The meaning of Revelation 22: 18,19

[Katzpur]

Then I will take the opportunity to ask which plain and precious things were taken away from the book of the Lamb of God (1 Nephi 13:28), requiring a restoration of the Church. They must be very important doctrines indeed, if teaching authority was revoked for 1800 years.

Please do so. Just not in this thread.

 

[athanasius]

As a Catholic, do you believe that Rev 22: 18,19 states that the canon of scripture is closed? I understand you believe it says we should not tamper with scripture. I know the Catholic tradition, which is binding to you, teaches the canon is closed, but does Rev. 22:18,19 teach this in your view?

I do not think this verse does.

 

[athanasius]

I didn't know Luther added "alone" to the text. Does this show up in a version of the Bible today? It's not in my King James version. Curious.

Some versions it does. It used to be printed in the Good news bible but they may have changed that.

 

[Scott C.]

Then I will take the opportunity to ask which plain and precious things were taken away from the book of the Lamb of God (1 Nephi 13:28), requiring a restoration of the Church. They must be very important doctrines indeed, if teaching authority was revoked for 1800 years.

While I completely accept this B. of M. prophesy, I'm not certain what plain and precious things were taken from the "book of the Lamb of God." When I study the Book of Mormon side by side with the Bible, many doctrines are amplified and clarified. The Book of Mormon adds great insights into and understanding of the fall of man, the atonement of Christ, the purpose of life, where we go after death, how to come unto Christ to be saved, etc. I don't believe any of the B. of M. teachings contradict the Bible as we have it today, but they certainly clarify very important doctrine. The B. of M. removes much controversy and room for debate that exists among Christians on many key biblical teachings. So, while I don't know what was "removed from the book of the Lamb of God", I can see the great doctrinal value of the Book of Mormon when studied with the Bible.

 

[Reverend Rick]

While I completely accept this B. of M. prophesy, I'm not certain what plain and precious things were taken from the "book of the Lamb of God." When I study the Book of Mormon side by side with the Bible, many doctrines are amplified and clarified. The Book of Mormon adds great insights into and understanding of the fall of man, the atonement of Christ, the purpose of life, where we go after death, how to come unto Christ to be saved, etc. I don't believe any of the B. of M. teachings contradict the Bible as we have it today, but they certainly clarify very important doctrine. The B. of M. removes much controversy and room for debate that exists among Christians on many key biblical teachings. So, while I don't know what was "removed from the book of the Lamb of God", I can see the great doctrinal value of the Book of Mormon when studied with the Bible.

Excellent points! I look at the end results of the book of Mormon. There has been more good results than bad from it's existence.

 

[Scott C.]

Then you must have an interesting take on the words "perfect" and "throughly furnished" since Paul wrote this before the coming of the BoM.

2 Tim 3:[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:[17] That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Hi Francine,

Just as I can't see how some Christians use Rev 22:18,19 to claim that the canon of scripture is closed, I'm equally stumped on how 2 Tim 3:16 is used in the same regard. I never want to be or sound argumentative in my posts. I enjoy explaining what I believe and I enjoy learning how others think. In that spirit, let's discuss 2 Tim 3:16.

Paul explains here the purposes of scripture:

- teach doctrine
- provide reproof
- provide correction
- provide instruction in righteousness
- All of the above, so that man "may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works".

While Paul explains here the purpose of all scripture, he does not explain which books of scripture, that claim to be scripture, are indeed scripture. He just explains the value of all scripture. The questions of which writings should be considered scripture, or when will scripture be provided, are not addressed in these verses.

You seem to believe that Paul is saying "all of the scripture that you now have constitutes all of the scripture that God will ever provide". Do you believe that is what Paul means? If so, why? I honestly don't see it. Do you accept any writings as scripture, that were written after this epistle of Paul?

I believe Paul is saying "all of the scripture which you received anciently, are receiving now, or will receive in the near or distant future is provided by God for these reasons." Since I consider the B.ofM. to be part of "all scripture", I believe God provided the B.ofM. for the same reasons He provided the Bible, as described by Paul to Timothy.

 

[Francine]

You seem to believe that Paul is saying "all of the scripture that you now have constitutes all of the scripture that God will ever provide". Do you believe that is what Paul means? If so, why? I honestly don't see it. Do you accept any writings as scripture, that were written after this epistle of Paul?

I concede your point, and I thank you for getting me off that very skinny and shaky branch.

 

[Scott C.]

I concede your point, and I thank you for getting me off that very skinny and shaky branch.

Thank you for your honesty!

 

[Francine]

While I completely accept this B. of M. prophesy, I'm not certain what plain and precious things were taken from the "book of the Lamb of God."

We have been visited by Mormon missionaries, and they have returned perhaps six or seven times. They left the BoM and I read it in full,which was quite a slog, because the historical elements of the book are very repetitive, much like the endless battles between the Israelites and Philistines in the bible. However there are many good things in it. Our approach in discussing the BoM was not to key in on the typical objections, but to use the good things as starting points. After all this, however, the weakest point in Mormonism is bound up in the very reason for its existence...the Restoration. The best reason these young people could present for the necessity of the Restoration was that non-LDS Christians didn't have the authority to do baptisms anymore. And the reason those Christians can't baptize properly anymore is because the apostolic authority was removed. And the reason apostolic authority was removed was that the original apostles (the ones taught by Jesus himself) died. Yet somehow Joseph Smith's restored authority did not die when he died.

 

[Katzpur]

We have been visited by Mormon missionaries, and they have returned perhaps six or seven times. They left the BoM and I read it in full,which was quite a slog, because the historical elements of the book are very repetitive, much like the endless battles between the Israelites and Philistines in the bible. However there are many good things in it. Our approach in discussing the BoM was not to key in on the typical objections, but to use the good things as starting points.

You have quoted from the Book of Mormon in several of your posts. Your knowledge of it really impressed me. I could tell your comments were coming from your own head and not from some anti-Mormon website. I agree with you that the Book of Mormon is not an easy read. Some parts of it are wonderful and inspiring, but other parts do seem to drag on forever.

After all this, however, the weakest point in Mormonism is bound up in the very reason for its existence...the Restoration. The best reason these young people could present for the necessity of the Restoration was that non-LDS Christians didn't have the authority to do baptisms anymore.

When I was 19 or 20, that's probably the best I could have done. Remember, these are young men and women are just out of high school. They don't have degrees in theology, and they aren't really prepared to discuss the Apostasy. In my opinion, that's very unfortunate because there would have been no need whatsoever for a Restoration had their not first been an Apostasy. I'm baffled by the fact that most members of the (LDS) Church have such an impressive knowledge of the Restoration and yet know almost nothing about the Apostasy -- which is one of my favorite subjects.

And the reason those Christians can't baptize properly anymore is because the apostolic authority was removed. And the reason apostolic authority was removed was that the original apostles (the ones taught by Jesus himself) died. Yet somehow Joseph Smith's restored authority did not die when he died.

By the time Joseph Smith died, there was a fully-functioning Quorum of Twelve Apostles, from which the next prophet, Brigham Young, was selected. For roughly three and a half years after Joseph's death, the Church was governed by the Twelve as a unified body, just as the early Church had been governed. Joseph died in June of 1844; the keys of authority were immediately passed to the Quorum of the Twelve. Brigham Young, the senior member (in terms of length of service) of the Quorum was not actually sustained as the next prophet until December of 1847, but the same authority that Joseph had held was held collectively by the Twelve Apostles. Had they all been killed, without replacements having been called, the restored Church would have found itself in much the same situation as the ancient Church was.

 

[Scott C.]

By the time Joseph Smith died, there was a fully-functioning Quorum of Twelve Apostles, from which the next prophet, Brigham Young, was selected. For roughly three and a half years after Joseph's death, the Church was governed by the Twelve as a unified body, just as the early Church had been governed. Joseph died in June of 1844; the keys of authority were immediately passed to the Quorum of the Twelve. Brigham Young, the senior member (in terms of length of service) of the Quorum was not actually sustained as the next prophet until December of 1947, but the same authority that Joseph had held was held collectively by the Twelve Apostles. Had they all been killed, without replacements having been called, the restored Church would have found itself in much the same situation as the ancient Church was.

I was about to respond to Francine, when I saw this post which says it well. So, I won't add anything for now...except 1947 is a typo. It was 1847.

 

[Francine]

You have quoted from the Book of Mormon in several of your posts. Your knowledge of it really impressed me. I could tell your comments were coming from your own head and not from some anti-Mormon website. I agree with you that the Book of Mormon is not an easy read. Some parts of it are wonderful and inspiring, but other parts do seem to drag on forever.

I will grant you that there's a message even in the parts that drag: God is always giving us a new start, and we are always blowing that new start by falling in love with the blessings that come with it rather than the one who blesses.

When I was 19 or 20, that's probably the best I could have done. Remember, these are young men and women are just out of high school. They don't have degrees in theology, and they aren't really prepared to discuss the Apostasy.

Few people are prepared to discuss the events of the Church in the 2nd and 3rd Centuries. Protestants ignore Patristics, and the Catholics who do study it are not typically found in the suburbs where Mormon missionaries in America go.

By the time Joseph Smith died, there was a fully-functioning Quorum of Twelve Apostles, from which the next prophet, Brigham Young, was selected. For roughly three and a half years after Joseph's death, the Church was governed by the Twelve as a unified body, just as the early Church had been governed.

If you study the books of Timothy and Titus, you see Paul giving instruction to men who will replace him. The instructions have to do with how to choose bishops and how to administer the fund to support widows, so these are not general exhortations to a congregation but to men who ultimately will have responsibility over a number of churches, like Paul and John enjoyed. And with the election of Matthias in Acts we see the procedure by which the Apostles selected their own replacements. Jesus promised that the gates of perdition would never prevail against his Church (i.e. the Church would never cease to exist on the Earth), and many people take that prophesy to include the 1800 years from the alleged Apostasy to the time of the alleged Restoration.

 

[Francine]

Had they all been killed, without replacements having been called, the restored Church would have found itself in much the same situation as the ancient Church was.

This requires a slight-of-hand that probably works with people (mostly Sola Scriptura Protestants) who don't know, for instance, of the writings of bishops such as St Polycarp and St. Irenaeus who learned at the feet of the same Apostles who learned at the feet of Jesus. I would be interested to learn how many converts to the LDS Church come out from Roman Catholicism.

 

[Scott C.]

This requires a slight-of-hand that probably works with people (mostly Sola Scriptura Protestants) who don't know, for instance, of the writings of bishops such as St Polycarp and St. Irenaeus who learned at the feet of the same Apostles who learned at the feet of Jesus. I would be interested to learn how many converts to the LDS Church come out from Roman Catholicism.

The most convincing evidence of the apotasy for me, is the strength and power of the doctrine taught by the restoration. I first believe in the restoration, and from there conclude there must have been an apostasy, or else the restoration would not have been needed. That's a personal perspective that may not be shared by all LDS. I don't have a firm enough grip on Christian history to argue how and when the apostasy took place. Others in my faith do and I enjoy learning from them.

I would never intentionally offend a Catholic, as I respect them and consider a good practicing Catholic to be a pillar of virtue in our society, which is quickly losing the virtues enocuraged by the Catholic Church. I really believe that.

I don't personally focus much on the historical facts or evidence of apostasy. I most importantly look at "how is the priesthood exercised in my church today" and is it consistent with the New Testament? I love the fact that every man in my church is able to be ordained to the priesthood, if he complies with the faith. I love that as a father, I can lay hands on my children's heads and bless them. I love that we have a lay clergy which is permitted and encouraged to marry. I love the way priesthood leaders are called of God, thorugh other Priesthood leaders, and that they don't make personal decisions to "enter the ministry". I love the way our boys are ordained to the priesthood at 12 years old and the way priesthood advancements occur as they get older. I love the effect that this system has on the rising generation and the profound motivation it provides young men to live right. I love the influence the priesthood has on the individual members, on the family, and on my church as a whole. I am absolutely satisfied and fully convinced that the priesthood, as it works in my church today, is what the New Testament teaches and what the Lord intends. The Priesthood does not work this way in any other church on earth. This to me, is evidence of a restoration, and hence also of an apostasy.

 

[Francine]

The Priesthood does not work this way in any other church on earth. This to me, is evidence of a restoration, and hence also of an apostasy.

The idea of the priesthood is bound up with sacrifice. In the Jewish system the sacrifice was animals, whether to forgive sins or to consecrate holy sites. This was a type that pointed to the perfect oblation (bread and wine) that Catholic and Orthodox priests offer in their Mass, following the commandment of the High Priest (Jesus) who said "Do this in memory of me". However, LDS ideas of the priesthood are centered around ideas of "keys" and the authority to perform this and that ordinances, but the typology of sacrifice which is the essential function of any priest is gone. The word "priest" then becomes a whitewash of what are no more than ordinary deacons or ministers in an elaborate hierarchy.

 

[Scott C.]

The idea of the priesthood is bound up with sacrifice. In the Jewish system the sacrifice was animals, whether to forgive sins or to consecrate holy sites.

Do you believe in the necessity of priesthood in the Christian Church? Or, are you saying that priesthood was only needed for the Old Testament rites which are not performed today?

 

[Katzpur]

I was about to respond to Francine, when I saw this post which says it well. So, I won't add anything for now...except 1947 is a typo. It was 1847.

Jeesh! What are you, some kind of stickler for details? Thanks! I'll fix it.

 

[Francine]

Do you believe in the necessity of priesthood in the Christian Church? Or, are you saying that priesthood was only needed for the Old Testament rites which are not performed today?

Christ fulfills the type of the high priest, who enters the holy of holies once a year to make atonement for the sins of the whole nation. Christ's single sacrifice (of himself!) both fulfilled and abolished that type. The lesser priests of Judaism are fulfilled by the Christian priesthood. Perhaps 70% of Christians have an authentic priesthood and sacrificial rites (Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Anglicanism, Methodism, and old-school Lutheranism). Protestants influenced by Zwingli have abandoned sacerdotalism altogether (Baptists, Presbyterians, Pentecostals, etc). The biggest hassles between Catholics and Protestants today, in fact, center around whether things like baptism and the Lord's Supper are sacraments or just ordnances, and usually the problem can be traced to the Protestant not accepting that rites can actually mediate grace. Unless I am mistaken, a Mormon holds to the appearance of the former (retaining the priesthood) while practicing the essence of the latter (the rites are ordnances performed out of obedience). The only sacrament I think the LDS retain is the laying on of hands to confer the Holy Spirit, which equates to Confirmation in the Roman system.

 

[nutshell]

The idea of the priesthood is bound up with sacrifice. In the Jewish system the sacrifice was animals, whether to forgive sins or to consecrate holy sites. This was a type that pointed to the perfect oblation (bread and wine) that Catholic and Orthodox priests offer in their Mass, following the commandment of the High Priest (Jesus) who said "Do this in memory of me". However, LDS ideas of the priesthood are centered around ideas of "keys" and the authority to perform this and that ordinances, but the typology of sacrifice which is the essential function of any priest is gone. The word "priest" then becomes a whitewash of what are no more than ordinary deacons or ministers in an elaborate hierarchy.

As an LDS priesthood holder I can tell you that we center around sacrifice. "Keys" are important as they identify authority as you mentioned, but the work of priesthood is a work of sacrifice.

 

[Francine]

As an LDS priesthood holder I can tell you that we center around sacrifice. "Keys" are important as they identify authority as you mentioned, but the work of priesthood is a work of sacrifice.

Thank you. If you could give some account of the sacrifices bound up in the various restored priesthoods it would be interesting to me. Based on what has been revealed to the public, however, it looks like a system almost like an online forum where you advance to higher and higher levels of authority and are given the go-ahead to do different things. If this is part of the plain and precious things of the gospel that were lost in the Apostasy, then it is hard to reconcile that with a prayer by Jesus where he said, "I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight." Because babes would not be able to grasp the intricacies of such a system.