MERGED Questions about Mormonism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bezant
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
wussup said:
This is a complex subject and the process by which the final 27 books became ‘canon’ was not a straight forward. The New Testament class I took at Dallas Baptist Univ. suggested it wasn’t until the middle of the 3rd Century that the New Testament Books as we have it today was considered Sacred.?
Click to expand...
Wussup -

The Baptists are in error. If you want to take a New Testament class in Dallas, go to udallas.edu/ . It would be very interesting to take their NT and church history classes, having taken one from the Baptists. You’d be a great student I’m sure. The Baptist church & John Smythe didn’t start until about ~1605 so the NT bible was around for 1200 years before they even came along.

Development of the canon is not “complex” in the sense of hard to figure out. There was only one church and that church canonized the NT in 397 AD. The “compiler” was the Catholic church as you say, infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit. You are using the Catholic canon, less - any books that a printing company removed.

I don’t understand your comment on following the 39 Articles? Here’s short synopsis of them from WIKI. Are you saying that you follow them??

Articles I–VIII: The Catholic faith: The first five articles articulate the Catholic credal statements concerning the nature of God, manifest in the Holy Trinity. Articles VI and VII deal with scripture, while Article VIII discusses the essential creeds.

Articles IX—XVIII: Personal religion: These articles dwell on the topics of sin, justification, and the eternal disposition of the soul. Of particular focus is the major Reformation topic of justification by faith. The Articles in this section and in the section on the Church plant Anglicanism in the via media of the debate, portraying an Economy of Salvation where good works are an outgrowth of faith and there is a role for the Church and for the sacraments.

Articles XIX–XXXI: Corporate religion: This section focuses on the expression of faith in the public venue – the institutional church, the councils of the church, worship, ministry, and sacramental theology.

Articles XXXII—XXXIX: Miscellaneous: These articles concern clerical celibacy, excommunication, traditions of the Church, and other issues not covered elsewhere.
 
TexanKnight said:
no, you just think Christ was dishonest, weak and cruel
Click to expand...
Is that what passes for “charitable” communications in Texas? You presume to tell other people what they think?

This isn’t how Catholics behave where I’m from. If we were on a Mormon forum and some mormon said that to you, I’d expect the other mormons to rebuke him for disgracing the group.
 
wussup said:
Think JST. So the original compilers didn’t get it exactly right.
Click to expand...
If you can show me that the entire JST NT is part of the official scriptural canon of the LDS church, then you might have a point. Otherwise, you just have a couple of NT books that Smith rewrote to suit his beliefs…similar to Marcion who rewrote the Gospel of Luke to suit his beliefs. Nothing new under the sun.
 
RebeccaJ said:
If you can show me that the entire JST NT is part of the official scriptural canon of the LDS church, then you might have a point. Otherwise, you just have a couple of NT books that Smith rewrote to suit his beliefs…similar to Marcion who rewrote the Gospel of Luke to suit his beliefs. Nothing new under the sun.
Click to expand...
Rebecca, your ID says that you’re in Utah. If you want evidence that the JST is part of the LDS canon, then take a couple steps in any direction and ask a friendly mormon if you can take a peek at their scriptures. Then check if the JST is part of those scriptures.

To be sure, not all mormons trust the JST, since it did, after all, pass to them through the hands of the Church-formerly-known-as-RLDS. But mormons certainly do consider the JST official enough to stick in their books of scriptures. Which you probably know are called “quads,” since they include the Bible (including JST footnotes), Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price (which includes Matthew 24 of the JST).

regards,

a friendly xmormon.
 
Xmoe said:
Rebecca, your ID says that you’re in Utah. If you want evidence that the JST is part of the LDS canon, then take a couple steps in any direction and ask a friendly mormon if you can take a peek at their scriptures. Then check if the JST is part of those scriptures.

To be sure, not all mormons trust the JST, since it did, after all, pass to them through the hands of the Church-formerly-known-as-RLDS. But mormons certainly do consider the JST official enough to stick in their books of scriptures. Which you probably know are called “quads,” since they include the Bible (including JST footnotes), Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price (which includes Matthew 24 of the JST).

regards,

a friendly xmormon.
Click to expand...
I hear what you’re saying. However, the entire JST is not official LDS scripture. No doubt, the Mormon version of the KJV references it heavily, and a few lines are in the PoGP. Smith’s goal was a complete rewrite of the Old and New Testament. What he did manage to write before his death is not in the LDS canon of scripture. If it were, there would be no need for them to use the KJV at all.

What they do use, is comparable to the rewrites that Marcion did, for the same reasons (personal belief) ~1900 years ago.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top