  It is quite fascinating that you can actually see that Apostles and Prophets are human and aren't perfect. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, JoCa said:

Emma was very interesting.  The long and short is that she had a very big personality conflict with Brigham Young.  It is quite fascinating that you can actually see that Apostles and Prophets are human and aren't perfect. 

Emma had a really, really hard life, even by early 1800s Mormon standards, as her husband and at least two children were murdered by anti-Mormon forces, she lost everything repeatedly as the Mormons were driven from place to place, etc.  I kind of wonder if she just simply cracked under all of the pressure, and that perhaps if so, the Lord will be very merciful towards her.

Edited November 4, 2017 by DoctorLemon

[my two cents]

I don't think Lucy Mack Smith went either (mother of Joseph, elderly at that point) and Emma took care of her for the rest of her mortal life.

[my two cents]

16 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

Emma had a really, really hard life, even by early 1800s Mormon standards, as her husband and at least two children were murdered by anti-Mormon forces, she lost everything repeatedly as the Mormons were driven from place to place, etc.

Her husband was also gone quite often (willingly and jailed) and she often hosted company as well. 

[Guest MormonGator]

2 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

Wow, why would Emma do that? Didn't she go with the church to salt lake? I know people do strange things in their grief, but to abandon the church her husband started? And to withhold the bible translation from them, thats odd to say the least. I'll have to do some research on Emma Smith, sounds like she was a complex interesting lady!

Emma was a much more complicated woman than some want to admit. Her second marriage was also unhappy-her husband fathered a child with another woman and there was obviously some drama there. 

[Vort]

5 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

Wow, why would Emma do that? Didn't she go with the church to salt lake? I know people do strange things in their grief, but to abandon the church her husband started? And to withhold the bible translation from them, thats odd to say the least. I'll have to do some research on Emma Smith, sounds like she was a complex interesting lady!

Here is my understanding:

Brigham Young, the prophet and second president of the Church, was a plain-spoken New Englander. Emma Hale came from a somewhat more refined class of family -- she had to elope to marry the farmboy Joseph Smith, whom her family hated (later on they warmed up to him). Brigham was completely devoted to "Brother Joseph" and had a deep testimony of him as a Prophet of God. Emma knew her husband was a prophet, too, but her viewpoint was that of a wife, not a devotee. On a few occasions, Brigham expressed to Emma his displeasure at what he considered to be her substandard efforts to sustain her husband. Emma was, let's just say, less than impressed with Brigham's zealous criticisms of her. The two basically didn't like each other very much, it seems. Brigham offered to help Emma migrate, perhaps out of respect to her late husband and/or perhaps out of kindness, but Emma would have none of it.

I have been given to understand that when Joseph ran the financial ship of the Church, he did not take much care to separate the Church's property ownership from his own name. There was nothing dishonest about it; Joseph simply didn't see the need to separate his personal financial obligation from the Church's, since he was the one incurring most of the Church's expenses in building, publishing, acquiring land, etc. That was his job as the Prophet and leader of the Church. Much easier just to have everything in his name, right? Only when Joseph died, that meant that Emma had legal ownership over some of what Brigham Young rightly considered Church properties, including the "Inspired Version" manuscript. Maybe a knowledgeable historian can give a better account of this. I expect it had some bearing in Emma's decision to stay in Illinois rather than go west with the main body of Saints.

[Blossom76]

43 minutes ago, Vort said:

Here is my understanding:

Brigham Young, the prophet and second president of the Church, was a plain-spoken New Englander. Emma Hale came from a somewhat more refined class of family -- she had to elope to marry the farmboy Joseph Smith, whom her family hated (later on they warmed up to him). Brigham was completely devoted to "Brother Joseph" and had a deep testimony of him as a Prophet of God. Emma knew her husband was a prophet, too, but her viewpoint was that of a wife, not a devotee. On a few occasions, Brigham expressed to Emma his displeasure at what he considered to be her substandard efforts to sustain her husband. Emma was, let's just say, less than impressed with Brigham's zealous criticisms of her. The two basically didn't like each other very much, it seems. Brigham offered to help Emma migrate, perhaps out of respect to her late husband and/or perhaps out of kindness, but Emma would have none of it.

I have been given to understand that when Joseph ran the financial ship of the Church, he did not take much care to separate the Church's property ownership from his own name. There was nothing dishonest about it; Joseph simply didn't see the need to separate his personal financial obligation from the Church's, since he was the one incurring most of the Church's expenses in building, publishing, acquiring land, etc. That was his job as the Prophet and leader of the Church. Much easier just to have everything in his name, right? Only when Joseph died, that meant that Emma had legal ownership over some of what Brigham Young rightly considered Church properties, including the "Inspired Version" manuscript. Maybe a knowledgeable historian can give a better account of this. I expect it had some bearing in Emma's decision to stay in Illinois rather than go west with the main body of Saints.

Thank you I really appreciate this.  I googled Emma Smith and, well lets just say there is a lot of anti-mormon stuff out there I'd rather not poison my brain with!  So I really appreciate all the advice and information I am getting from the forum members.  I don't want the perceptive of ex-mormons, I mean if you wanted to learn about life in the ARMY you wouldn't go to a deserter! Any links you can give me on Emma is greatly appreciated.

I also don't want any of you to think that because I don't understand everything that I don't see the beauty and love in this church.  I can FEEL the spirit of God when I am in an LDS church, I can see it in the faces of the members.  Yes of course there will be problems, there are problems and things that don't make sense in every religion.  I just hope you all know how sincere I am.  I do have partial testimonies of truth in the LDS Church, for example; the pre-existence, I KNOW without a doubt in my mind that this is true, and eternal progression, I KNOW this is true, it's kind of ridiculous to think that when you die you just stay in that state forever and don't learn anything anymore or progress spiritually. And the Word Of Wisdom, following this has made such a difference in my life it must be a revelation from God.

Edited November 5, 2017 by Blossom76

[my two cents]

Here's one article - https://www.lds.org/ensign/2008/09/my-dear-and-beloved-companion-the-letters-of-joseph-and-emma-smith?lang=eng

[my two cents]

This was not produced by the Church but from what I remember (saw it some years ago) it's pretty good. If you have an amazon prime account, you can watch it for free. https://www.amazon.com/Emma-Smith-My-Story-Createspace/dp/B004TJFT1S/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1509849634&sr=8-1&keywords=emma+smith+my+story

[my two cents]

40 minute video - https://www.mormonchannel.org/listen/series/legacy-audio/emma-smith-episode-4

[JoCa]

10 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

Thank you I really appreciate this.  I googled Emma Smith and, well lets just say there is a lot of anti-mormon stuff out there I'd rather not poison my brain with!  So I really appreciate all the advice and information I am getting from the forum members.  I don't want the perceptive of ex-mormons, I mean if you wanted to learn about life in the ARMY you wouldn't go to a deserter! Any links you can give me on Emma is greatly appreciated.

Another very wise response and perspective.

One of the things that you find out is just how real both God and Lucifer really are.  We don't talk much about Lucifer and his powers (and for very good reasons), but it is very, very important to understand just as much as God, Jesus Christ are real individuals and just how much the Holy Ghost is a real entity that inspires us to do good, there is a very real opposing force against God-Lucifer-who tries to thwart everything God does. 

Joseph Smith went to pray in the grove in the First Vision and there was a very real opposing darkness that came over him that tried to overpower him before God and Jesus Christ appeared to him.  And so if God is doing His best through the Holy Ghost to inspire us to do good, then there is an opposing for that seeks to inspire us to turn away from anything that is good. I at one point was a 2-year missionary for the Church and I would always warn investigators that prior to baptism it is possible that some weird/wild stuff might happen (and many times, not always, it did!).

What you will generally find is that once individuals have tasted of the fruit of the restored gospel (i.e. they have burning testimonies), if they leave they generally don't just leave and go to another Church, they generally become atheists and then do everything they can to destroy the Church (i.e. ex-mormons).  They don't see it in that light and some eventually return to the fold (thankfully!).  Those who leave the Church either just stop attending or they become atheist and go anti-mormon. It happens but it is very, very rare that they go to another church. 

What is interesting about the above pattern is that it almost proves the Book of Mormon itself.  The Book of Mormon describes in great detail that in general those groups of people who fought the hardest against the Nephites (or "good guys") were those groups who once were part of the Nephites and then fell away.

Finally by their fruits ye shall know them, generally speaking the anti,ex-mormons are so full of hate, anger, bitterness, frustration, etc. that IMO it's hard to see anything godly coming from that perspective. 

Edited November 5, 2017 by JoCa

[Blueskye2]

On 11/2/2017 at 8:39 AM, anatess2 said:

 

 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).

1)This is kind of super wow and what, as in you believe the Apostles didn’t hand on something?  

2) I thought the LDS Church taught that John the Apostle never died? That like the three Nephites he’s around somewhere still?

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.  

Edited November 5, 2017 by Blueskye2

[Jane_Doe]

2 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

2) I thought the LDS Church taught that John the Apostle never died?

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.  

2 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

That like the three Neohites he’s around somewhere still?

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.