Why do Mormons Accept the Canon of the Bible?

[Chris-WA]

This is a fallacious argument that Catholics are fond of bringing up all the time. It is fallacious because it presupposes that nobody knew what was scripture and what was not until the supposed “canonization” took place. Christians as a whole know what was scripture and what was not before Catholic Church took any formal action to “canonize” anything. There was a general consensus among Christians as to what was inspired scripture and what was not, and that is what forms the “canon” today.

Zerinus/Amgid, you really need to read up on early church history because this statement is historically totally incorrect. The councils of the Catholic Church had to wade through many New Testament period books that people claimed as scripture. The councils accepted some and rejected others. Until that time there was no “consensus.” It was the Catholic Church that gave the world the New Testament canon.

And by the way, I don’t think the LDS have a problem with this since they have not incorporated any of those books rejected by the Catholic councils into the LDS scripture canon.

The Jews know what was inspired scripture long before the Catholic Church decided to “canonize” it.

This is only partially true, and certainly only for the Old Testament. History tells us that the Christians (and Jews by the way) of Christ’s time and afterwards used the Septuigant as their Old Testament canon. The Septuigant contained all the books you referred to as the “apocrypha.” It wasn’t until later that the Jews, who were trying to separate themselves from this new troublesome Christian movement, officially created their own Old Testament canon and rejected those books. Martin Luther followed suit during the Protestant Reformation by rejecting those same books. But the early Church accepted those books as scripture from the very beginning. Are you aware that Martin Luther tried to throw out other books as well–such as the Book of Revelation? Fortunately he was not successful.

Furthermore, I find it very odd that the LDS church does not include the whole canon of the Septuigant in the LDS bible. Since the LDS church places such importance in having things the way they were at the time of Christ, you would think they would use the same Old Testament canon that Christ and his followers used.

It is awfully presumptions of Catholics to pretend that they somehow “made scripture;” and that nobody knew what was scripture until the Catholics did us the favour of kindly telling us what it is! They didn’t do any such thing.

Catholics do not claim to “make scripture.” But the Catholic Church *did *decide what was and was not scripture. This is precisely how we got the canon of the New Testament, and is historical, indisputable fact. The history is available for you to read, but you’re not likely to find it in an LDS bookstore. Learning early church history is what draws many Protestants (especially Protestant ministers) into the Catholic Church. They discover what we already know–that the church was Catholic from the beginning.

 

[Chris-WA]

I would like to know on what basis the LDS accept the Protestant canon of the bible and not the Catholic canon? Why do LDS reject the deuterocanical books?

 

[Harpazo]

I would like to know on what basis the LDS accept the Protestant canon of the bible and not the Catholic canon? Why do LDS reject the deuterocanical books?

I’ve wondered the same thing. I hope we get a real reason other than “Catholics make the same fallacious claims…” One can hope right?

In Pax Christi
Andrew

 

[IanS]

Well the Mormons got back to me about the canon of the Bible. This time they brought in a much more “militant” Mormon to deal with my wife and me, we felt so honored . As part of our two and a half hour discussion he told us that the current Bible is a corrupted book and is NOT the infallible word of God which it was when it was first written and that the original texts supported all the Mormon beliefs (of course, no evidence to support this claim whatsoever as usual). He went on to read from Alma in the BOM where it says the Bible is corrupted. So basically what he said is that he Mormon church uses the Bible because they feel it’s all there is left to go on (which is also untrue and I made him aware of that). Therefore, the parts of the Bible which contradict Mormon doctrine are obviously the parts which were corrupted by the Catholic Church, while the parts which don’t contradict Mormon doctrine are obviously the parts which were not corrupted by the Catholic Church. My, my, my how convenient is that???

 

[valient_Lucy]

This is a fallacious argument that Catholics are fond of bringing up all the time. It is fallacious because it presupposes that nobody knew what was scripture and what was not until the supposed “canonization” took place. Christians as a whole know what was scripture and what was not before Catholic Church took any formal action to “canonize” anything. There was a general consensus among Christians as to what was inspired scripture and what was not, and that is what forms the “canon” today. The Jews know what was inspired scripture long before the Catholic Church decided to “canonize” it. It is awfully presumptions of Catholics to pretend that they somehow “made scripture;” and that nobody knew what was scripture until the Catholics did us the favour of kindly telling us what it is! They didn’t do any such thing.

But if the whole Church went into apostacy after the death of the last apostle, how can you be sure that any of the Christians at that time really understood what was Scripture and what wasn’t? Maybe the true Scriptures were lost along with the priesthood, because the people didn’t understand that they were Scriptures, and the Christians adopted forgeries.
I find it somewhat suspicious that the church can go into apostacy, and yet still understand which documents to preserve as Scripture and which ones were not. Did the apostles themselves make some efforts to preserve the documents they had written as the inspired word of God? Did they catalogue their letters? Otherwise, how can you trust even the 1st and 2nd century Christians since they were apostate?

In a sense I suppose you could say that they have done that. When Joseph Smith was making his inspired translation of the Bible, it is said that he make a note on the Song of Solomon stating that is was not inspired; and I personally inclined to agree with that. I believe that the Song is not true scripture. The LDS church also does not recognize the Apocrypha as part of the canon, which, if I am not mistaken (I could be wrong about this), the Catholic Church does.

zerinus

Yes, the Catholic Church accepts the Apocrypha as part of the canon of Scripture, as well as the Song of Solomon. Also, why is the Song of Solomon not considered to be Scripture?

 

[Sixtus]

That is very reasurring. Some years ago, while I was out at mass, my wife was visited by a morman missionary. She told them I was catholic and she accepted that. He told her that she was so sinful before God for marrying a catholic that her sin would never be forgiven no matter how many times she repented of it. That she was ‘already dead and would rot in hell for all eternity’.

This deeply disturbed her. She suffered mental depression after that. She grew closer to the catholic church, but I still feel angry at that missionary. I will never forget the LDS for what they did not my wife. I find it very easy to forgive others. 25-years on, I still have not forgiven them [God forgive me and help my unforgiving heart].

I would rather have a million Muslims or aetheists than one LDS

 

[Sixtus]

Addendum: actually no, I think he said she would rot in death for all eternity. OOPS SORRY

 

[Chris-WA]

I was hoping I could get an LDS to answer why the Mormon Church uses the Protestant canon of the bible and not the Catholic canon. The current Catholic old testament canon was the one used by Christ and the early church, so why do the Mormons settle for an incomplete bible when revelation and scripture are so important to them? Any Mormons out there have an answer?

 

[truthsilence]

This topic of the Authority of Scripture was discussed in our Parish a couple of weeks ago. The RCIA teacher suggested that the next time anyone comes to you claiming the Bible is “corrupted” or “translated incorrectly”, the first question to ask them is: "How do you know?" (They don’t really know; someone told them, that’s how they think they know). The next question should be: "Show me where it is “corrupted”, or "translated incorrectly", (they can’t, and he suggested we have our own copy of the original Greek on hand to prove that it isnt) and then, finally, ask: ""Tell me what it’s suppose* to say"*.

Apparently, they don’t bother knocking on *his *door any more.

 

[zerinus]

But if the whole Church went into apostacy after the death of the last apostle, how can you be sure that any of the Christians at that time really understood what was Scripture and what wasn’t? Maybe the true Scriptures were lost along with the priesthood, because the people didn’t understand that they were Scriptures, and the Christians adopted forgeries.
I find it somewhat suspicious that the church can go into apostacy, and yet still understand which documents to preserve as Scripture and which ones were not. Did the apostles themselves make some efforts to preserve the documents they had written as the inspired word of God? Did they catalogue their letters? Otherwise, how can you trust even the 1st and 2nd century Christians since they were apostate?

The Lord has made it known to us in modern LDS scripture that the current biblical canon is true scripture, although incomplete, and many “plain and precious parts” has been taken away from it.

Also, why is the Song of Solomon not considered to be Scripture?

Joseph Smith apparently belived that it was not, and I am inclined to agree with him on that. There is no “why” about it. It isn’t because it isn’t! It isn’t scripture for the same reason that the New York Times isn’t. It wasn’t revealed or inspired by God, or by the Holy Ghost, and therefore it isn’t scripture.

zerinus

 

[Allweather]

Joseph Smith apparently belived that it was not, and I am inclined to agree with him on that. There is no “why” about it. It isn’t because it isn’t! It isn’t scripture for the same reason that the New York Times isn’t. It wasn’t revealed or inspired by God, or by the Holy Ghost, and therefore it isn’t scripture.zerinus

The real question isn’t whether the deuterocanonicals are inspired… they were canonized along with the rest of the Bible by the Catholic Church, and so, they ARE inspired. The real question, and one which I’ve asked several Mormons lately (and gotten no good answer) is why, if Mormons specifically claim not to be descended theologically from Protestantism, they deny the inspiration of the deuterocanonicals, along with the reformers of the 16th century. Obviously, Mormon denials notwithstanding, Mormon religion is theologically connected with Protestantism. I’ve thought that this is a result of the particular Protestant waters that JS was swimming in, ie the Second Great Awakening.

 

[IanS]

The real question isn’t whether the deuterocanonicals are inspired… they were canonized along with the rest of the Bible by the Catholic Church, and so, they ARE inspired. The real question, and one which I’ve asked several Mormons lately (and gotten no good answer) is why, if Mormons specifically claim not to be descended theologically from Protestantism, they deny the inspiration of the deuterocanonicals, along with the reformers of the 16th century. Obviously, Mormon denials notwithstanding, Mormon religion is theologically connected with Protestantism. I’ve thought that this is a result of the particular Protestant waters that JS was swimming in, ie the Second Great Awakening.

Sources of Mormon religion:

Protestantism – Reject the Eucharist, Pope, and Deuterocanonical books.

Adventism – J.S. was caught up in the fads of the time just like Taze Russell and predicted the world would end in 1890.

Freemasonry – J.S. joined the Free Masons and incorporated many of their rituals with the Mormon rituals

Misc Sources – Cotton Mather(1728), William Penn(1718), and Roger Williams(1684) all had theories about American Indians being lost tribes of Israel. He most likely just borrowed this theory.

According to BOM in 600BC Nephite and Lamanite tribes came to America even though there is no DNA, historical, archeological, cultural, or traditional evidence of this whatsoever.

 

[zerinus]

The real question isn’t whether the deuterocanonicals are inspired…

First of all, in that post I was replying to a question about the scripturality of the Song of Solomon, which has nothing to do with the “deuterocanon”. Secondly, why is that the “real question”? What is so special about that that makes it the “real question”? I don’t see anything special about that “question” at all.

they were canonized along with the rest of the Bible by the Catholic Church, and so, they ARE inspired.

I am no expert on Catholic history. Correct me if I am wrong. But as far as I know, they were not “canonized along with the rest of the Bible”. They were canonized by the Council of Trent in the 16th century, following the Protestant Reformation. They were not universally accepted by the early Christians as being inspired. Some accepted them and some did not, contrary to the rest of the Bible, about which there was general unanimity in the early church.

The real question, and one which I’ve asked several Mormons lately (and gotten no good answer) is why, if Mormons specifically claim not to be descended theologically from Protestantism, they deny the inspiration of the deuterocanonicals, along with the reformers of the 16th century.

Again, I fail to see what is so “real” about that question? It seems to me to be a pretty trivial issue in the overall scheme of things. However, in case you are genuinely interested, we do not recognize the Apocrypha as part of the canon because the Lord has commanded us not to. When Joseph Smith was commanded by the Lord to make an inspired translation of the Bible, he inquired of the Lord to know what he should do about the Apocrypha, and the Lord gave him this revelation. That explains why we do not canonize the Apocrypha.

Obviously, Mormon denials notwithstanding, Mormon religion is theologically connected with Protestantism. I’ve thought that this is a result of the particular Protestant waters that JS was swimming in, ie the Second Great Awakening.

That is a good laugh. Anybody who knows anything at all about LDS theology knows that it has nothing to do with Protestantism.

zerinus

 

[FromTheCrossroa]

Just because there isnt any evidence whatsoever that the BOM is historically accurate doesn’t mean its false. All we need to do is see the golden plates for ourselves. Does anyone have Elton John’s phone number handy? I suspect he has golden spectacles we could use in viewing the reformed Egyptian Heiroglyphics.

 

[zerinus]

Just because there isnt any evidence whatsoever that the BOM is historically accurate doesn’t mean its false. All we need to do is see the golden plates for ourselves. Does anyone have Elton John’s phone number handy? I suspect he has golden spectacles we could use in viewing the reformed Egyptian Heiroglyphics.

That is right. Whey you do not have any valid arguments to bring, mock, and geer, and sneer, and scoff, and ridicule. How very Catholic of you!

zerinus

 

[IanS]

zerinus:

This a very brief history

382AD - Pope Damasus, wrote a decree listing the present OT and NT canon of 73 books.
393AD - Council of Hippo approved the 73 book OT and NT canon.
397AD - Council of Carthage also approved the 73 book OT and NT canon.
405AD - Pope St. Innocent wrote a letter confirming the 73 book OT and NT canon approved at Hippo and Carthage.
419AD - Second Council of Carthage also approved the 73 book OT and NT canon.
1441AD - the ecumenical council of Florence formally defined the same 73 book list of Scripture.
1546AD - the ecumenical council of Trent **only formally defined **the same 73 books as the canon of the Bible.

 

[FromTheCrossroa]

Wow, thats the first time someone else called me Catholic. Still getting used to that…

What I suggested in sarcasm is a legimitate criticism of the book of mormon. Something easily cleared up with public scrutiny. In the absence of archeology, history, and other foundations the mormons use to stake their claim puts the BOM on the same shelf with dianetics. I’m sorry if that offends you.

 

[Karin]

That is right. Whey you do not have any valid arguments to bring, mock, and geer, and sneer, and scoff, and ridicule. How very Catholic of you!
zerinus

dont you mean how very LDS of them? This is the typical action(Whey you do not have any valid arguments to bring, mock, and geer, and sneer, and scoff, and ridicule.) of some of your brothers and sisters in the LDS temple.

FromTheCrossroa …I donot mean to lump you with the LDS just attempting to make a point to “Z”
As to y our post…Elton has “rose colored” glasses perhaps those could help us or perhaps these might be best…Dress Up Box – Dress as Your Favourite Characters than we could see moroni on one of his planets

 

[Allweather]

First of all, in that post I was replying to a question about the scripturality of the Song of Solomon, which has nothing to do with the “deuterocanon”. Secondly, why is that the “real question”? What is so special about that that makes it the “real question”? I don’t see anything special about that “question” at all.

I am no expert on Catholic history. Correct me if I am wrong. But as far as I know, they were not “canonized along with the rest of the Bible”. They were canonized by the Council of Trent in the 16th century, following the Protestant Reformation. They were not universally accepted by the early Christians as being inspired. Some accepted them and some did not, contrary to the rest of the Bible, about which there was general unanimity in the early church.

Again, I fail to see what is so “real” about that question? It seems to me to be a pretty trivial issue in the overall scheme of things. However, in case you are genuinely interested, we do not recognize the Apocrypha as part of the canon because the Lord has commanded us not to. When Joseph Smith was commanded by the Lord to make an inspired translation of the Bible, he inquired of the Lord to know what he should do about the Apocrypha, and the Lord gave him this revelation. That explains why we do not canonize the Apocrypha.

That is a good laugh. Anybody who knows anything at all about LDS theology knows that it has nothing to do with Protestantism.

zerinus

Z, you are correct with regard to Song of Solomon and the deuteros, and I apologize for the mistake. I can’t explain myself, LOL. However, the thread is about the acceptance by Mormons of the orthodox canon. Therefore, that really is the question. Correct me if I’m wrong (I don’t have the post in front of me) but you stated that JS didn’t consider Song of Solomon to be inspired. I realize that JS considered the biblical renditions to be faulty, evidently by means of mistranslations or deliberate modifications. But, what causes Mormons to consider Song of Solomon to be non-scriptural, if in fact they do not. I knew that Mormons reject the so-called apocrapha, but did not realize that they also reject other parts of the orthodox canon.

My understanding is that these so-called apocraphal books were considered scripture a good thousand years before Trent. Trent’s affirmation was a response to the Protestant rejection of them. Correct me if I am mistaken in this, as I, like you, am no expert.

 

[FromTheCrossroa]

dont you mean how very LDS of them? This is the typical action(Whey you do not have any valid arguments to bring, mock, and geer, and sneer, and scoff, and ridicule.) of some of your brothers and sisters in the LDS temple.

FromTheCrossroa …I donot mean to lump you with the LDS just attempting to make a point to “Z”
As to y our post…Elton has “rose colored” glasses perhaps those could help us or perhaps these might be best…Dress Up Box – Dress as Your Favourite Characters than we could see moroni on one of his planets

Those things might work if they dont put your eye out!