A paradox in "The Apostasy"

[RebeccaJ]

Joseph Smith did create a new Bible, the Joseph Smith Transaltion (JST). He had the intention to publish it but was murdered before he could.

It is used by LDS. The Book of Moses and excerpts from the Book of Matthew, that are in their canonized “Pearl of Great Price” are directly from the JST. Also, the LDS Church uses a modified version of the KJV that is their official version. It has footnotes and references to the JST to aid in interpretation.

Another branch of the LDS movement, The Church of Christ, has canonized the JST as sacred text.

 

[kimg901]

Joseph Smith did create a new Bible, the Joseph Smith Transaltion (JST). He had the intention to publish it but was murdered before he could.

It is used by LDS. The Book of Moses and excerpts from the Book of Matthew, that are in their canonized “Pearl of Great Price” are directly from the JST. Also, the LDS Church uses a modified version of the KJV that is their official version. It has footnotes and references to the JST to aid in interpretation.

Another branch of the LDS movement, The Church of Christ, has canonized the JST as sacred text.

I have seen the KJV, Mormon edition while teaching RCIA from our LDS members that were converting. And the wording is very different. I wish I had taken pictures of it for proof to our LDS posters. What does Revelations say about adding or taking away from the Bible?

 

[Porknpie]

I had two LDS missionaries come to the house a couple of weeks ago. Very nice people. Good conversation.

They were very honest and most humble in answering the questions below:

Questions:

• We both have bibles with 27 books in the NT. We both agree that all these books are God’s Written Word, and that no books have been left out that are. Do you believe that those early Christian men who determined what books belonged in the New Testament made no mistakes in doing so? (answer: agree that they made no mistakes)
• For men to make no mistake, or to be error-free, wouldn’t they have to be led by the Holy Spirit (answer: yes)
• These 4th century men were Catholic Bishops. They met repeatedly in councils, affiriming the canon. How is it that they could be led by the Holy Spirit to do so, deciding on 27 books out of several hundred, if the great apostasy occured some 300 years earlier after the death of the last apostle? (answer: “this is good questions” and “we’ve never had a lesson on this.”)

I pointed out to them, that 100% of those Catholic Bishops brought this book to Mass, read it at Mass, where they celebrated the Liturgy of the Eucharist (I explained this a bit to them) believing that the Bread and Wine (not bread and water) became the Resurrected Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus.

Additional questions posed where I told them that they didn’t have to answer, rather they should think about and we can discuss next time:

• How is it that these Catholic Bishops got the canon of NT scripture 100% right but 100% of them error’d on the Eucharist?
• Why is it that you trust them on the NT canon of 27 books, but believe that they ALL error’d on the OT canon? Those SAME bishops that you trust, tacitly so, affirmed 46 books in the OT, not 39 that is in your KJV bible).

These are all great questions.

Not simply for LDS.

But for every protestant too, who in differing words, believes too that there was a great apostasy.

(were there apostates? yes… from the beginning…but Jesus PROMISED to lead his Church to ALL truth…that the gates of Hell would NOT prevail. He prevents the Church from teaching what is false, as true, no matter who comes along with new doctrine)

 

[Yeoman]

They aren’t there to discuss. They are there to convert you.

Beyond that, frankly if they’re young Mormons they aren’t really there even to convert you, but rather are being sent to a disorienting process away from their homes under close supervision that serves to sort of bond them to their faith the same way that boot camp serves for soldiers.

Other groups are probably actually there to try to convert you. Mormons would like to, but they’re really attempting to solidify the adherence of the young people they send out, a tactic which seems frankly to be relatively effective.

 

[TOmNossor]

I’ve come to realize a huge paradox in the apostasy that some groups such as Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses claimed occurred following the death of the last Apostle John. I have tried asking and they can’t even seem to grasp the question or answer it with riddles that make no sense.

The paradox goes like this. If there was an apostasy, and the Church lost its priestly authority on earth, why in that case should any of these groups accept the Canon of the New Testament which was not formally set until 397 A.D.? Prior to this there was some consensus of which books were Inspired and most of the books in our New Testament were always accepted as genuine. But not all. Some books barely made the Canon of the New Testament and some books barely missed it. Eusebius in his Church History calls them “The antilegomena” or “disputed writings” were widely read in the Early Church and included the Epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, the Book of Revelation, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Didache. The term “disputed” should therefore not be misunderstood to mean “false” or “heretical.” There was disagreement in the Early Church on whether or not the respective texts deserved canonical status.

Many other “texts” floated around but were never taken as genuine or seriously. The list is vast and anyone who knows New Testament Apocrypha knows that.

So, even if I were to agree with this apostasy theory, why then would I agree on the Canon of scripture the Church, trinitarian formula, chose in the late fourth century? If there was an apostasy wouldn’t they be wrong? How could they possibly have gotten it right? I’d actually have more respect for these groups who claim there was an apostasy if they went back and used a different list for the New Testament. It’s a paradox. If you believe the New Testament Canon which all of these groups do use , it seems they accept the Churches authority to defining what was the inspired word of God. This is a paradox and I am shocked no-one seems to point this out.

LDS have never accepted that the definition of the canon or the preservation of the Bible was infallible and inerrant. As LDS we have accepted by common consent the Bible as put together in the KJV. This is also not an infallible or inerrant declaration. But, the Bible is sufficient and it creates a point of commonality from which to discuss Christianity with other folks “of the book.”
All Christians should celebrate the good men (and woman) from the ancient Catholic, Orthodox, and Jewish churches who did a good job preserving the Bible and (for Catolic and Orthodox) the witness of Christ.
That being said, I do not believe it is inconsistent for LDS to recognize inspiration captures from the authors of the Bible despite the recognition that the Bible is neither perfect nor complete. And I think it QUITE CONSISTENT to point out that post Biblical debates concerning the nature of God and Christ were not resolved through divine inspiration (especially since Catholic and Orthodox Christians after Tertullian’s time claim revelation ceased so we just agree with them).
Charity, TOm

 

[Porknpie]

“LDS have never accepted that the definition of the canon or the preservation of the Bible was infallible and inerrant.”

Infallibility is a human characteristic. The bible itself can be both inspired and inerrant. The LDS Church teaches:

“By the Bible we mean the collection of writings that contain the records of divine revelation.”

Agree, that it contains the Written record of Divine Revelation.

“The position of the Church regarding the Bible is that it contains the word of God…”

Agree although we disagree on exegesis.

‘Councils were held in early Christianity to determine which of the writings were authoritative and which were heretical.’

Yes!. The Councils were gatherings of Catholic Bishops: Rome 382; Hippo 393 and Carthage 397 to name the 3 earliest ones on the Canon.

“As LDS we have accepted by common consent the Bible as put together in the KJV.”

Well today, 1.6 billion Christians say that this canon is in error. The ‘common consent” – rather the Universal teaching of Christianity for 1,100 years - was that the bible contained at least 73 books. The original KJV of 1611 had… 73 books in it, plus Catholic Holy Days. A printing press a few years later removed 7 of these books due to the fact that Martin Luther and King James believed that they were not God’s Word. Neither of them had any authority to say so…

Says the LDS Church:

“The New Testament contains writings belonging to the apostolic age, selected by the [Catholic] Church and regarded as having the same sanctity and authority as the Jewish scriptures. “

What’s left out above that I add is the word Catholic… Catholic Bishops, met in Councils in Rome (382), Hippo (393) and Carthage (397). And the OT Scripture that they affirmed contained 46 books, as well as 27 books of the NT.

“All Christians should celebrate the good men (and woman) from the ancient Catholic, Orthodox, and Jewish churches who did a good job preserving the Bible …”

The Orthodox to profess that all 73 books in the Catholic Canon are God’s Written Word (plus a few more OT books). And at the time of Jesus Christ, the various Jewish sects did not agree on an OT canon, save the books of Moses.

“And I think it QUITE CONSISTENT to point out that post Biblical debates concerning the nature of God and Christ were not resolved through divine inspiration”

The Catholic Church, Catholic Bishops to be exact, in 325 at Nicea affirmed the Doctrine of the Trinity. 318 Bishops were in attendance. Their declaration again Arianism is evidence of Jesus guiding his Church to ALL truth. Some 60+ years later, Bishops meeting again at Rome would affirm the 27 book NT canon that LDS use today (out of 300+ early Christian writings). Again, this is evidence of Jesus guiding his Church to ALL truth. The LDS Church refers to this NT canon as: authoritative. I assume this means that they affirm that ALL 27 books are God’s Written Word, even if we disagree on how it is to be interpreted.

From the LDS website:

“With the multiplicity of true books, of both Old and New Testament origin, there was also a proliferation of false writings [True] …. From time to time decisions needed to be made as to which books were authoritative and which were false. A council of Jewish scholars met for this purpose in Jamnia, or Javneh (near Joppa), in about A.D. 90, and some determinations were made as to what were the official and accepted books of the Jews’ religion.

There is no evidence for a Council of Jamnia. And pretending there was one, where in scripture does one read of God giving Jewish scholars the authority to determine what was and was not OT scripture, especially in light of Jesus Christ (his incarnation is hidden in the OT, and revealed in the NT)?

References:
lds.org/scriptures/bd/bible?lang=eng and lds.org/scriptures/bd/canon.html?lang=eng&letter=C

 

[Porknpie]

LDS have never accepted that the definition of the canon or the preservation of the Bible was infallible and inerrant. As LDS we have accepted by common consent the Bible as put together in the KJV. This is also not an infallible or inerrant declaration. But, the Bible is sufficient and it creates a point of commonality from which to discuss Christianity with other folks “of the book.”
All Christians should celebrate the good men (and woman) from the ancient Catholic, Orthodox, and Jewish churches who did a good job preserving the Bible and (for Catolic and Orthodox) the witness of Christ.
That being said, I do not believe it is inconsistent for LDS to recognize inspiration captures from the authors of the Bible despite the recognition that the Bible is neither perfect nor complete. And I think it QUITE CONSISTENT to point out that post Biblical debates concerning the nature of God and Christ were not resolved through divine inspiration (especially since Catholic and Orthodox Christians after Tertullian’s time claim revelation ceased so we just agree with them).
Charity, TOm

More on the Council of Jamnia,… that wasn’t.

catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-council-that-wasnt

 

[Stephen168]

Yes!. The Councils were gatherings of Catholic Bishops: Rome 382; Hippo 393 and Carthage 397 to name the 3 earliest ones on the Canon.

What’s left out above that I add is the word Catholic… Catholic Bishops, met in Councils in Rome (382), Hippo (393) and Carthage (397). And the OT Scripture that they affirmed contained 46 books, as well as 27 books of the NT.

The Orthodox to profess that all 73 books in the Catholic Canon are God’s Written Word (plus a few more OT books). And at the time of Jesus Christ, the various Jewish sects did not agree on an OT canon, save the books of Moses.

It would also seem that the Mormon 8th Article faith would affirm the canon of the New Testament as defined by the Catholic Church. LDS.org lists the New Testament KJV as a standard work of scripture.
It seems that Tom is trying to claim the Mormon Church doesn’t claim something that it actual does as a way to avoid the OP’s paradox.

What do you think?

 

[TOmNossor]

Stephen168 and Pork(name removed by moderator)ie,
I read everything you both have said and I do not think you have dealt with what I said at all. There is no contradiction in the LDS use of the Bible.
Perhaps Jas84173 can see if he agrees that I addressed his concern.

Good men who lack divine authority or the ability to receive revelation met at various councils. Some Catholics consider Ecumenical Councils (EC). Some were meetings of Jews (in council) that Catholic reject as EC. Some were meetings of Christians accepted originally as EC and accepted today as EC by the Catholic Church. At least one was originally local councils that many years later was declared an EC.

LDS and Catholics agree that NONE of the councils was led by REVELATION from God.

LDS believe that the men who took actions at the councils were not infallible and the book they produced is/was not inerrant (which is I think was consistent with what I wrote, but if it was not then I was wrong).

LDS do believe that the men who wrote the books we have in the Bible did receive REVELATION (though LDS do not believe infallibility is possessed in the recipients of revelation nor that inerrancy is produced in the products created by men who receive revelation). Beyond this, LDS do not believe the men who compiled the books of the Bible performed their accepting and rejecting of books infallibly (though it is not impossible IMO, just unlikely).

If you believe that the words of Popes and the decrees of Ecumenical Councils (EC) are infallible AND that this is extraordinarily unlikely if God was not involved, then I think being Catholic is a good choice.
I think the ONLY remotely viable version of infallibility of Popes and Councils is so radically muted and nuanced that if it is true, it is not “extraordinarily unlikely.” And I think even this version does not standup to scrutiny so I reject it as well.

Charirty, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

It is the Holy Spirit who spoke through the prophets. Jesus is our Prophet, who gifted the Church with the Holy Spirit. It is the very same divine wellspring. When the Church was inspired of the Holy Spirit in proclaiming which books of the Bible are inspired, it was through the Holy Spirit. There is only one Holy Spirit. One that proclaims one Truth.

 

[JMM1957]

Stephen168 and Pork(name removed by moderator)ie,
I read everything you both have said and I do not think you have dealt with what I said at all. There is no contradiction in the LDS use of the Bible.
Perhaps Jas84173 can see if he agrees that I addressed his concern.

Good men who lack divine authority or the ability to receive revelation met at various councils. Some Catholics consider Ecumenical Councils (EC). Some were meetings of Jews (in council) that Catholic reject as EC. Some were meetings of Christians accepted originally as EC and accepted today as EC by the Catholic Church. At least one was originally local councils that many years later was declared an EC.

LDS and Catholics agree that NONE of the councils was led by REVELATION from God.

LDS believe that the men who took actions at the councils were not infallible and the book they produced is/was not inerrant (which is I think was consistent with what I wrote, but if it was not then I was wrong).

LDS do believe that the men who wrote the books we have in the Bible did receive REVELATION (though LDS do not believe infallibility is possessed in the recipients of revelation nor that inerrancy is produced in the products created by men who receive revelation). Beyond this, LDS do not believe the men who compiled the books of the Bible performed their accepting and rejecting of books infallibly (though it is not impossible IMO, just unlikely).

If you believe that the words of Popes and the decrees of Ecumenical Councils (EC) are infallible AND that this is extraordinarily unlikely if God was not involved, then I think being Catholic is a good choice.
I think the ONLY remotely viable version of infallibility of Popes and Councils is so radically muted and nuanced that if it is true, it is not “extraordinarily unlikely.” And I think even this version does not standup to scrutiny so I reject it as well.

Charirty, TOm

The last 2000+ years of Christianity depends on the Bible being correct in content. It makes no sense that God would allow it to be otherwise, IMO.

 

[Porknpie]

Stephen168 and Pork(name removed by moderator)ie,

Charirty, TOm

It’s PorkNPie but that’s OK. PorkNBeans was taken.

I read everything you both have said and I do not think you have dealt with what I said at all. There is no contradiction in the LDS use of the Bible.

Your Church as referenced Tom explicitly states that the NT canon is divine revelation and authoritative.

It is also saying explicitly, that the early Church determined what books were and were not (heretical) divine revelation. Catholic’s agree with this.

The contradiction though is this, left unspoken by your Church.

• Catholic Bishops affirmed these 27 NT books, no more, no less
• Catholic Bishops, professed belief in the Trinity, affirmed some 60 years earlier, the same Catholic Bishops affirmed 46 books in the OT, and they ALL professed belief in Jesus being Really present in the Eucharist ( as the Catholic Church has always professed ). All those Catholic Bishops brought this NT canon to Mass, where they presided over the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

Good men who lack divine authority or the ability to receive revelation met at various councils…. LDS and Catholics agree that NONE of the councils was led by REVELATION from God… LDS believe that the men who took actions at the councils were not infallible and the book they produced is/was not inerrant

The Church has always been led by the Holy Spirit, just as Jesus Christ promised. There are times, when fallible men, can make infallible decisions on faith and morals. That’s the ONLY way you can trust that these 27 books are ALL the Written word of God.

Tom, you profess belief that all these 27 NT books are the Word of God? (yes or no)

Some Catholics consider Ecumenical Councils (EC). Some were meetings of Jews (in council) that Catholic reject as EC. Some were meetings of Christians accepted originally as EC and accepted today as EC by the Catholic Church. At least one was originally local councils that many years later was declared an EC.

The Catholic Church rejects that the Jew’s had authority to declare what was OT scripture let alone NT scripture. This is especially true in light of Jesus Christ. Outside of the books of Moses, the Pharisee’s, Sadducees, Essenes, etc all disagreed as to what comprised the OT.

“LDS do believe that the men who wrote the books we have in the Bible did receive REVELATION”

Some were apostles of Jesus Christ and heard the Gospel from him directly. Mark though wrote for Peter, Luke was not an apostle. We don’t know for sure who wrote Hebrews. All the men though were inspired by God.

“though LDS do not believe infallibility is possessed in the recipients”

Infallibility is a charism of the Church.
newadvent.org/cathen/03588e.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

I’m curious though if the LDS Church holds this same standard as it pertains to Joseph Smith? Was Joseph Smith infallible?

“Beyond this, LDS do not believe the men who compiled the books of the Bible performed their accepting and rejecting of books infallibly (though it is not impossible IMO, just unlikely).”

Why then would the LDS Church declare the NT to be authoritative?

“If you believe that the words of Popes and the decrees of Ecumenical Councils (EC) are infallible AND that this is extraordinarily unlikely if God was not involved”

God was certainly involved. Fallible men can’t make infallible decisions without God being involved. Jesus Christ PROMISED to send the Paraclete, the third person of the Trinity, to lead his Church to ALL truth (and that the gates of hell would NEVER prevail). The NT canon itself is evidence of Christ’s promise in action.

13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth (Jn 16:13)

 

[jas84173]

Infallibility is a human characteristic. The bible itself can be both inspired and inerrant. The LDS Church teaches:

Agree, that it contains the Written record of Divine Revelation.

Agree although we disagree on exegesis.

Yes!. The Councils were gatherings of Catholic Bishops: Rome 382; Hippo 393 and Carthage 397 to name the 3 earliest ones on the Canon.

Well today, 1.6 billion Christians say that this canon is in error. The ‘common consent” – rather the Universal teaching of Christianity for 1,100 years - was that the bible contained at least 73 books. The original KJV of 1611 had… 73 books in it, plus Catholic Holy Days. A printing press a few years later removed 7 of these books due to the fact that Martin Luther and King James believed that they were not God’s Word. Neither of them had any authority to say so…

Says the LDS Church:

What’s left out above that I add is the word Catholic… Catholic Bishops, met in Councils in Rome (382), Hippo (393) and Carthage (397). And the OT Scripture that they affirmed contained 46 books, as well as 27 books of the NT.

The Orthodox to profess that all 73 books in the Catholic Canon are God’s Written Word (plus a few more OT books). And at the time of Jesus Christ, the various Jewish sects did not agree on an OT canon, save the books of Moses.

The Catholic Church, Catholic Bishops to be exact, in 325 at Nicea affirmed the Doctrine of the Trinity. 318 Bishops were in attendance. Their declaration again Arianism is evidence of Jesus guiding his Church to ALL truth. Some 60+ years later, Bishops meeting again at Rome would affirm the 27 book NT canon that LDS use today (out of 300+ early Christian writings). Again, this is evidence of Jesus guiding his Church to ALL truth. The LDS Church refers to this NT canon as: authoritative. I assume this means that they affirm that ALL 27 books are God’s Written Word, even if we disagree on how it is to be interpreted.

From the LDS website:

There is no evidence for a Council of Jamnia. And pretending there was one, where in scripture does one read of God giving Jewish scholars the authority to determine what was and was not OT scripture, especially in light of Jesus Christ (his incarnation is hidden in the OT, and revealed in the NT)?

References:
lds.org/scriptures/bd/bible?lang=eng and lds.org/scriptures/bd/canon.html?lang=eng&letter=C

Actually the original KJV had more than 73 books! It also contains 1 and 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Mannaseh. Which were in the Latin Vulgate but moved to an appendix following the council of Trent.

 

[Porknpie]

Actually the original KJV had more than 73 books! It also contains 1 and 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Mannaseh. Which were in the Latin Vulgate but moved to an appendix following the council of Trent.

Well let’s not forget too:

The Original KJV of 1611 also had a list of Catholic Holy Days.

 

[JMM1957]

Stephen168 and Pork(name removed by moderator)ie,
I read everything you both have said and I do not think you have dealt with what I said at all. There is no contradiction in the LDS use of the Bible.
Perhaps Jas84173 can see if he agrees that I addressed his concern.

Good men who lack divine authority or the ability to receive revelation met at various councils. Some Catholics consider Ecumenical Councils (EC). Some were meetings of Jews (in council) that Catholic reject as EC. Some were meetings of Christians accepted originally as EC and accepted today as EC by the Catholic Church. At least one was originally local councils that many years later was declared an EC.

LDS and Catholics agree that NONE of the councils was led by REVELATION from God.

LDS believe that the men who took actions at the councils were not infallible and the book they produced is/was not inerrant (which is I think was consistent with what I wrote, but if it was not then I was wrong).
**
LDS do believe that the men who wrote the books we have in the Bible did receive REVELATION (though LDS do not believe infallibility is possessed in the recipients of revelation nor that inerrancy is produced in the products created by men who receive revelation). Beyond this, LDS do not believe the men who compiled the books of the Bible performed their accepting and rejecting of books infallibly (though it is not impossible IMO, just unlikely).**

If you believe that the words of Popes and the decrees of Ecumenical Councils (EC) are infallible AND that this is extraordinarily unlikely if God was not involved, then I think being Catholic is a good choice.
I think the ONLY remotely viable version of infallibility of Popes and Councils is so radically muted and nuanced that if it is true, it is not “extraordinarily unlikely.” And I think even this version does not standup to scrutiny so I reject it as well.

Charirty, TOm

From LDS website:

Joseph Smith: A Prophet of God
When Joseph Smith was 14 years old, he wanted to know which church he should join, so he asked God in sincere prayer. In response to this prayer, God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, appeared to Joseph and told him the true Church of Jesus Christ was not on the earth and They had chosen Joseph to restore it.

Was Joseph Smith infallible when he claimed that the one true church didn’t exist on earth and that he was to restore it?

 

[JMM1957]

Stephen168 and Pork(name removed by moderator)ie,
I read everything you both have said and I do not think you have dealt with what I said at all. There is no contradiction in the LDS use of the Bible.
Perhaps Jas84173 can see if he agrees that I addressed his concern.

Good men who lack divine authority or the ability to receive revelation met at various councils. Some Catholics consider Ecumenical Councils (EC). Some were meetings of Jews (in council) that Catholic reject as EC. Some were meetings of Christians accepted originally as EC and accepted today as EC by the Catholic Church. At least one was originally local councils that many years later was declared an EC.

LDS and Catholics agree that NONE of the councils was led by REVELATION from God.

LDS believe that the men who took actions at the councils were not infallible and the book they produced is/was not inerrant (which is I think was consistent with what I wrote, but if it was not then I was wrong).

LDS do believe that the men who wrote the books we have in the Bible did receive REVELATION (though LDS do not believe infallibility is possessed in the recipients of revelation nor that inerrancy is produced in the products created by men who receive revelation). Beyond this, LDS do not believe the men who compiled the books of the Bible performed their accepting and rejecting of books infallibly (though it is not impossible IMO, just unlikely).

If you believe that the words of Popes and the decrees of Ecumenical Councils (EC) are infallible AND that this is extraordinarily unlikely if God was not involved, then I think being Catholic is a good choice.
I think the ONLY remotely viable version of infallibility of Popes and Councils is so radically muted and nuanced that if it is true, it is not “extraordinarily unlikely.” And I think even this version does not standup to scrutiny so I reject it as well.

Charirty, TOm

Really?

Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers. With them they sent the following letter:

The apostles and elders, your brothers,
To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:
Greetings.
We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul– men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing.** It seemed good to the Holy Spirit **and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell. (Acts 15:22-29, NIV)

Seems the HS did play a role at the Jerusalem Council, the first of the one true Church.

 

[TOmNossor]

It’s PorkNPie but that’s OK.

Sorry. Porknpie!

Your Church as referenced Tom explicitly states that the NT canon is divine revelation and authoritative.
It is also saying explicitly, that the early Church determined what books were and were not (heretical) divine revelation. Catholic’s agree with this.
The contradiction though is this, left unspoken by your Church.

• Catholic Bishops affirmed these 27 NT books, …
• Catholic …professed belief in Trinity, …Catholic Bishops brought this NT canon to Mass, where they presided over the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

The CoJCoLDS claims that the Bible is the word of God “so far as it is TRANSLATED correctly.” Some LDS scholars have claimed that the “Autographs” were the word of God (implying that the “TRANSLATED” was the changes we KNOW happened at the hands of scribes and translators). That being said, the BOM is the word of God and it was “TRANSLATED” by direct divine revelation to Joseph Smith and LDS do not profess that the BOM is inerrant.
So, I can see how picking all inspired books available and only inspired books for the Bible would be an extraworldly accomplishment by those who also claimed to have God’s authority as Bishops, but LDS do not believe that these men acted in an extrawordly way beyond what mere men (good men doing their best) could do. They debated and disagreed about what books should be in the Bible and what books should be left out. LDS leaders have occasionally theorized about books that shouldn’t be there, and I can think of some books that were more prominent before the canon was defined that perhaps could be there. In any case, the idea that a Canon should be defined and close is a non-LDS idea.

The Church has always been led by the Holy Spirit, just as Jesus Christ promised. There are times, when fallible men, can make infallible decisions on faith and morals. That’s the ONLY way you can trust that these 27 books are ALL the Written word of God.

Fallible men can make correct decisions and the 27 books of the Bible are inspired, but they are not the only inspired scripture and other choices could have been made. LDS claim the Bible is the word of God so far as it is translated correctly. I do not think this is an endorsement of infallible authority and I submit is not inconsistent to assert this. Many rational Protestants embrace a perfect, complete, inerrant Bible and reject the Catholic Church. I find this a much more difficult position than the one I hold

Tom, you profess belief that all these 27 NT books are the Word of God? (yes or no)

Yes, I do. I might add that President Hinckley was not a fan of one book of the Bible and didn’t mind saying so. I think that book was inspired too, but I am not sure he did. BTW, this was an OT book not among the 27.

The Catholic Church rejects that the Jew’s had authority to declare what was OT scripture let alone NT scripture. This is especially true in light of Jesus Christ. Outside of the books of Moses, the Pharisee’s, Sadducees, Essenes, etc all disagreed as to what comprised the OT.

That is fine. You quoted something about some council of Jews. I understand that is an argument that might have been used by LDS thinkers (I am not sure the source). I was just explaining that my church rejects the authority of the Jewish Councils in 90AD, ECs and the local councils (the 27 books were not infallibly defined when you said they were BTW)

Infallibility is a human characteristic.
…
Yes!. The Councils were gatherings of Catholic Bishops: Rome 382; Hippo 393 and Carthage 397 to name the 3 earliest ones on the Canon.

In many ways you are in the boat you claim LDS are in. The Catholic Church today rejects teachings from Carthage. The Catholic Church SELECTIVELY claims that the Bishops at Carthage were right (perhaps infallible is your view) when they defined the Canon, but wrong when they speak on other subjects (well the wrong I am thinking about is a wrong Aquinas embraced, but modern Catholics including every Catholic on this board I have ever spoken with rejects).
It took until Florence and Trent to seal the Council of Carthage infallibly as Carthage was not an EC and Catholics believe SOME of it was WRONG.

I’m curious though if the LDS Church holds this same standard as it pertains to Joseph Smith? Was Joseph Smith infallible?

LDS do not believe Joseph Smith was infallible. Well, informed LDS do not. There is a joke that I tell for LDS audiences that hopefully will not offend you too much.
“Catholics teach that the Pope is infallibly, but nobody believes it. LDS teach that the prophet is not infallible, but nobody believes it.”
Most INFORED Catholics I know believe that the Pope is infallible under specific conditions.

Why then would the LDS Church declare the NT to be authoritative?

I think the choice of the KJV of the Bible was done because it was sufficient and a good point of contact with the rest of Christianity from which to dialogue.

God was certainly involved. Fallible men can’t make infallible decisions without God being involved. Jesus Christ PROMISED to send the Paraclete, the third person of the Trinity, to lead his Church to ALL truth (and that the gates of hell would NEVER prevail). The NT canon itself is evidence of Christ’s promise in action.

I think you misunderstood what I said. I am saying that the numerous exceptions and explanations associated with making documents from 21 EC inerrant and the authorities that produced them infallible (or explaining how Popes are infallible) make it look very human rather than divine.
I think much (though not all) of the things done by the leaders of the CoJCoLDS look very human too.
Charity, TOm

 

[JMM1957]

LDS have never accepted that the definition of the canon or the preservation of the Bible was infallible and inerrant. As LDS we have accepted by common consent the Bible as put together in the KJV. This is also not an infallible or inerrant declaration. But, the Bible is sufficient and it creates a point of commonality from which to discuss Christianity with other folks “of the book.”
All Christians should celebrate the good men (and woman) from the ancient Catholic, Orthodox, and Jewish churches who did a good job preserving the Bible and (for Catolic and Orthodox) the witness of Christ.
**That being said, I do not believe it is inconsistent for LDS to recognize inspiration captures from the authors of the Bible despite the recognition that the Bible is neither perfect nor complete. ** And I think it QUITE CONSISTENT to point out that post Biblical debates concerning the nature of God and Christ were not resolved through divine inspiration (especially since Catholic and Orthodox Christians after Tertullian’s time claim revelation ceased so we just agree with them).
Charity, TOm

My opinion is that for the LDS to teach its members that the Bible is “not perfect or complete”, only opens the door for the introduction of later revelation (Joseph Smith) to somehow “restore” what was once lost.

Lost books (from LDS website)
The so-called lost books of the Bible are those documents that are mentioned in the Bible in such a way that it is evident they were considered authentic and valuable but that are not found in the Bible today. Sometimes called missing scripture, they consist of at least the following: book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21:14); book of Jasher (Josh. 10:13; 2 Sam. 1:18); book of the acts of Solomon (1 Kgs. 11:41); book of Samuel the seer (1 Chr. 29:29); book of Gad the seer (1 Chr. 29:29); book of Nathan the prophet (1 Chr. 29:29; 2 Chr. 9:29); prophecy of Ahijah (2 Chr. 9:29); visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chr. 9:29; 12:15; 13:22); book of Shemaiah (2 Chr. 12:15); book of Jehu (2 Chr. 20:34); sayings of the seers (2 Chr. 33:19); an epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, earlier than our present 1 Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:9); possibly an earlier epistle to the Ephesians (Eph. 3:3); an epistle to the Church at Laodicea (Col. 4:16); and some prophecies of Enoch, known to Jude (Jude 1:14). To these rather clear references to inspired writings other than our current Bible may be added another list that has allusions to writings that may or may not be contained within our present text but may perhaps be known by a different title; for example, the book of the covenant (Ex. 24:7), which may or may not be included in the current book of Exodus; the manner of the kingdom, written by Samuel (1 Sam. 10:25); the rest of the acts of Uzziah written by Isaiah (2 Chr. 26:22).

The foregoing items attest to the fact that our present Bible does not contain all of the word of the Lord that He gave to His people in former times and remind us that the Bible, in its present form, is rather incomplete.

Regardless, what the ancient Church assembled as the canon of the Bible through the deliberation at many councils through the inspiration of the HS, is what God intended for us to know about Him and His plan for salvation, period.

 

[TOmNossor]

From LDS website:

Joseph Smith: A Prophet of God
When Joseph Smith was 14 years old, he wanted to know which church he should join, so he asked God in sincere prayer. In response to this prayer, God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, appeared to Joseph and told him the true Church of Jesus Christ was not on the earth and They had chosen Joseph to restore it.

Was Joseph Smith infallible when he claimed that the one true church didn’t exist on earth and that he was to restore it?

He was not infallible. He was right. I have taken many tests in school and received perfect scores. I am not infallible, just right.
The requirement that the church is incable of making errors (in certain things) is a Catholic requirement for the Catholic Church. For those who do not study history, it might be comforting, but for those who study history it requires ALOT of explaning. I have tried to find out where “infalliibliity” teaching began in the Catholic Church. The first council I could find was Vatican I. The idea that the church was indefectable is early (though I do not know when it was in an EC).

The closest thing to an indefectable guarentee LDS possess is the beleif that this is the last dispensation and will only end at the return of Christ not in an apostacy. For a long time I viewed this belief as just another claim like those made throughout history. Today, I think it a product of human advancement not the absense of freedom to error among church leaders. I have aluded to this here, but this is a long essay that I find interesting:
mormoninterpreter.com/a-mormon-theodicy-jacob-and-the-problem-of-evil/
Again, not infallibility, but God’s progressive development of the human race.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Really?

Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers. With them they sent the following letter:

The apostles and elders, your brothers,
To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:
Greetings.
We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul– men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing.** It seemed good to the Holy Spirit **and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell. (Acts 15:22-29, NIV)

Seems the HS did play a role at the Jerusalem Council, the first of the one true Church.

LDS and Catholics agree that the Council of Jerusalem was lead by inspired leaders who received REVELATION.
Catholics beleive this revelation for the purpose of leading God’s church ended, though I have found no teaching that it ended until after Tertullian claimed it had not ended.
Vatican I made it clear that Revelation had ceased. Patrick Madrid’s book is even more explicit.

PatrickMadrid:

The only pope who was inspired and who received revelation from God to be given to the whole Church was Simon Peter. After he went home to his heavenly reward, all the subsequent popes have had to do their job of teaching and preserving the deposit of faith the old fashion way: They learned it (Pope Fiction p140)
.

Is Patrick Madrid wrong?
Catholics cannot reassure Protestants that they do not believe there is no Revelation for the purpose of guiding the church (private revelation is consistent with Catholic teachings) AND tell Mormons that there is. And all of Catholic history after Tertullian points to the Protestant way. Before Tertullian, the LDS way. Apostasy perhaps!

Charity, TOm