Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thank you very much, Katz. This is an excellent and informative post to the OP's concern about the consequence of the apostasy to the Canon. Smith's observation about the content is also apt. However, I still maintain that the most important consequence of the apostasy was not the Canon.
I didn't get the impression that the OP was implying that the apostasy had anything to do with the canon. Rather, he seemed to be questioning our acceptance of a canon that was compiled and ratified after the Apostasy had taken place. And, as I explained, there really was no reason why we should not have accepted it.
Thanks for taking the time to write up such a helpful and detailed response, Katzpur.
Of course, being a Catholic, I reject the premise that a 'Great Apostasy' took place.
I, with Mystic, also don't believe the canon is a make-or-break issue for several reasons; one of which being that the Bible is primarily a liturgical book, and not a doctrinally instructive book. Though it is indeed doctrinally instructive, that's not its primary purpose.
Our doctrine primarily comes from the oral tradition, contained in the teachings of Jesus Christ that he passed on to his Apostles, and has been faithfully preserved and passed on by their successors in the Catholic Church.
I didn't get the impression that the OP was implying that the apostasy had anything to do with the canon. Rather, he seemed to be questioning our acceptance of a canon that was compiled and ratified after the Apostasy had taken place. And, as I explained, there really was no reason why we should not have accepted it.
You understood me perfectly, this was my question exactly
I didn't get the impression that the OP was implying that the apostasy had anything to do with the canon. Rather, he seemed to be questioning our acceptance of a canon that was compiled and ratified after the Apostasy had taken place. And, as I explained, there really was no reason why we should not have accepted it.
And that was the basis of my response. That if you believe the Apostasy had taken place, then you'd doubt the validity of the Scriptures in the Canon.
And that was the basis of my response. That if you believe the Apostasy had taken place, then you'd doubt the validity of the Scriptures in the Canon.
Why? Every book in the Bible was written prior to the Apostasy. And that wasn't the basis of your response at all. The basis of your response exactly what you originally stated, that being:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
[They] really DON'T place much faith in it. If/when it contradicts the BoM or LDS church teaching, it is declared corrupt.
Your entire point is without merit one way or the other. Martin Luther believed an had taken place in the Church, which is why he specifically named ninety-five instance in which he believed Christian doctrines had evolved over time. Two of the issues he believed to be most significant were (1) his instance that the Bible, as opposed to the Church, should be the final authority for doctrine and (2) the idea that salvation is attained solely by faith and not by works. Whether he was right or wrong in his conclusions, the point is that he believed the Catholic Church had strayed from the Church established by Jesus Christ and His Apostles. That is an apostasy, pure and simple. He believed the Apostasy took place many centuries after the LDS believe it took place, but he did believe in the "falling away" of which the Bible prophesies. Despite this fact, he continued to accept the scriptures (other than the Apocrypha) that had been used by Christians for hundreds of years -- just as the LDS do.
I don't believe you're stupid at all. But it is what I've been told.
Yeah, right. They said, "Oh, we don't place much faith in the Bible. If it contradicts the Book of Mormon or LDS Church teachings, we just declare it corrupt." Missionaries don't say that because that's not the LDS position. The LDS understanding of the relationship between the Bible and the Book of Mormon is as follows:
"As a companion to the Bible, the Book of Mormon is a witness of Jesus Christ’s divinity and His role as the Savior of the world. The Book of Mormon restores plain and precious truths that have been lost from the Bible. When we study the Book of Mormon, our understanding of the doctrines in the Bible is clarified."
Quote:
Instead of automatically suggesting someone is lying, why not start with a basic assumption that MAYBE there is some truth to their statement?
Yeah, right. They said, "Oh, we don't place much faith in the Bible. If it contradicts the Book of Mormon or LDS Church teachings, we just declare it corrupt." Missionaries don't say that because that's not the LDS position. The LDS understanding of the relationship between the Bible and the Book of Mormon is as follows:
"As a companion to the Bible, the Book of Mormon is a witness of Jesus Christ’s divinity and His role as the Savior of the world. The Book of Mormon restores plain and precious truths that have been lost from the Bible. When we study the Book of Mormon, our understanding of the doctrines in the Bible is clarified."
Why? Every book in the Bible was written prior to the Apostasy. And that wasn't the basis of your response at all. The basis of your response exactly what you originally stated, that being:
Your entire point is without merit one way or the other. Martin Luther believed an had taken place in the Church, which is why he specifically named ninety-five instance in which he believed Christian doctrines had evolved over time. Two of the issues he believed to be most significant were (1) his instance that the Bible, as opposed to the Church, should be the final authority for doctrine and (2) the idea that salvation is attained solely by faith and not by works. Whether he was right or wrong in his conclusions, the point is that he believed the Catholic Church had strayed from the Church established by Jesus Christ and His Apostles. That is an apostasy, pure and simple. He believed the Apostasy took place many centuries after the LDS believe it took place, but he did believe in the "falling away" of which the Bible prophesies. Despite this fact, he continued to accept the scriptures (other than the Apocrypha) that had been used by Christians for hundreds of years -- just as the LDS do.
As the missionaries told me, no current translation is right, and they steered me toward the BoM.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
