What is the History of Your Church?

[Bran_Stark]

The octopus! That’s an awesome comparison!

I have a book on the prophecies of Joseph Smith and it’s all predicated on the BOM being correct. Once you take that out of the equation, however, the entire thing falls apart. I can show that the BOM contains dozens of examples of the New Testament, and not just the New Testament, but the KJV New Testament. What does that mean? It means that Nephi and Lehi used what we now find in our Bible as part of their regular speech some 2,200 years before the book was first published!

Now that’s amazing!

Really, as a fellow orthodox Christian, I am embarrassed by this criticism. Joseph Smith claimed to have translated the Book of Mormon from the original tongues into English. Now as I’m sure you know, there are a great many styles one can use when translating from a foreign language into our own - just look at the plethora of Bible versions today, each one from the same original manuscripts. And when our friend the Prophet did his translation, it’s perfectly logical that he would use a style of English consistent with the primary Bible of his day - the Authorized Version - and that he would harmonize quoted biblical passages with it. So whatever you think of its contents, please don’t fault the Book or Mormon for all those “wherefores” and “thous”.

And as for the larger issue of quoting from the New Testament at all, well I do hope most Catholics here believe God knows the future and can reveal it to His servants.

And the United Church of Christ is not a “church” no matter what it calls itself. At best, it is a 20th century ecclesial community.

Far be it from me to defend the nonsense the UCC tends to preach nowadays, but the Catholic way of avoiding the word “church” by saying “ecclesial community” strikes me as very funny. I’m hardly fluent in Greek, but doesn’t the word ἐκκλησία simply mean “church” in another language?

 

[Returning_Home]

Really, as a fellow orthodox Christian, I am embarrassed by this criticism. Joseph Smith claimed to have translated the Book of Mormon from the original tongues into English. Now as I’m sure you know, there are a great many styles one can use when translating from a foreign language into our own - just look at the plethora of Bible versions today, each one from the same original manuscripts. And when our friend the Prophet did his translation, it’s perfectly logical that he would use a style of English consistent with the primary Bible of his day - the Authorized Version - and that he would harmonize quoted biblical passages with it. So whatever you think of its contents, please don’t fault the Book or Mormon for all those “wherefores” and “thous”.

You have no reason to be embarrassed because Mormons aren’t Christians. Unfortunately, however, you’ve stumbled on the langauge barrier between Mormons and Christians; the ‘translation’ of the plates supposedly has none of Smith’s own word usage. All due respect, you’ve bought into what they’re selling, which is a false gospel; the Mormon church of today isn’t what it started out as. They’ve streamlined themselves and polished their image so as to appear as if they are just another demonination that believes largely like the rest of us, but it simply isn’t true.

It makes no sense that the alleged plates would’ve been written in "Reformed Egyptian’ (a language that exists nowhere outside of Mormonism) and, when translated into English, ends up looking like Elizabethan English, and not just plain old Elizabethan English but the Elizabethan English found in the King James’ Version of the Bible (which we know Joseph Smith owned).

Does that make any sense? Of course it doesn’t.

David Whitmer, one of the three witnesses who attested to having seen the gold plates said: “I will now give you a description of the manner in which the BOM was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principle scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear and then another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus, the BOM was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any man.” (An Address to All Believers in Christ, David Whitmer, 1887)

In the July 1993 Ensign, Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles said “He (Martin Harris) also stated that the Prophet translated a portion of the BOM with a seerstone in his possession. The stone was placed in a hat that was used for that purpose, and with the aid of this seerstone the Prophet would read sentence by sentence as Martin wrote, and if he made any mistake the sentence would remain before the Prophet until corrected, when another sentence would appear.”

So, no, it’s not possible that Smith used his own language to ‘translate’ the BOM. The church has taken the word ‘translate’ and given it another meaning, like so many other Christian terms. Smith’s role was relatively small in the process; the Urim and Thummim did all of the work.

I would recommend reading Mormons Answered Verse by Verse and Mormonism: Changes, Contradictions and Errors both by John Farkas and David Reed for the real facts about Mormonism.

And as for the larger issue of quoting from the New Testament at all, well I do hope most Catholics here believe God knows the future and can reveal it to His servants.

It’s actually called plagiarization, taking an original work and passing it off as something it’s not.

Here are a few examples. When going in chronological order, it appears as though the writer of the BOM simply went through the Bible, taking what he liked, doesn’t it?

Rev 11:9, 1 Nephi 5:18
Rev 7:14, 1 Nephi 12:10-11
Rev 18:12, 1 Nephi 13:7
Rev 17:1,15, 1 Nephi 14:11
Rev 14:4, 2 Nephi 2:9
Rev 20:2, 2 Nephi 2:18
Rev 20:13, 2 Nephi 9:12
Rev 22:11, 2 Nephi 9:16
Rev 20:13-14, 2 Nephi 28:23
Rev 20:12, 2 Nephi 29:11
Rev 22:11, Alma 7:21
Rev 6:16, Alma 12:14

 

[Justin1982]

Far be it from me to defend the nonsense the UCC tends to preach nowadays, but the Catholic way of avoiding the word “church” by saying “ecclesial community” strikes me as very funny. I’m hardly fluent in Greek, but doesn’t the word ἐκκλησία simply mean “church” in another language?

Not sure what you mean, but interestingly enough, I can call myself the President of the United States but that doesn’t make it so. Also since 1959 how much has your doctrine changed on the faith?

 

[Justin1982]

That’s not quite accurate. The West split from the East because the West insisted on taking new authority way beyond what it had for the first several centuries.

The Christian church was originally “Eastern Orthodox” in that

1. it started in Jerusalem (East)
2. the word “Christian” was coined in what is now Syria (East)
3. the Apostle Paul’s journeys were all over Eastern lands – Greece, Syria, Turkey, and such. Look on a map.
4. The Apostles journeys not recorded in the Bible but preserved elsewhere show them to be traveling all over the Middle East and Africa and Turkey and such. Rome is the only Western place they go. The Eastern Orthodox lands are filled with churches started by Apostles, or immediate disciples of Apostles. In contrast the Western Church can claim one and only one city: Rome. That’s the only Western city evangelized by an Apostle, when the East has too many to count.
5. There are five ancient sees. Four of them are Eastern: Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, and Jerusalem. The fifth and only the fifth see is Western: Rome.

Regarding the split of 1054, the Eastern Orthodox Church has always accepted and taught that the See of Peter, Rome, has primacy. That is still today the teaching. The East/West dispute is over what phrase means. The Eastern Orthodox maintains still today, and always has maintained, the original meaning of the phrase. The Roman See changed the meaning unilaterally, and split from the other four ancient Sees when they would not change.

Easy check: Which ecumenical council held before 1054 ratified the wording of the Nicene Creed recited today in Roman churches? The answer is “none of them.” But the wording of the Creed recited in Orthodox churches is the one ratified by the councils in the 300’s and 400’s. Ergo, Rome changed. The Eastern Orthodox churches did not.

I’m curious of your history, you claim that the East was the founding of the Church however it was Peter upon whose shoulders that authority was placed by Jesus himself.
Peter being an Apostle of Jesus gives the western Church the founding in Jerusalem as well. It is not that there is no inherent value in either church, they are both branches of the same tree, the Nicene Creed was established before any actual split so I see no argument because it was established during a church council meaning there was still unity at that time.

You site the five ancient sees:
“There are five ancient sees. Four of them are Eastern: Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, and Jerusalem. The fifth and only the fifth see is Western: Rome.”

1. All of these were under Roman rule during the Roman era.
2. Everyone of these sees fell under Muslim rule during the middle ages with the exception of Rome. Suffice it to say, there was quite a bit of divine influence involved with the establishment of Rome as the center of the Catholic Church.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

I’m not sure what your point is? I’m pretty sure theologians get their ideas in all kinds of weird places. I decided to become a Christian while peeling parsnips. We live in the body, there is no way around that.

My point was that your statement: “some Reformation ideas such as justification by faith, were an attempt to head back in an Orthodox direction” is not accurate. Sola Fide was an entirely new and novel idea that sprang full blown from the mind of Martin Luther. It is a Protestant fallacy that the founding doctrines of Protestantism were a “return” to original, authentic Christianity. They had never been heard of before the 16th century.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Originally Posted by Jim Dandy
And the United Church of Christ is not a “church” no matter what it calls itself. At best, it is a 20th century ecclesial community.

Far be it from me to defend the nonsense the UCC tends to preach nowadays, but the Catholic way of avoiding the word “church” by saying “ecclesial community” strikes me as very funny. I’m hardly fluent in Greek, but doesn’t the word ἐκκλησία simply mean “church” in another language?

Ekklesia was the Greek word the sacred writers of the New Testament used to translate the Hebrew “quhal,” or religious assembly of Israelites, the word used by Jesus. His Church – the Catholic Church – is the New Israel (Gal 6:16, James 1:1).

Jesus Christ founded only one Ekklesia, translated as ‘Church’ in English. The word ‘church’ has been misapplied to the many thousands of man-made Protestant ecclesial communities by their founders since the 16th century.

Would you prefer the term, “church-like organization”? Or, “pseudo-church”? Ahhhh, that’s better.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

And when our friend the Prophet did his translation, it’s perfectly logical that he would use a style of English consistent with the primary Bible of his day - the Authorized Version - and that he would harmonize quoted biblical passages with it.

Ole Joe not only “translated” (copied) verbatim from the KJV to his Book of Mormon, “the prophet” also authored “The Holy Scriptures, Inspired Version, containing the Old and New Testaments, An Inspired Revision of the Authorized (King James) Version.” Under divine inspiration (yeah, sure), he “corrected” the KJV to make it comply with the doctrines of the LDS Church. Copies of it are for sale in LDS book stores.

 

[Bluegoat]

My point was that your statement: “some Reformation ideas such as justification by faith, were an attempt to head back in an Orthodox direction” is not accurate. Sola Fide was an entirely new and novel idea that sprang full blown from the mind of Martin Luther. It is a Protestant fallacy that the founding doctrines of Protestantism were a “return” to original, authentic Christianity. They had never been heard of before the 16th century.

That is not quite what I was thinking. ( I just wrote another response but it was way too long, I’ll try to sum this up.)

First, the Medieval Catholic Church had developed a number of ideas related to salvation or justification that had not been present in the Early Church, nor in the Eastern Church, although both taught salvation through faith and works. It is these that began to be a problem for the Reformers Indulgences are often pointed to - I think specifically the idea of the Treasury of Merit was also very objectionable to them.

In promoting the idea of justification by faith alone, I would submit that the Reformers were trying to move away specifically from these developments, and in that sense retun to a more “authentic” Christianity.

Now, it is certian that Luther’s formulation was new. In and of itself this is not necessarily a bad thing - when theology is refined in response to excesses or even heresy, it often begins to use new language and new models. We see this continually throughout the history of the Church.

Was Luther right in his choice of formulation? Did he manage in some way return to an understanding closer to that of the Early Church, even if the language was different? Well, that is a difficult question. The Eastern Church, when the Reformers communicated with them, rejected Luther’s formulation (of course they also rejected the Western Catholic ones). On the other hand, Lutheran and Catholic theologians have to a large degree reconciled many aspects of what were once considered differences in understanding, and Catholic theology after the Reformation has considered and used Luther’s theology seriously. Pope Benedict has in fact said that Luther is an important and necessary theologian for Catholics.

Personally, I think to use the formulation of faith and works is preferable, but I have the advantage of seeing some of the clear and serious heresies that grew out of Luther’s formulation. I certainly think he was right to reject the medieval developments of purgatory, the Treasury of Merit, and everything that goes along with them, and so in that sense I think it was a move back toward orthodox theology. But obviously that is not a Catholic POV.

 

[Eutychus123]

Catholic (AD 33 by Jesus Christ in Jerusalem), Orthodox (AD 1054 by Schismatic Catholic Bishops in Constantinople), Lutheran (AD 1517 by Martin Luther in Germany), Anabaptist (AD 1521 by Nicholas Storch & Thomas Munzer in Germany), Anglican (AD 1534 by Henry VIII in England), Mennonites (AD 1536 by Menno Simons in Switzerland), Calvinist (AD 1555 by John Calvin in Switzerland), Presbyterian (AD 1560 by John Knox in Scotland), Congregational (AD 1582 by Robert Brown in Holland), Baptist (AD 1609 by John Smyth in Amsterdam), Dutch Reformed (AD 1628 by Michaelis Jones in New York), Congregationalist (AD 1648 by Pilgrims and Puritans in Massachusetts), Quakers (AD 1649 by George Fox in England), Amish (AD 1693 by Jacob Amman in France), Freemasons (AD 1717 by Masons from four lodges in London), Methodist (AD 1739 by John & Charles Wesley in England), Unitarian (AD 1774 by Theophilus Lindey in London), Methodist Episcopal (AD 1784 by 60 Preachers in Baltimore, MD), Episcopalian (AD 1789 by Samuel Seabury in American Colonies), United Brethren (AD 1800 by Philip Otterbein & Martin Boehn in Maryland), Disciples of Christ (AD 1827 by Thomas & Alexander Campbell in Kentucky), Mormon (AD 1830 by Joseph Smith in New York), Methodist Protestant (AD 1830 by Methodist in United States) , Church of Christ (AD 1836 by Warren Stone & Alexander Campbell in Kentucky), Seventh Day Adventist (AD 1844 by Ellen White in Washington, NH), Christadelphian (Brethren of Christ) (AD 1844 by John Thomas in Richmond, VA), Salvation Army (AD 1865 by William Booth in London), Holiness (AD 1867 by Methodist in United States), Jehovah’s Witnesses (AD 1874 by Charles Taze Russell in Pennsylvania), Christian Science (AD 1879 by Mary Baker Eddy in Boston), Church of God in Christ (AD 1895 by Various churches of God in Arkansas ), Church of Nazarene (AD c. 1850-1900 by Various religious bodies in Pilot Point, TX), Pentecostal (AD 1901 by Charles F. Parkham in Topeka, KS), Aglipayan (AD 1902 by Gregorio Aglipay in Philippines), Assemblies of God (AD 1914 by Pentecostalism in Hot Springs, AZ), Iglesia ni Christo (AD 1914 by Felix Manalo in Philippines), Four-square Gospel (AD 1917 by Aimee Semple McPherson in Los Angeles, CA), United Church of Christ (AD 1961 by Reformed and Congregationalist in Philadelphia, PA), Calvary Chapel (AD 1965 by Chuck Smith in Costa Mesa, CA), United Methodist (AD 1968 by Methodist and United Brethrenin Dallas, TX), Born-again (AD c. 1970s by Various Pentecostal bodies in United States), Harvest Christian (AD 1972 by Greg Laurie in Riverside, CA), Saddleback (AD 1982 by Rick Warren in California), Non-denominational (AD c. 1990s by Various religious bodies in United States)

MORE @ youtube.com/cceerpp

What about the Oriental Churches?

 

[scottm]

I’m curious of your history, you claim that the East was the founding of the Church however it was Peter upon whose shoulders that authority was placed by Jesus himself.

The Orthodox Church never disputed that. The dispute is what it means. In the beginning Peter’s successors were not considered kings. The universal church (“catholic” originally meant “universal”) was not a monarchy. Jesus personally commissioned many more than 1 apostle. Their successors, all of them, practiced a collective authority. Each bishop ruled his own territory alone, but he had that authority only because he was part of the universal church.

Peter being an Apostle of Jesus gives the western Church the founding in Jerusalem as well.

Peter was not bishop of Jerusalem. He was, though, bishop of Antioch before he was bishop of Rome. Antioch, therefore, should have the primacy, no? Peter sent Mark to start the church in Alexandria, so maybe Alexandria has a claim to the primacy?

It is not that there is no inherent value in either church, they are both branches of the same tree, the Nicene Creed was established before any actual split so I see no argument because it was established during a church council meaning there was still unity at that time.

Factually the Nicene Creed was established at ecumenical councils long before the East/West split. Factually the Creed cannot be changed except through another ecumenical council.

[1) All of these were under Roman rule during the Roman era.

Factually, Rome was given the primacy because it was the New York City, or Los Angeles, or London, or Moscow, of it’s days. That was the exact reason why the Apostle Paul was so eager to preach in Rome. Constantinople was given 2nd place for the same reason. This is plain in the council documents. We might read divine providence into decisions like that, but if we do then we also have to be honest about mistakes that church leaders later make. The “Holy Roman Empire” was the opposite of holy. The Roman papacy decayed into a debaucherous civil office, and that decay directly spawned the Protestant revolution. That’s not something to take pride in. The top-down hierarchical rule of the Roman Church has not proven to be a good thing. Time has proven that the collegial organization of the Orthodox Church, which was the original organization of the universal (“catholic”) church, is more stable.
[/quote]

 

[Returning_Home]

Ole Joe not only “translated” (copied) verbatim from the KJV to his Book of Mormon, “the prophet” also authored “The Holy Scriptures, Inspired Version, containing the Old and New Testaments, An Inspired Revision of the Authorized (King James) Version.” Under divine inspiration (yeah, sure), he “corrected” the KJV to make it comply with the doctrines of the LDS Church. Copies of it are for sale in LDS book stores.

You’re right, Jim. One minor point of correct, however, is that the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) is owned by the Community of Christ (formerly the Reformed Latter-Day Saints) and is therefore not actually used by the Utah-based LDS much. When I spoke to a manager of Deseret Books, she told me that the JST was one of the slowest moving books in their inventory raising the question: why, if God commanded Joseph to ‘retranslate’ the Bible and knowing that he claimed to do exactly that, doesn’t the church use it? Why do they instead use an edition with mere JST footnotes? If the Bible, as according to the BOM (Book of Mormon) is missing many ‘plain and precious things,’ would you still want to deal with one that’s not corrected when you have that available?

 

[Publisher]

You’re right, Jim. One minor point of correct, however, is that the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) is owned by the Community of Christ (formerly the Reformed Latter-Day Saints) and is therefore not actually used by the Utah-based LDS much. When I spoke to a manager of Deseret Books, she told me that the JST was one of the slowest moving books in their inventory raising the question: why, if God commanded Joseph to ‘retranslate’ the Bible and knowing that he claimed to do exactly that, doesn’t the church use it? Why do they instead use an edition with mere JST footnotes? If the Bible, as according to the BOM (Book of Mormon) is missing many ‘plain and precious things,’ would you still want to deal with one that’s not corrected when you have that available?

Small correction. The Community of Christ, formerly the REORGANIZED CoJCoLDS, owns the JST (Inspired Version).

The LDS publish their own edition of the KJV which includes notes from the JST as alternate readings. “The Pearl of Great Price”, which every LDS does have, contains the largest portion of “corrections” made in the JST in the “Book of Moses” and has a section of “Matthew” which Joseph Smith also corrected.

Most of the “corrections” in the JST were on singular verses, which are contained in the edtion of the KJV the LDS church publishes as notes and alternate readings…so the “corrections” **are available **to the LDS in the “Pearl of Great Price” and the notes of the Bible they publish.

I don’t believe the “animosity” between the two churches RLDS and LDS still exists. But the “Inspired Version” is published by Herald House…the Community of Christ’s publishing company, so perhaps the LDS are a bit careful of purchasing books by RLDS…but as an historical document the LDS offer them. Herald House as well as the LDS also publish a reproduction of the “Book of Mormon” edition of 1830. Herald House also publishes an historical replica of the “Doctrine and Covenants” as well as the “Book of Commandments.”

The “Joseph Smith Translation” by Herald House, which has all the “corrections” in a parallel editon along with the KJV is a very difficult item to find…most of the Deseret Bookstores I am aware of CANNOT keep it on the shelves.

 

[Justin1982]

Peter was not bishop of Jerusalem. He was, though, bishop of Antioch before he was bishop of Rome. Antioch, therefore, should have the primacy, no? Peter sent Mark to start the church in Alexandria, so maybe Alexandria has a claim to the primacy?

Yes, Peter was not the bishop of Jerusalem, though he was present in the founding of the Church in Jerusalem. Ok, he was the bishop of Antioch, however if Peter is the “rock” which Jesus built His Church upon then where Peter goes, that’s where the Church’s authority is.

Factually, Rome was given the primacy because it was the New York City, or Los Angeles, or London, or Moscow, of it’s days. That was the exact reason why the Apostle Paul was so eager to preach in Rome. Constantinople was given 2nd place for the same reason. This is plain in the council documents. We might read divine providence into decisions like that, but if we do then we also have to be honest about mistakes that church leaders later make. The “Holy Roman Empire” was the opposite of holy. The Roman papacy decayed into a debaucherous civil office, and that decay directly spawned the Protestant revolution. That’s not something to take pride in. The top-down hierarchical rule of the Roman Church has not proven to be a good thing. Time has proven that the collegial organization of the Orthodox Church, which was the original organization of the universal (“catholic”) church, is more stable.

Again the answer is with Peter, (Matthew 16:18) “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” If Jesus places the authority with Peter then where Peter goes so does the authority.

Yes, there has been corruption in the Church, the Church was founded in the midst of scandal (Judas and denial by the Apostles). To put it simply an organization founded in the midst of scandal placed on human shoulders is going to have problems. The Western Church has made mistakes and unfortunately I’m sure it will continue as long as it is lead by human hands. It is the closest to a universal church because of it transcends cultural lines whereas the Orthodox Church is commonly defined by the country in which it exists.

What about the Eastern Church’s numerous heresies (Byzantine Iconoclasm, Arianism, Nestorianism, to name a few)? The views of Arianism and Nestorianism are in close relation to the views that Muhammed had of Christianity and hold to this day in relation to their view of the “prophet-hood” of Jesus.

I’m not saying that either Church is perfect but I have to go with where Jesus placed the authority.

 

[scottm]

Yes, Peter was not the bishop of Jerusalem, though he was present in the founding of the Church in Jerusalem. Ok, he was the bishop of Antioch, however if Peter is the “rock” which Jesus built His Church upon then where Peter goes, that’s where the Church’s authority is.
…
Again the answer is with Peter, (Matthew 16:18) “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” If Jesus places the authority with Peter then where Peter goes so does the authority.

Your assumption is wrong. Jesus did not institute a monarchy. Jesus did not put authority exclusively in the hands of one person. In the beginning, in the first many centuries, the authority of the Christian Church was understood to be held equally among all the bishops (because bishops were the direct successors of the apostles). Ultimate authority was held not by one bishop, but by an ecumenical council of bishops.

That is an historic fact.

Your mistake is the assumption that the Church was originally a monarchy – one guy ruling everybody. It was not. It was a collective body.

The Eastern Orthodox Church from day one taught that the Roman Patriarch (the “pope”) uniquely held the position of “primacy.” It is an historic fact that the Orthodox Church taught the “primacy of Peter” from the beginning of the Church, and still does today. But “primacy” did not mean “one guy rules us all” until 800-some years after Peter died. It meant that the Roman Patriarch would lead councils, and would be the Church’s spokesman to the world, and would be a court of appeal for disputes arising outside Roman jurisdiction, and that a council could not be an “ecumenical council” without Rome’s participation.

I’m not saying that either Church is perfect but I have to go with where Jesus placed the authority.

That would be the collective decisions of the bishops – aka, an ecumenical council.

 

[greggy53]

I’d like to see the Historical evidence for these “facts”

 

[Returning_Home]

Small correction. The Community of Christ, formerly the REORGANIZED CoJCoLDS, owns the JST (Inspired Version).

Yes, you’re right.

The LDS publish their own edition of the KJV which includes notes from the JST as alternate readings. “The Pearl of Great Price”, which every LDS does have, contains the largest portion of “corrections” made in the JST in the “Book of Moses” and has a section of “Matthew” which Joseph Smith also corrected.

Matthew, according to the JST notes in my quad goes to at least, and I’m trying to remember because it’s not in front of me, verse 55 and somewhere beyond.

Most of the “corrections” in the JST were on singular verses, which are contained in the edtion of the KJV the LDS church publishes as notes and alternate readings…so the “corrections” **are available **to the LDS in the “Pearl of Great Price” and the notes of the Bible they publish.

What differences there are between the two I don’t know; I’ve never gotten around to getting one, but I know where I can get one, though it’s not cheap.

I don’t believe the “animosity” between the two churches RLDS and LDS still exists. But the “Inspired Version” is published by Herald House…the Community of Christ’s publishing company, so perhaps the LDS are a bit careful of purchasing books by RLDS…but as an historical document the LDS offer them. Herald House as well as the LDS also publish a reproduction of the “Book of Mormon” edition of 1830. Herald House also publishes an historical replica of the “Doctrine and Covenants” as well as the “Book of Commandments.”

I agree here; there was a book recently about the JST with two authors, one LDS and the other CoC. That they were able to come to an agreement about it suprised me and that one is on my wish-list at the moment.

The “Joseph Smith Translation” by Herald House, which has all the “corrections” in a parallel editon along with the KJV is a very difficult item to find…most of the Deseret Bookstores I am aware of CANNOT keep it on the shelves.

Your assessment is incorrect based on what a Deseret Book manager told me in the email I mentioned. I’ve never published this in any way before now. It goes back to 2/09.

“Thank you for your email. The original “Inspired Version of the Bible” is still published by Herald House (Community of Christ Church - Formally known as the RLDS Church.) We have carried the Herald House editions in the past and currently we have it available to special order. We currently do not carry it because demand has waned. Other scholars, including some from BYU, have also worked with the Community of Christ in publishing this work through different publishers and include insights and other commentaries along with it.”

Deseret Books currently sells two versions, one the hardback I’ve been looking at ($99) and a paperback version ($8). Neither lists a publisher.

 

[Justin1982]

Your assumption is wrong. Jesus did not institute a monarchy. Jesus did not put authority exclusively in the hands of one person. In the beginning, in the first many centuries, the authority of the Christian Church was understood to be held equally among all the bishops (because bishops were the direct successors of the apostles). Ultimate authority was held not by one bishop, but by an ecumenical council of bishops.

That is an historic fact.

Your mistake is the assumption that the Church was originally a monarchy – one guy ruling everybody. It was not. It was a collective body.

The Eastern Orthodox Church from day one taught that the Roman Patriarch (the “pope”) uniquely held the position of “primacy.” It is an historic fact that the Orthodox Church taught the “primacy of Peter” from the beginning of the Church, and still does today. But “primacy” did not mean “one guy rules us all” until 800-some years after Peter died. It meant that the Roman Patriarch would lead councils, and would be the Church’s spokesman to the world, and would be a court of appeal for disputes arising outside Roman jurisdiction, and that a council could not be an “ecumenical council” without Rome’s participation.

It seems you misinterpret the authority of the pope, he is not a monarch by any stretch. He does have say in the Holy See but he does not have authority over the other bishops in a monarch sense. Think of him as the president of the United States (in a traditional sense) and the individual Bishops are the state governors. Papal Infallibility only applies to faith and morals, the Pope is bound by Canon Law and Holy Tradition. He can’t go out and radically change the Church like a monarch can (Henry VIII). So he can’t change teaching on female ordination, contraception, homosexual marriage, etc. because he is bound by Canon Law and Holy Tradition.

I would also like to see the “history” that you claim, because I have sited the Bible as the origin for the papal authority, though the term Pope is merely a human term to recognize the authority for the Bishop of Rome. Jesus changes Simon’s name to Peter (see hyperlink), which he is the rock upon which Jesus builds his Church.

 

[JonNC]

It seems you misinterpret the authority of the pope, he is not a monarch by any stretch. He does have say in the Holy See but he does not have authority over the other bishops in a monarch sense. Think of him as the president of the United States (in a traditional sense) and the individual Bishops are the state governors. Papal Infallibility only applies to faith and morals, the Pope is bound by Canon Law and Holy Tradition. He can’t go out and radically change the Church like a monarch can (Henry VIII). So he can’t change teaching on female ordination, contraception, homosexual marriage, etc. because he is bound by Canon Law and Holy Tradition.

I would also like to see the “history” that you claim, because I have sited the Bible as the origin for the papal authority, though the term Pope is merely a human term to recognize the authority for the Bishop of Rome. Jesus changes Simon’s name to Peter (see hyperlink), which he is the rock upon which Jesus builds his Church.

What power, authority, and jurisdiction was given the Bishop of Rome by the early ecumenical councils (1 through 7)?

Jon

 

[Justin1982]

It seems you misinterpret the authority of the pope, he is not a monarch by any stretch. He does have say in the Holy See but he does not have authority over the other bishops in a monarch sense. Think of him as the president of the United States (in a traditional sense) and the individual Bishops are the state governors. Papal Infallibility only applies to faith and morals, the Pope is bound by Canon Law and Holy Tradition. He can’t go out and radically change the Church like a monarch can (Henry VIII). So he can’t change teaching on female ordination, contraception, homosexual marriage, etc. because he is bound by Canon Law and Holy Tradition.

I would also like to see the “history” that you claim, because I have sited the Bible as the origin for the papal authority, though the term Pope is merely a human term to recognize the authority for the Bishop of Rome. Jesus changes Simon’s name to Peter (see hyperlink), which he is the rock upon which Jesus builds his Church.

Sorry I was trying to edit this and ran out of time apparently:

You also go off on a tangent about primacy and monarchy, Church history shows that the Pope never claimed monarchy though there was a time when the European monarchs looked to the Pope for guidance and there have been misguided Popes that have abused that power. Again I say, the Church is still a human organization established by God, meaning because of that free will idea we are not bound to anything and free to make our own decisions. The Pope is not perfect, if they all were, they would all be Saints wouldn’t they?

 

[scottm]

I would also like to see the “history” that you claim, because I have sited the Bible as the origin for the papal authority, though the term Pope is merely a human term to recognize the authority for the Bishop of Rome. Jesus changes Simon’s name to Peter (see hyperlink), which he is the rock upon which Jesus builds his Church.

The history = the large libraries of Eastern Orthodox writings. They wrote things that have been translated into English.

What you cited was the post-900AD interpretation of a Bible verse. What I cited was the communal understanding and practice for those first 800 or so years of Christian history, by the very people who invented church tradition and who wrote the original commentaries on the Bible. To repeat, the Eastern Church itself taught from the beginning that the Roman Patriarch has primacy. That is still the teaching today. The issue is what that means. The original meaning is not the meaning that you are imposing.

For you to say “but the Pope of Rome is the rock!” means nothing, because the Eastern Patriarchs taught that Peter was the Rock. The issue is what that phrase meant back in the old days.

We should discount the See of Jerusalem around the time of the split because it was not independent. That leaves three Sees voting against one See. Three Sees, three Patriarchs, said, “Whoa, wait a minute, you are overstepping the bounds of 800 years of tradition!” I am quite confident that if three of them agreed on the boundaries, then they were correct.