It’s common knowledge among anyone with a passing familiarity with how the present canon was established. The picking of the correct texts tooks place over many years, but essentially, if a book agreed with the faith, it was accepted; if a book disagreed with the faith, or wasn’t widely known, or was known to be spurious, it was either rejected or failed to be widely accepted.
Uh huh Thats what I said. That isn’t what** smiling bandit **said, which is who I posed the question to.
What is different about what you and I said and what he said?
I may be reading it wrong but this seems as if it’s describing an event rather than a process that took place over a period of years. In rereading it I see it could be either. I also realize that the Orthodox view is somewhat softened from actual events. Kinda like our history books.
<----laughing. Ahhh, how easy a tastk it would be to screw with you. No, that is not my name but right now I wish it were !!! 
( what is a Trapper Keeper? )
Indeed, from the little I have read, it was a process of “translation” ( revising, which is not unique to the story of Christianity of course ), and a lot of decades/centuries of sifting through various Gospels and accountings.
To me as a non-believer, it is a fascinating process to think about which is why I asked about the newness ( and seemingly huge rejection ) of LDS doctrine by non-LDS members. The process of examining and either accepting as canon or rejecting as non-canon was the reason for my O.P.
What a week to be pondering this. The next eight days are heavy hitting ones for Jews and Christians worldwide.
The fact that it didn’t take place in one afternoon’s teatime doesn’t mean it didn’t happen as I described. generally, the older texts, closer to the actual events, were accepted. Newer texts (including Gnostic texts) were often deemed fakes and, as they disagreed with the theology everyone thought rational and spiritually accurate, were discarded (actually, had generally not been picked up in the first place).
The L.A. Times just about a month ago had an article about how in addition to the archeological, linguistic, anthropological evidence, we now have DNA evidence that says, “Hey, those New World natives are Central Asians.” This has caused a major problem for the LDS church, as the entire point of the Book of Mormon is that the American Indians are Jews.
This all as opposed to the fact that Herod, Pilate, Roman prefects in the gospels, the Hittites, Jericho, and others I can’t think of have been found in digs. Heck, the family crypt of Caiaphas (high priest who tried Jesus) was found in the early 90s.
I think the point is that* not everyone* agreed on what was rational, spiritually accurate, or theologically correct. Not everyone agreed on what Jesus actually taught or what his teachings meant. It’s 2000 years later and it’s pretty much the same today. There’s just more people who don’t agree.
There’s no way to know if the people who declared certain books cannon and decided what theology would become “official” Christianity {which meant government sanctioned} were the ones who were closest to what Christ taught. The books were chosen not because they agreed with Jesus teachings but because they agreed with the theology of those doing the choosing. Men!
Having been declared sacred in such a manner there’s no way of knowing if the teachings of Jesus were better represented in the books we are familiar with or the books discovered since then such as the gospel of Thomas or Judas.
Christian tradition is just that , tradition. Nothing wrong with it until people confuse tradition with the truth. The concept that the “true” church or “true” Christianity continued from Jesus death until now in the form of “official” Christianity is just a nice tradition. There really isn’t much solid evidence to suggest that’s true. There is however evidence to the contrary.
Women !
Agreed. If 2,000 years ( give or take 24 years ) has given the chosen Gospels the patina of truth, well…
As Cardinal ( great member name for this thread ) pointed out, all of those folks existed 2,000 years ago- but what has been written is clearly not 100 % accurate. How could it be? Do we truly think that the written accounts of the details of the American Revolutionary War are 100% accurate, without any bias or alteration by the authors of such texts? Please.
You said the L.D.S. Church has a major problem now that D.N.A. evidence is being offered. Cite, please? I was unsure from your wording if you were saying that you felt they had a problem, or if the Church had made public statements to that effect, subsequent to the release of D.N.A. evidence linking Early North American peoples to Asia.
As I said in my OP, I’m not attacking OR supporting either gospel. The point was to ask if it is just the passage of time that has given a certain “heft” to the Gospels, and if 2,000 years the L.D.S. BOM might well be given identical “heft” ( i.e., spiritual respect ).
Herod? Lived. Jesus? Lived. Ciaphus? Lived. Judas? Lived, I am guessing. Did they all do as written? Did Jesus Christ rise from the grave after three days and Ascend? -shrug- show me a scrap of vellum that is an eyewitness report and I’ll show you eyewitness reports claiming that huge bombs brought down the World Trade Centers. The pertinent folk existed, no doubt- but it takes the leap of faith that’s well outside of this thread, to define the veracity of the Gospels as Truth.
If we can accept that idea in this thread, at least for the sake of argument, then the matter of D.N.A. is irrelevant, is it not?
I think it is much more likely, given the scholastic and archaeological evidence available now and is yet to be discovered, that neither the Bible or Book of Mormon will be seen as sacred inerrant scripture. But rather historically and religiously significant books written by men. In that sense they might have similar heft.
Various Herods lived, yes, but there’s not a scrap of evidence outside of religious doctrine for the existence of the others till nearly a century after they’re supposed to have lived, and then only a few dubious sources for Jesus. I’m guessing Ciaphus = Kephas = Peter.
That’s the only statement I can understand in this thread. What is the point of the OP?
Many, if not most religions are founded by people who claim a new revelation from a god who tells something different from the existing thoughts. It’s accepted or not and it continues or not. Time doesn’t help, either the newness or the longevity.
Fair enough, since no one else is stepping up, I’ll take the honors.
Mormons are just better organized at not letting airing the dirt out in public. The great Prophet, Brigham Young, the second leader of the Church and the man who took control in the chaos after the founder, Joseph Smith was killed, became convinced that Adam was God, Himself. This theory has been quietly laid to rest by the subsequent Church leadership, but this is as radical of a conflict as anything which early Christianity has to offer.
FWIW, Mormonism can’t throw stones either. The Doctrine and Covenants, a record of God’s constant revelations ends with Joseph Smith. There really isn’t an explanation of why God would talk to the first Prophet so much and then ignore the rest.
“Ciaphus” is obviously “Caiaphas”, high priest of Jerusalem:
Shoot, TokyoPlayer, we know you are not a fan of the Mormon Church, but for someone who says he has a background as a former active member, a full-time missionary no less, you seem to make a lot of basic mistakes. The Adam-God theory was labelled as a theory by Brigham Young himself. He said he was just speculating. Honestly, a few of your post seem like they are lifted right off of some “Evangelicals want to save Mormons from going to Hell” website.
If you were an LDS Missionary, then you would know (or have forgotten) that sections of the Doctrine & Covenants have been written by Brigham Young (136), Joseph F. Smith (138), Wilford Woodruff (OD1) and Spencer W. Kimball (OD2). And if you are implying that the vast majority of 21st century LDS church members don’t believe in continuing revelation, nor that it isn’t taught as part of modern instruction, then you are being disingenuous and contradicting your own posts in other threads.
Honestly, TokyoPlayer, I was, at one point, happy to see your input in most threads on the LDS church, because frankly, the former-member-skeptic view is valuable and often needed, but at least be factual and give the LDS church some consideration as to accuracy.
Cite?
The sites which I’ve read have Brigham Young clearly stating that Adam was God.
It has been 23 years since my mission, so I’ll concede that there are points which I have forgotten. And, I’ll give you section 136 from Brigham Young, since that quotes the Lord directly. OD1 by WW does not claim revelation.
When the Lord talks to Joseph Smith it’s direct and to the point:
After Brigham Young, while the Lord still gives revelation, he loses His direct voice. From the OD2
What’s more, the members were then called on the *agree * to the revelation, certainly something which did not occur when God was talking through Joseph Smith.
Thanks for giving me a chance to clarify the point. The Mormon Church and its members still believe in continued revelation. However, in contrast to the 132 sections reveled to Joseph Smith over a twenty-year period, there have only been couple since in the 162 years, and not with a direct voice from God. I see this a similar the the RCC church, which IIRC, belives in divine inspiration for the Pope, but doesn’t add to the bible. Sure, the Mormon church has added a couple, but not many.
Two things,
(1) What’s your take on the introduction to the D&C in which the twelve apostles bore record that the Holy Ghost informed them that Joseph Smith Jr.'s revelations were true?
(2) Were the faithful called on to agree to the revelation or were they asked their opinion on a proposal to accept it as a revelation. My reading of that part you quoted shows it’s the latter. Feel free to mention that it’s just mind-controlled rubber-stamping, though.
The Book of Mormon also has the three and eight witnesses (which have their own problems, but that’s straying a bit far), so involving others wasn’t without precedence. However having a few not-disinterested parties sign their names is something completely different.
I ask the question, why the change in voice? Revelations to Joseph Smith come as the following, which if found my randomly opening up the D&C
Then, as I had quoted in my previous post
What is interesting is that there aren’t any officially released notes on how the revelation was given. Where the God of Joseph Smith used to give commandments directly, it seems that the God of Spencer Kimball only gives warm feelings.
Seriously, why does the Lord lose His nerve? Is he slowing down in his old age? If He will tell Joseph Smith to marry other women or be destroyed, or revels the Word of Wisdom banning alcohol the Ten Commandments, or everything else that God does and doesn’t put that to a vote, (IIRC, it doesn’t say “Thou shall not kill unless more than 50% of you disagree with me”) why the need for the Church to submit the will of God to a vote of the faithful? Even if it just a sustaining vote, is there anywhere else that is happening?
So, you admit that there’s a precedent for it. The rest of your comment there is irrelevant.
Why did the Lord leave the decision to dice (or whatever was used) for replacing Judas? Maybe, and this is just my speculation, the Lord decided a different approach was needed. Perhaps that’s also why he allowed the dice trick referred to above.
Ever thought of asking the Lord why He “lost his nerve?” Anyway, I don’t see any nerve losing there. What I do see is you applying your own arbitrary standards to the Lord. I also see, in your bit about the prohibition on killing, a very feeble strawman.
Of course, I’m given Him a hard time, but that still doesn’t answer the fundamental questions.
OK. Throw away the "Thou shall not kill, if 51%. . . "which I put in as a deliberate exageration, but answer the question “Why did the God of Joseph Smith talk directly to his people, but the God of SWK doesn’t put His voice on record.” Methinks that Joseph Smith could have been talking to someone else, but why does a God change so radically? Especially if this is supposed to be the same God?
Is there a case of God putting His will to the vote?