Skip to comments.Decanonization of Mormon scriptures
Posted on 11/30/2011 9:01:01 PM PST by Belteshazzar
Remember the Lectures on Faith sections in the Mormon scripture, Doctrine and Covenants? No? But they were there for 86 years? Im reading an 1918 Doctrine and Covenants and sure enough, theres Lectures on Faith. What about Section 101″ in early D&C editions, the Article on Marriage that says men and women should only have one spouse? No, havent heard of that one either? It was eventually deleted by church leaders and replaced by Section 132, which details celestial marriage and having multiple wives. Decanonization of scripture is not talked about much in the LDS church, and its certainly far less frequent than examples of added scripture in Mormon canon, but it does happen.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearreligion.org ...
The lord giveth and the lord taketh away.
Welcome to mormonISM.
Hey, if Luther can throw entire books out of the Old Testament, I guess Mormons figure they can get away with throwing out a few things now and then.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
During the Presidential race btwn Nixon and JFK in 1960, newspapers raged every day with arguments about whether a Catholic President could be trusted with the future of the US.
In 1960, commentators were honest. Now, here come you guys arguing about Mormonism with what objective in mind?
In the Kennedy case, the nation was not aware that Kennedy was anytrhing but a devout Christian Catholic (remember Frick and Frack?), so there was a fear that a devout Catholic would be under advice from Rome. Of course Kennedy was not a devout Catholic so that was a baseless fear. With Milt Romney, perhaps the same is true, he certainly doesn’t live up to the supposed standards most LDS claim to adhere to does he! But then again, LDS inc is a corporation, so as a devout buisness man perhaps Milt will be taking advice from Salt Lake? With Milt one never knows. Basing things on the Mormonism apologist who work FR to spin the heresies at the heart of Mormonism, I don’t think I want to trust a Mormon in the White House, devout or otherwise.
BTW, the ‘commentators’ in media were anything but honest in 1960. They knew of the sexual addiction Kennedy had yet they chose to not report any of it to the people and in fact covered it up for the sleazy liar, just liek they now serve the little bassturd now in the White House.
So, I don't care where the lying, con man, socialist, accessory to mass murderer, goes on Sunday to pretend he gives a whit what God thinks. He's scum, that's why no one should vote for him.
Feel better about my lack of bias against Mormons? have a nice day
Nixon was a Quaker man I thought those folks were pretty devout too until I heard about Tricky Dickey.
“Twasn’t Luther that “threw entire books out of the Old Testament...” He did question the canonicity of the Apocrypha (but didn’t remove those books that were actually ADDED by the Roman Church to back up extra-biblical teachings. The Apocryphal books saw opposition throughout history, including within the Catholic church (though church historians haven’t exactly always been honest about it). It wasn’t until the 1880’s that “Protestants” began printing Bibles without the Apocryphal books.
Romney is a temple mormon, which means he has to abide by the strictest of rules, only about 15% of mormons are worthy to go to their temple. He is more than devote, he is considered worthy.
I kan haz huntsman’s daughters?
Perhaps you might find it beneficial to read, say, some history books before you pony up to that bar. Absolutely do you a world of good.
Did not the Lord warn against adding or subtracting from His word? Would this apply to the Mormons adding on?
But did some newer Protestant Bibles at present time allow for those extra books?
Another establishment Republican praising Romney means what to this thread?
Rather than a not-so-subtle deflection of the thread topic into a drive-by shot at Martin Luther, why don’t you answer a simple question? If the deuterocanonical books Luther said, in agreement with the OT church and much of the ancient NT church, were outside of the canon, if they were - can you operate with that for a moment on a purely theoretical level? - precisely which doctrines of the Holy Scriptures would be left unrepresented in the remaining canon?
As an example, let us that any one of the four gospels were left out of the canon - remember, this is theoretical, on one is advocating this!!! - which doctrine(s) of the Holy Scriptures would we lack support for in what remains?
. I guess my extensive studies of Christians/Church History, theology, Biblical History, and related studies and a Masters Degree to show for it don't count.
I learned a long time ago to not show up with a knife to a gunfight. But since you brought it up, which history books might one want me to read? The ones put out with the "official" Catholic rendition of history? Most certainly you are not referring to those "evil and apostate" history books assembled by excommunicated Protestants.
So which of my comments are you particularly trying to argue with? Please post back with exactly what is wrong with them. I will be more than happy to answer.