Following the majority is what Brigham Young insisted as well. Including his Adam-God doctrine. Today Mormons disavow that doctrine as Young’s opinion. That is just one example where the Mormons of a particular time, who believed they were following divine guidance of a prophet, were being led by one man’s opinion…according to Mormons today.
It seems a bit confusing to me that an LDS member should be quoting from a book that was compiled by an apostate church and especially a book that was translated and printed some 1500 years after that church had become apostate.
It’s interesting to think of how the LDS during Brigham Young’s time viewed his talks and teachings. Were they dismissing his teachings as mere speculation? They would have attended the temple with the Lecture at the Veil, where Adam-God was taught.
The LDS view is that the Bible is divinely inspired and is part of the LDS canon. The Book of Mormon reaffirms the divinity of the Bible. The LDS view is that the Bible as originally written is correct and that some errors have crept in over the centuries. I hope this helps.It seems a bit confusing to me that an LDS member should be quoting from a book that was compiled by an apostate church and especially a book that was translated and printed some 1500 years after that church had become apostate.
They ignore Gallatians 1, 8-9
It seems a bit confusing to me that an LDS member should be quoting from a book that was compiled by an apostate church and especially a book that was translated and printed some 1500 years after that church had become apostate.
I think the LDS view of the bible is best summed up by their 8th article of faith (see below), that it is the word of God under the condition that it is translated correctly.
The question here is what translation is accepted as most correct? On the surface, this is as easy as buying a set of scriptures as produced by the LDS Church: The King James Version is the only English translation available. Then you have the Joseph Smith translation of the KJV (you’ll find the annotations in the “Quads” or “combination bibles”). Even then, it isn’t so simple, “translation” is commonly interpreted to not just the differences between NIV, KJV, RSV, etc. but also that the reader must translate it correctly trough prayerful study and the Holy Spirit. Many argue that this is a special pleading fallacy, but the LDS counter argue that it is the readers fault for assuming a non-holistic meaning to the term “translated.”
ok…so, if something is restored and is splintered, it means less than the alleged original that claims what the Catholic Church claims and is splintered even worse?
Certainly how the Bible is translated into English is important. Also important is being knowledgeable about suspicious verses, such as, 1 John 5:7,8 (known as the “Johannine Comma”.)
In reading the OP, you will note that I am addressing a particular claim put out by many LDS (gazelam not being one of them): that without living apostles and prophets, Christianity floundered in the dark, falling into disarray (indeed, one LDS apologetic work is entitled, “Early Christians in Disarray”), and creating multiple denominations with conflicting interpretations of scripture. However, when we look at Joseph Smith’s restoration, with its claim of the Heavens being opened once again (ignoring the fact that Catholicism never claimed nor implied that it was closed), and that there are now living apostles and prophets once again on the earth, we see exactly what they say happened anciently, purportedly without those living apostles and prophets-the fragmentation of the Latter Day Saint movement.
Well…then you must accept that neither does the claim of being the Church that existed since Jesus and has the authority since Jesus stop splintering.
The only argument that I am making is that the claim made by many LDS that without living apostles and prophets Christianity fell into disarray is fallacious, as evidenced by the LDS movement’s own history, subsequent to the restoration of living apostles and prophets. That is the idea that I am addressing.
Then your argument condemns the Catholic Church…using the same standard.
My argument would condemn Catholics who claim that because the Catholic Church is the true Church, established by Jesus Christ, with authority from Jesus Christ through apostolic succession, as long as that authority is present there is no splintering of Christianity (which would be the rough equivalent of the argument made by many LDS that I am addressing). Since neither I nor any Catholics have made such an argument (nor implied it), your statement is invalid.
Indeed. I am addressing the specific argument that I have outlined in the OP.
Actually, it is very valid. And I can see why you backtrack.
Texan, because I have seen you do this very thing against LDS when you were a believing Catholic, I know better. Truth is truth.
TK, are you no longer a Catholic???