For the LDS - Please Define the Great Apostacy

[xixxvmcm85]

There is also the Joseph Smith translation of the bible which we do not accept as canonized scripture because he never finished it.

WRONG! I know, its not your fault for thinking this as just about every Mormon is taught this from a young age (including yours truly).

The fact of the matter is, Joseph Smith finished his re-translation in 1833. That’s 11 years prior to his death.

The RLDS Church uses this version as their official Biblical version. They call it “The Inspired Version”.

And guess what about the RLDS?

1. They are trinitarian.
2. They don’t believe in baptism (or any other ordinance) for the deceased by proxy.
3. They don’t believe in the copied Masonic rites as performed in the LDS temples.
4. They don’t believe in any “Heavenly Mother” nor that we are literal children of God.
5. They don’t believe in the blasphemous deification that Mormons do.

Among many other things.

In other words, even though the RLDS use the Bible that JOSEPH SMITH said was PERFECT, they don’t follow any of the uniquely LDS doctrines that the LDS purport as having been “lost from the Bible”.

This should be very telling. Now I haven’t yet gotten my hands on an “Inspired Version” but you bet that when I do, I’m going to look for these “Joseph Smith Doctrines of the ‘later years’”.

 

[mfbukowski]

WRONG! I know, its not your fault for thinking this as just about every Mormon is taught this from a young age (including yours truly).

The fact of the matter is, Joseph Smith finished his re-translation in 1833. That’s 11 years prior to his death.

The RLDS Church uses this version as their official Biblical version. They call it “The Inspired Version”.

And guess what about the RLDS?

1. They are trinitarian.
2. They don’t believe in baptism (or any other ordinance) for the deceased by proxy.
3. They don’t believe in the copied Masonic rites as performed in the LDS temples.
4. They don’t believe in any “Heavenly Mother” nor that we are literal children of God.
5. They don’t believe in the blasphemous deification that Mormons do.

Among many other things.

In other words, even though the RLDS use the Bible that JOSEPH SMITH said was PERFECT, they don’t follow any of the uniquely LDS doctrines that the LDS purport as having been “lost from the Bible”.

This should be very telling. Now I haven’t yet gotten my hands on an “Inspired Version” but you bet that when I do, I’m going to look for these “Joseph Smith Doctrines of the ‘later years’”.

Would you like to borrow mine? I bought it in Nauvoo. So are you RLDS (disciples of Christ)?

There has been a lot of revelation since the bible. The fact that the rlds do not accept it is immaterial.

A translation of the bible would not show what is NOT in the bible.

So quit your search. I’ll sell you mine for $500.

Come on. You think no Mormon has ever thought of that?

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Would you like to borrow mine? I bought it in Nauvoo. So are you RLDS (disciples of Christ)?

No. I’m a former-LDS in RCIA right now. I’ll be fully received into the Catholic church this Easter.

There has been a lot of revelation since the bible. The fact that the rlds do not accept it is immaterial.

My point was that so many times when confronted about the uniquely “meaty doctrines” of the LDS faith, with respect to what the Bible says, Mormons conveniently use the “remember that the Bible has not be accurately translated” (see the 8th article of faith).

But if the LDS were to use the RLDS version, then they wouldn’t have that excuse. I appealed to RLDS belief as a precursory conclusion as to what the JST version must say about things such as the godhead, baptism, etc (seeing as the RLDS are much closer to orthodox Christianity than the LDS are). Either way, I cannot make a definitive statement on it until I actually read it.

Seeing as Joseph Smith’s original church (prior to the Nauvoo days) was much more similar to the Campbellite movement, I wouldn’t be surprised if the JST in its entirety were more Protestant than anything else. There was a HUGE paradigm shift in Smith’s theology towards the end of his life (conveniently around the time when he became a mason and began secretly taking more wives). This is precisely why many Latter-day Restorationists (such as the Bickertonites in Penn) claim that Joseph Smith though ORIGINALLY called to bring forth the Book of Mormon, the revised Bible, as well as the “true” church, he eventually became a FALLEN prophet.

PS: The RLDS are the “Community of Christ” not the “Disciples of Christ”. The latter is another restorationist group that predates Mormonism and has nothing to do with Joseph Smith. Many of the first LDS converts came from the ancestral organization of this church (even famous ones such as Sidney Rigdon).

 

[mfbukowski]

No. I’m a former-LDS in RCIA right now. I’ll be fully received into the Catholic church this Easter.

My point was that so many times when confronted about the uniquely “meaty doctrines” of the LDS faith, with respect to what the Bible says, Mormons conveniently use the “remember that the Bible has not be accurately translated” (see the 8th article of faith).

But if the LDS were to use the RLDS version, then they wouldn’t have that excuse. I appealed to RLDS belief as a precursory conclusion as to what the JST version must say about things such as the godhead, baptism, etc (seeing as the RLDS are much closer to orthodox Christianity than the LDS are). Either way, I cannot make a definitive statement on it until I actually read it.

Seeing as Joseph Smith’s original church (prior to the Nauvoo days) was much more similar to the Campbellite movement, I wouldn’t be surprised if the JST in its entirety were more Protestant than anything else. There was a HUGE paradigm shift in Smith’s theology towards the end of his life (conveniently around the time when he became a mason and began secretly taking more wives). This is precisely why many Latter-day Restorationists (such as the Bickertonites in Penn) claim that Joseph Smith though ORIGINALLY called to bring forth the Book of Mormon, the revised Bible, as well as the “true” church, he eventually became a FALLEN prophet.

PS: The RLDS are the “Community of Christ” not the “Disciples of Christ”. The latter is another restorationist group that predates Mormonism and has nothing to do with Joseph Smith. Many of the first LDS converts came from the ancestral organization of this church (even famous ones such as Sidney Rigdon).

Ah yes thanks for refreshing my memory. Personally I have not found any conflicts with the bible and LDS doctrine.

Of course not all LDS doctrines are biblical, but I have no problem with that. Ongoing revelation is ongoing revelation.

Never used the “that’s a bad translation” excuse.
Wouldn’t have much credibility anyway!

 

[TOmNossor]

My point was that so many times when confronted about the uniquely “meaty doctrines” of the LDS faith, with respect to what the Bible says, Mormons conveniently use the “remember that the Bible has not be accurately translated” (see the 8th article of faith).

Hello, I am interested to know where you have seen this. If it is just in verbal comments, then I guess that is that.
But, if you know of somewhere this has been espoused on the web, on Catholic Answers, or ??? I would be interested in seeing that.

Towards finding the apostasy, I recommend to Catholic and non-Catholic Robert Eno’s The Rise of the Papacy AND From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church by Father Francis Sullivan. If one is not allergic to reading non-Catholic books, Nibley’s Apostles and Bishops in the Early Church and Barker’s Apostasy of the Divine Church is a good companion to the two Catholic books above and presents many of the same facts with of course a different interpretation of their meaning.

Ultimately, either the Catholic authority developed from a seed (originating with Christ and Peter) guided by God’s authority and some form of divine guidance OR the Apostolic authority did not promulgate beyond the early 2nd century. It is the necessity to choose one of these two options (and a few other things that are clear in my warped mind) that leads me to believe that one cannot be a Protestant (at least not a remotely conservative Protestant) “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”

I do not believe that Catholic Answers does well dealing with the evidence that Sullivan, Eno, Nibley, and Barker address in their books. This is one of the reasons that Protestants like James White beat on Catholics with Eno’s book. If Catholics would just embrace what Cardinal Newman demanded, some of these beatings could be avoided. Of course ** Jesus, Peter & the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy** were it the complete picture would make it harder for LDS to claim the authority of Peter was not passed to the Bishops of Rome. But, this is not IMO (nor it would seem in the opinion of Eno or Father Sullivan) a complete picture.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Never used the “that’s a bad translation” excuse.
Wouldn’t have much credibility anyway!

Nor have I, at least as far as I can remember!

I also think that LDS theology while encompasing a spectrum of beliefs (like all religions, but LDS theology is a larger spectrum) has many Biblical aspects to recommend it above non-LDS theology. At least I think that to be true with respect to the systematic theology developed by Ostler in his Exploring Mormon Thought series.
Charity, TOm

 

[Alma147]

Hello, I am interested to know where you have seen this. If it is just in verbal comments, then I guess that is that.
But, if you know of somewhere this has been espoused on the web, on Catholic Answers, or ??? I would be interested in seeing that.

You’re right to question this, Tom; it’s a dodge.

Alma

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Ah yes thanks for refreshing my memory. Personally I have not found any conflicts with the bible and LDS doctrine.

Of course not all LDS doctrines are biblical, but I have no problem with that. Ongoing revelation is ongoing revelation.

Never used the “that’s a bad translation” excuse.
Wouldn’t have much credibility anyway!

Haven’t seen it in any written discourse. I should hope no one would succomb to such an “easy way out” if given the time to properly think out a rebuttal. There have been quite a few LDS in my life who have given a substantive answer to my questions growing up, however the recurring theme with many others were using the 8th article of faith to death. And this definitely has been a VERY recurring theme with the missionaries. I’m glad that our Mormon friends here on CAF (like yourself) tend to be a little more sympathetic to reason.

I understand that there are certain doctrines in the LDS religion that are alleged to be revealed ONLY to the LDS dispensation and so we would expect the Bible to be completely silent on such issues (assuming the LDS position is correct).

I was referring mostly to doctrines of the LDS faith that differ from both orthodoxy Christianity and the RLDS with respect to the important, Biblically-derived dogmas.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Hello, I am interested to know where you have seen this. If it is just in verbal comments, then I guess that is that.
But, if you know of somewhere this has been espoused on the web, on Catholic Answers, or ??? I would be interested in seeing that.

Towards finding the apostasy, I recommend to Catholic and non-Catholic Robert Eno’s The Rise of the Papacy AND From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church by Father Francis Sullivan. If one is not allergic to reading non-Catholic books, Nibley’s Apostles and Bishops in the Early Church and Barker’s Apostasy of the Divine Church is a good companion to the two Catholic books above and presents many of the same facts with of course a different interpretation of their meaning.

Ultimately, either the Catholic authority developed from a seed (originating with Christ and Peter) guided by God’s authority and some form of divine guidance OR the Apostolic authority did not promulgate beyond the early 2nd century. It is the necessity to choose one of these two options (and a few other things that are clear in my warped mind) that leads me to believe that one cannot be a Protestant (at least not a remotely conservative Protestant) “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”

I do not believe that Catholic Answers does well dealing with the evidence that Sullivan, Eno, Nibley, and Barker address in their books. This is one of the reasons that Protestants like James White beat on Catholics with Eno’s book. If Catholics would just embrace what Cardinal Newman demanded, some of these beatings could be avoided. Of course ** Jesus, Peter & the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy** were it the complete picture would make it harder for LDS to claim the authority of Peter was not passed to the Bishops of Rome. But, this is not IMO (nor it would seem in the opinion of Eno or Father Sullivan) a complete picture.

Charity, TOm

Thanks! I’ll add this to my reading list. Are these found in public libraries? Or in general bookstores or does one typically only find these in Seagull Books and the like?

I have a funny feeling that these authors are going to point out the change in church polity as evidence of an apostasy (with regards to titles like “From Apostles to Bishops” and “Rise of the Papacy” etc). Seeing as church polity evolves in every ecclesiastical organization (including the LDS church) I don’t quite see how this is evidence of anything except the church growing in size and thus necessitating a more developed hierarchy. Keep in mind, there are still only 3 priesthood offices in Catholicism just as its been in the begining: Deacons, Priests, and Bishops.

I’d be more interested in evidence of the CHURCH actually sliding away from their own orthodoxy, and in matters of dogma. THAT I think would better indicate an apostasy. Please note that I’m not referring to the flimsy evidence apologists such as Nibley points out (I’ve read much of his work as a teenager). Those like Nibley like to isolate some group of condemned heretics (or in other cases single quotes from individual people in the church) to prove that there must have been some kind of “proto-LDS” church. The problem with this upon further study is that these heretical groups (or idividual theologians) preached OTHER doctrines FAR removed from the contemporary LDS understanding. In other words, a Mormon might appeal to the Arians to demonstrate that “true” early Christians espoused the LDS belief in the godhead as if the Arians were some kind of proto-Mormons, yet they completely shy away from the Arains belief in the communion of saints, the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, etc.

I’m interested in seeing a group of people (or even just ONE individual) who espoused a MAJORITY of LDS beliefs. They don’t even have to be the new revelations as revealed to Joseph Smith Jr. I want to see a group of Christians who worshipped in a Temple esoterically, who believed in the pre-existence of ALL souls, who believed Jesus was exalted to godhood in a twofold sense due to his role in forming the world with Adam as well as fulfilling the “plan of exaltation”.

Conveniently picking and choosing different heresies from different sources to demonstrate that the LDS claim of apostasy is a valid one doesn’t demonstrate that there was a visible, hierarchical, ecclesiastical community of believers who believed exactly what the Mormons belief.

Pardon the quasi-cliche, but this seems like nothing more to me than “Cafeteria Heresy”.

 

[Alma147]

WRONG! I know, its not your fault for thinking this as just about every Mormon is taught this from a young age (including yours truly).

Just about every Mormon? I’ve taught college level LDS students for over 15 years and I’ve never taught it, never been taught it and don’t know any faculty that teach or believe it. I’ve had people ask if that’s the reason it isn’t part of the canon and I invariably point out that the copyright expired years ago so that could hardly be the reason.

The fact of the matter is, Joseph Smith finished his re-translation in 1833. That’s 11 years prior to his death.

That’s only partially true. While Joseph Smith claimed in February of 1833 that he had “completed the translation and review of the New Testament” that hardly is a claim regarding the whole Bible–and the last clause of that sentence includes “till it arrived in Zion.” The most such a comment provides is that he had completed everything he planned to do while in Ohio, leaving open the possibility to continue his work in Missouri.

And guess what about the RLDS?

1. They are trinitarian.
2. They don’t believe in baptism (or any other ordinance) for the deceased by proxy.
3. They don’t believe in the copied Masonic rites as performed in the LDS temples.
4. They don’t believe in any “Heavenly Mother” nor that we are literal children of God.
5. They don’t believe in the blasphemous deification that Mormons do.

Let me guess what about them–they’re a heretical schism of the true Church? They’re very inconsistent?

While several of the items you list above are worth discussing, let’s look at number 2: They don’t believe in baptism for the dead.

I find it very interesting that in 1891, the RLDS Church sued the “Church of Christ” (Temple Lot) for possession of the Independence temple site. One of the reasons they put forth as evidence for being the “true” successors of Joseph Smith’s Church was that they–the RLDS–believed in baptism for the dead; and the Temple Lot Church did not:

“defendants (Temple Lot Church) deny the ordinance of Baptism for the Dead as taught by your Orator (RLDS) and the mother Church. And in this as well as in many other matters, defendants are now and from their organization have been heretical, and in opposition to the teachings, tenets, and ordinances of the mother Church, now represented by your Orator.” (Complainant’s Abstract, page 10 parens and emphasis added).

Isn’t it remarkable that in 1891 they would claim that rejecting the doctrine of baptism for the dead was heretical and now they’re part of the heresy?

In other words, even though the RLDS use the Bible that JOSEPH SMITH said was PERFECT, they don’t follow any of the uniquely LDS doctrines that the LDS purport as having been “lost from the Bible”.

I don’t know why you have to invent quotes to support your thesis. Joseph Smith never, ever claimed ANY scripture was perfect. What’s the problem, don’t you think the truth is a strong enough of a weapon?

Alma

 

[xixxvmcm85]

You’re right to question this, Tom; it’s a dodge.

Alma

How is it a dodge? It is explicitly written in the Articles of Faith that the LDS believe the Bible ONLY as far as it is translated correctly. If you lack any apologetic skills, then you can obviously appeal to this anytime your beliefs are questions, and of no surprised I’ve heard it A LOT growing up in my Sunday Schools, Seminaries, and multi-generational LDS family.

Even IF not a single LDS person used this cop-out, the question still stands as to why the LDS even bother using the KJV when the “perfectly restored” version exists in print today!?

 

[PaulDupre]

Let me say first of no one says that Jesus is just an angel

The JWs do. They are another branch of the restoration movement.

… or God is some guy like us

That is exactly what the LDS teach and believe. I know you don’t like to have that “plain and precious truth” stated so plainly, but there it is. The LDS teach that man, angels and gods are all the same species. So your god is just some guy like us, though more advanced because he got started progressing earlier than we did.

, but I’ll let that slide because I know you know Mormon doctrine, and you are just being difficult.

I am difficult when it comes to blasphemy against my God.

And pardon the crude analogies, but how do successive popes drive the bus through the landmines of history without direction from above?

To mix metaphors, are you telling me that the whole thing was more like a train on rails? With the schisms being like predicted sidetracks forking off, but never diverting the train from its appointed course?

If those are the choices – and I know the analogies are crude-- it seems that we are caught between predestination on one side and revelation on the other.

So at the council of Nicea, (and all the other possible turns and twists- Hippo, Arianism etc etc etc) the church could have taken no other course than to pick the popes it picked and condemn the heretics it condemned etc.?

You didn’t read my post very carefully. Did you skip the part about the Holy Spirit guiding the Church?

 

[PaulDupre]

And this is the problem. If you accept ANY “direction” through the holy spirit’s “operation”, how do you know that it was the correct path?

You may answer that you believe that “because it was promised”.
(Gates of hell scripture)

So your entire belief that your church is correct is ultimately based on that ONE scripture, which I have already shown is open to other interpretations? And how do you know that some second century monk didn’t just stick that in there?

I give up. Obviously you are reading just the first sentence of each of my posts and then answering what you assumed I must be getting at.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

That’s only partially true. While Joseph Smith claimed in February of 1833 that he had “completed the translation and review of the New Testament” that hardly is a claim regarding the whole Bible–and the last clause of that sentence includes “till it arrived in Zion.” The most such a comment provides is that he had completed everything he planned to do while in Ohio, leaving open the possibility to continue his work in Missouri.

He had the entire Bible “translated” by 1835, however he continued to “re-translate” even parts he had already translated (possibly to reinforce his change in theology? I’m not sure). Either way, the RLDS seem to have a complete Bible.

Let me guess what about them–they’re a heretical schism of the true Church? They’re very inconsistent?

While several of the items you list above are worth discussing, let’s look at number 2: They don’t believe in baptism for the dead. I find that very interesting that in 1891, the RLDS Church sued the “Church of Christ” (Temple Lot) for possession of the Independence temple site. One of the reasons the put forth as evidence of being the “true” successors of Joseph Smith’s Church was that they–the RLDS–believed in baptism for the dead that the Temple Lot Church did not:

“defendants (Temple Lot Church) deny the ordinance of Baptism for the Dead as taught by your Orator (RLDS) and the mother Church. And in this as well as in many other matters, defendants are now and from their organization have been heretical, and in opposition to the teachings, tenets, and ordinances of the mother Church, now represented by your Orator.” (Complainant’s Abstract, page 10).

Isn’t it remarkable that in 1891 they would claim that rejecting the doctrine of baptism for the dead was heretical and now they’re part of the heresy?

You mean like how celestial marriage was deemed an everlasting commandment, necessary for celestial exaltation, which the LDS church today denies?

My point was that the RLDS do not accept baptisms for the dead and I suggested that this might have to do with their JST version of the Bible. I reiterate what I’ve stated in that post: I HAVE STILL YET TO ACTUALLY READ THAT BIBLE SO I’M MERELY SPECULATING.

I don’t know why you have to invent quotes to support your thesis. Joseph Smith never, ever claimed ANY scripture was perfect. What’s the problem, don’t you think the truth is a strong enough of a weapon?

Alma

Alright, I’ll concede that “perfect” was not the best words, however did the “Prophet” not say about the Book of Mormon, that “[it] is the MOST CORRECT of any other book and a man would get closer to God by following its precepts”?

This demonstrates that though the LDS do not necessarily believe in scriptural inerrancy, they DO believe that certain scriptures are MORE correct than others, and it would follow (especially with respect to quotes from Pres. Young) that a set of scripture is perfect upon its translation (if divinely willed) and might “lose perfection” as the ages pass and times change.

If this is the case, why use a 17th century version of a Bible that was translated from other “corrupted” texts when there’s a 19th century version penned by the “prophet” himself?

 

[Alma147]

How is it a dodge? It is explicitly written in the Articles of Faith that the LDS believe the Bible ONLY as far as it is translated correctly. If you lack any apologetic skills, then you can obviously appeal to this anytime your beliefs are questions, and of no surprised I’ve heard it A LOT growing up in my Sunday Schools, Seminaries, and multi-generational LDS family.

Even IF not a single LDS person used this cop-out, the question still stands as to why the LDS even bother using the KJV when the “perfectly restored” version exists in print today!?

It’s a doge because you claimed, “that so many times when confronted about the uniquely “meaty doctrines” of the LDS faith, with respect to what the Bible says, Mormons conveniently use the “remember that the Bible has not be accurately translated” (see the 8th article of faith).” You sure put it into reverse above by noting the “Even if not a single LDS person used this cop-out.” What happened is you got challenged on it and realized your claim was false on its face.

I have engaged in apologetics for many years and find that critics of Mormonism are far more likely to dodge a doctrinal conundrum by asserting faulty translation than are Mormons.

It’s also interesting that though people like you like to quote the 8th article of faith as some kind of gotcha, you’re generally reluctant to take any other position. Do you accept a Bible passage as the Word of God when you know it’s translated incorrectly? If not, you subscribe to the 8th Article of LDS faith as well.

Alma

 

[xixxvmcm85]

It’s a doge because you claimed, “that so many times when confronted about the uniquely “meaty doctrines” of the LDS faith, with respect to what the Bible says, Mormons conveniently use the “remember that the Bible has not be accurately translated” (see the 8th article of faith).” You sure put it into reverse above by noting the “Even if not a single LDS person used this cop-out.” What happened is you got challenged on it and realized your claim was false on its face.

This makes no sense at all to me.

I showed you how the 8th Article of Faith ALLOWS for this kind of argument in response to your claiming it merely “a dodge” (as if it were impossible for a Mormon to succumb to this).

I then HUMORED the idea of NO MORMONS using this to introduce the question of “Why do the LDS not use the Inspired Version?”

Now how has my claim fallen “false on its face”?

 

[Alma147]

You mean like how celestial marriage was deemed an everlasting commandment, necessary for celestial exaltation, which the LDS church today denies?

Where do you come up with this stuff? Celestial marriage is denied today? That’s nonsense. Take a look at D&C 132:19 if you have any doubt. That’s part of our canon and I’m awfully certain it’s never been denied as you assert.

My point was that the RLDS do not accept baptisms for the dead and I suggested that this might have to do with their JST version of the Bible. I reiterate what I’ve stated in that post: I HAVE STILL YET TO ACTUALLY READ THAT BIBLE SO I’M MERELY SPECULATING.

RLDS Inspired Version: Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead? (1 Cor. 15:29)

They claimed to believe and teach baptism for the dead in 1891 by sworn statement in legal proceeding. The fact that they were committing perjury was later demonstrated in cross examination. But they wanted the public to believe they were “orthodox” Mormons; a claim that history has shown to be false.

Alright, I’ll concede that “perfect” was not the best words, however did the “Prophet” not say about the Book of Mormon, that “[it] is the MOST CORRECT of any other book and a man would get closer to God by following its precepts”?

Close: "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.

This demonstrates that though the LDS do not necessarily believe in scriptural inerrancy, they DO believe that certain scriptures are MORE correct than others,

That’s a definite duh.

and it would follow (especially with respect to quotes from Pres. Young) that a set of scripture is perfect upon its translation (if divinely willed) and might “lose perfection” as the ages pass and times change.

More nonsense. Brigham Young said, "I do not even believe that there is a single revelation, among the many God has given to the Church, that is perfect in its fulness. The revelations of God contain correct doctrine and principle, so far as they go; but it is impossible for the poor, weak, low, grovelling, sinful inhabitants of the earth to receive a revelation from the Almighty in all its perfections.

Come on, find out what Mormons really believe before telling us such stories.

If this is the case, why use a 17th century version of a Bible that was translated from other “corrupted” texts when there’s a 19th century version penned by the “prophet” himself?

Your question is bogus, based upon a false premise.

Alma

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Where do you come up with this stuff? Celestial marriage is denied today? That’s nonsense. Take a look at D&C 132:19 if you have any doubt. That’s part of our canon and I’m awfully certain it’s never been denied as you assert.

Celestial marriage as its original definition (i.e. polygamy).

More nonsense. Brigham Young said, "I do not even believe that there is a single revelation, among the many God has given to the Church, that is perfect in its fulness. The revelations of God contain correct doctrine and principle, so far as they go; but it is impossible for the poor, weak, low, grovelling, sinful inhabitants of the earth to receive a revelation from the Almighty in all its perfections.

You’re tripping over semantics. Latter-day revelations and translations are still considered more correct than others. Whether perfect or simply “more correct” it STILL leaves us with the question “Why do the LDS not use the Inspired Translation?” Which you have still not answered.

 

[Alma147]

Celestial marriage as its original definition (i.e. polygamy).

Oh, I see–as you want to define it. When Joseph F. Smith was asked under oath in 1903, “Do you perform celestial marriage ceremonies now?” He answered:

“That is simply a marriage for time and eternity.” (Protest in the Matter of Reed Smoot vol. 1 p. 184)

Apparently, you have a better handle on what the term means than the President of the Church who served under four other presidents. I’m wondering what makes your conclusions more valid than his?

You’re tripping over semantics. Latter-day revelations and translations are still considered more correct than others. Whether perfect or simply “more correct” it STILL leaves us with the question “Why do the LDS not use the Inspired Translation?” Which you have still not answered.

Claiming “semantics” is another dodge. If I’m supposed to conclude that your words don’t really mean what the dictionary says they mean, use ones that do and we’ll get further.

Since I provided you a citation from the JST, in a previous message and mfbukowski indicated he had one, it seems rather obvious that we are two LDS people who do use the Inspired Translation. Last year in my Institute class on the New Testament, we used it repeatedly, and I believe there are more than 1,000 footnotes to the JST in the current LDS edition of the Bible. Those are all pretty good indications that we use it. Obviously, you think that beyond using it, we ought to canonize it; but that’s not up to you is it?

Alma

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Oh, I see–as you want to define it. When Joseph F. Smith was asked under oath in 1903, “Do you perform celestial marriage ceremonies now?” He answered:

“That is simply a marriage for time and eternity.” (Protest in the Matter of Reed Smoot vol. 1 p. 184)

Yes, after the manifesto. “Celestial Marriage” and plural marriage were synonamous to each other in the early LDS church. We have discourses by Brigham Young, George Cannon, and Orson Pratt to prove it.

Claiming “semantics” is another dodge. If I’m supposed to conclude that your words don’t really mean what the dictionary says they mean, use ones that do and we’ll get further.

I conceded that my choice of the word “perfect” was foolish, yet you continued to harp on it instead of simply answering the question. In light of what I was asking, it made absolutely no difference if you said the JST is perfect or “more correct”. The question would still stand.

Since I provided you a citation from the JST, in a previous message and mfbukowski indicated he had one, it seems rather obvious that we are two LDS people who do use the Inspired Translation. Last year in my Institute class on the New Testament, we used it repeatedly, and I believe there are more than 1,000 footnotes to the JST in the current LDS edition of the Bible. Those are all pretty good indications that we use it. Obviously, you think that beyond using it, we ought to canonize it; but that’s not up to you is it?

Yes canonization is what I was after. I couldn’t care less what individual Mormons do than I would care what individual Catholics do. You most certainly can appeal to authority and (correctly) state that it is neither mine nor yours to say what should be canonized in the LDS church, but it still doesn’t answer the question as to why.