Posted on 05/05/2008 9:24:59 PM PDT by sevenbak
Elder Jeffrey R. Holland
Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles
We invite all to inquire into the wonder of what God has said since biblical times and is saying even now.
President Monson, may I claim a moment of personal privilege?
As the first of the Brethren invited to speak following your singular message to the Church this morning, may I say something on behalf of all your Brethren of the General Authorities and indeed on behalf of all the Church.
Of the many privileges we have had in this historic conference, including participation in a solemn assembly in which we were able to stand and sustain you as prophet, seer, and revelator, I cannot help but feel that the most important privilege we have all had has been to witness personally the settling of the sacred, prophetic mantle upon your shoulders, almost as it were by the very hands of angels themselves. Those in attendance at last night’s general priesthood meeting and all who were present in the worldwide broadcast of this morning’s session have been eyewitness to this event. For all the participants, I express our gratitude for such a moment. I say that with love to President Monson and especially love to our Father in Heaven for the wonderful opportunity it has been to be “eyewitnesses of his majesty” (2 Peter 1:16), as the Apostle Peter once said.
In general conference last October, I said there were two principal reasons The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is accused, erroneously, of not being Christian. At that time I addressed one of those doctrinal issues—our scripturally based view of the Godhead. Today I would like to address the other major doctrine which characterizes our faith but which causes concern to some, namely the bold assertion that God continues to speak His word and reveal His truth, revelations which mandate an open canon of scripture.
Some Christians, in large measure because of their genuine love for the Bible, have declared that there can be no more authorized scripture beyond the Bible. In thus pronouncing the canon of revelation closed, our friends in some other faiths shut the door on divine expression that we in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints hold dear: the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, and the ongoing guidance received by God’s anointed prophets and apostles. Imputing no ill will to those who take such a position, nevertheless we respectfully but resolutely reject such an unscriptural characterization of true Christianity.
One of the arguments often used in any defense of a closed canon is the New Testament passage recorded in Revelation 22:18: “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of . . . this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book.” However, there is now overwhelming consensus among virtually all biblical scholars that this verse applies only to the book of Revelation, not the whole Bible. Those scholars of our day acknowledge a number of New Testament “books” that were almost certainly written after John’s revelation on the Isle of Patmos was received. Included in this category are at least the books of Jude, the three Epistles of John, and probably the entire Gospel of John itself.1 Perhaps there are even more than these.
But there is a simpler answer as to why that passage in the final book of the current New Testament cannot apply to the whole Bible. That is because the whole Bible as we know it—one collection of texts bound in a single volume—did not exist when that verse was written. For centuries after John produced his writing, the individual books of the New Testament were in circulation singly or perhaps in combinations with a few other texts but almost never as a complete collection. Of the entire corpus of 5,366 known Greek New Testament manuscripts, only 35 contain the whole New Testament as we now know it, and 34 of those were compiled after A.D. 1000.2
The fact of the matter is that virtually every prophet of the Old and New Testament has added scripture to that received by his predecessors. If the Old Testament words of Moses were sufficient, as some could have mistakenly thought them to be,3 then why, for example, the subsequent prophecies of Isaiah or of Jeremiah, who follows him? To say nothing of Ezekiel and Daniel, of Joel, Amos, and all the rest. If one revelation to one prophet in one moment of time is sufficient for all time, what justifies these many others? What justifies them was made clear by Jehovah Himself when He said to Moses, “My works are without end, and . . . my words . . . never cease.”4
One Protestant scholar has inquired tellingly into the erroneous doctrine of a closed canon. He writes: “On what biblical or historical grounds has the inspiration of God been limited to the written documents that the church now calls its Bible? . . . If the Spirit inspired only the written documents of the first century, does that mean that the same Spirit does not speak today in the church about matters that are of significant concern?”5 We humbly ask those same questions.
Continuing revelation does not demean or discredit existing revelation. The Old Testament does not lose its value in our eyes when we are introduced to the New Testament, and the New Testament is only enhanced when we read the Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ. In considering the additional scripture accepted by Latter-day Saints, we might ask: Were those early Christians who for decades had access only to the primitive Gospel of Mark (generally considered the first of the New Testament Gospels to be written)—were they offended to receive the more detailed accounts set forth later by Matthew and Luke, to say nothing of the unprecedented passages and revelatory emphasis offered later yet by John? Surely they must have rejoiced that ever more convincing evidence of the divinity of Christ kept coming. And so do we rejoice.
Please do not misunderstand. We love and revere the Bible, as Elder M. Russell Ballard taught so clearly from this pulpit just one year ago.6 The Bible is the word of God. It is always identified first in our canon, our “standard works.” Indeed, it was a divinely ordained encounter with the fifth verse of the first chapter of the book of James that led Joseph Smith to his vision of the Father and the Son, which gave birth to the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ in our time. But even then, Joseph knew the Bible alone could not be the answer to all the religious questions he and others like him had. As he said in his own words, the ministers of his community were contending—sometimes angrily—over their doctrines. “Priest [was] contending against priest, and convert [was contending] against convert . . . in a strife of words and a contest about opinions,” he said. About the only thing these contending religions had in common was, ironically, a belief in the Bible, but, as Joseph wrote, “the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question [regarding which church was true] by an appeal to the Bible.”7 Clearly the Bible, so frequently described at that time as “common ground,” was nothing of the kind—unfortunately it was a battleground.
Thus one of the great purposes of continuing revelation through living prophets is to declare to the world through additional witnesses that the Bible is true. “This is written,” an ancient prophet said, speaking of the Book of Mormon, “for the intent that ye may believe that,” speaking of the Bible.8 In one of the earliest revelations received by Joseph Smith, the Lord said, “Behold, I do not bring [the Book of Mormon forth] to destroy [the Bible] but to build it up.”9
One other point needs to be made. Since it is clear that there were Christians long before there was a New Testament or even an accumulation of the sayings of Jesus, it cannot therefore be maintained that the Bible is what makes one a Christian. In the words of esteemed New Testament scholar N. T. Wright, “The risen Jesus, at the end of Matthew’s Gospel, does not say, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth is given to the books you are all going to write,’ but [rather] ‘All authority in heaven and on earth is given to me.’ “10 In other words, “Scripture itself points . . . away from itself and to the fact that final and true authority belongs to God himself.”11 So the scriptures are not the ultimate source of knowledge for Latter-day Saints. They are manifestations of the ultimate source. The ultimate source of knowledge and authority for a Latter-day Saint is the living God. The communication of those gifts comes from God as living, vibrant, divine revelation.12
This doctrine lies at the very heart of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and of our message to the world. It dramatizes the significance of a solemn assembly yesterday, in which we sustained Thomas S. Monson as a prophet, a seer, and a revelator. We believe in a God who is engaged in our lives, who is not silent, not absent, nor, as Elijah said of the god of the priests of Baal, is He “[on] a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be [awakened].”13 In this Church, even our young Primary children recite, “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”14
In declaring new scripture and continuing revelation, we pray we will never be arrogant or insensitive. But after a sacred vision in a now sacred grove answered in the affirmative the question “Does God exist?” what Joseph Smith and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints force us to face is the next interrogative, which necessarily follows: “Does He speak?” We bring the good news that He does and that He has. With a love and affection born of our Christianity, we invite all to inquire into the wonder of what God has said since biblical times and is saying even now.
In a sense Joseph Smith and his prophetic successors in this Church answer the challenge Ralph Waldo Emerson put to the students of the Harvard Divinity School 170 years ago this coming summer. To that group of the Protestant best and brightest, the great sage of Concord pled that they teach “that God is, not was; that He speaketh, not spake.”15
I testify that the heavens are open. I testify that Joseph Smith was and is a prophet of God, that the Book of Mormon is truly another testament of Jesus Christ. I testify that Thomas S. Monson is God’s prophet, a modern apostle with the keys of the kingdom in his hands, a man upon whom I personally have seen the mantle fall. I testify that the presence of such authorized, prophetic voices and ongoing canonized revelations have been at the heart of the Christian message whenever the authorized ministry of Christ has been on the earth. I testify that such a ministry is on the earth again, and it is found in this, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
In our heartfelt devotion to Jesus of Nazareth as the very Son of God, the Savior of the world, we invite all to examine what we have received of Him, to join with us, drinking deeply at the “well of water springing up into everlasting life,”16 these constantly flowing reminders that God lives, that He loves us, and that He speaks. I express the deepest personal thanks that His works never end and His “words . . . never cease.” I bear witness of such divine loving attention and the recording of it, in the sacred name of Jesus Christ, amen.
NOTES
1. See Stephen E. Robinson, Are Mormons Christians? (1991), 46. The issue of canon is discussed on pages 45–56. Canon is defined as “an authoritative list of books accepted as Holy Scripture” (Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th ed. [2003], “canon”).
2. See Bruce M. Metzger, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible: An Introduction to Greek Paleography (1981), 54–55; see also Are Mormons Christians? 46.
3. See Deuteronomy 4:2, for example.
4. Moses 1:4.
5. Lee M. McDonald, The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon, rev. ed. (1995), 255–56.
6. See “The Miracle of the Holy Bible,” Liahona and Ensign, May 2007, 80–82.
7. Joseph Smith—History 1:6, 12.
8. Mormon 7:9; emphasis added.
9. D&C 10:52; see also D&C 20:11.
10. N. T. Wright, The Last Word: Beyond the Bible Wars to a New Understanding of the Authority of Scripture (2005), xi.
11. Wright, The Last Word, 24.
12. For a full essay on this subject, see Dallin H. Oaks, “Scripture Reading and Revelation,” Ensign, Jan. 1995, 6–9.
13. 1 Kings 18:27.
14. Articles of Faith 1:9.
15. “An Address,” The Complete Writings of Ralph Waldo Emerson (1929), 45.
16. John 4:14.
Come on guys, enough already!
And your point is?
Don’t have time now - read this cr@p later.
PING
Hmmm.
Yes it does, if it directly contradicts. The Bereans were “noble” because they searched out “new revelation” to see if it matched the “older” revelation. (Acts 17:11) To not do that when something contradicts is to be ignoble.
From the article: Clearly the Bible, so frequently described at that time as “common ground,” was nothing of the kind—unfortunately it was a battleground.
Aha! Holland is in the Bruce R. McConkie camp, after all, eh? (McConkie later in his life didn’t want Mormons to challenge anything based on the Bible anymore…he wanted only the distinctive LDS “revelations” emphasized.) So the “McConkie” campgrounders are those who see the Bible as only a snake-infested swamp to stay away from.
From the article: So the scriptures are not the ultimate source of knowledge for Latter-day Saints.
Ah, the second shoe drops for the McConkie camp…Wow! What a “nifty” move…moving folks away from the Bible as their key revelational foundation in life! (This way, if the Bible causes "doubts" in the minds of Mormons, well, it wasn't "the ultimate source of knowledge for LDS," anyway, says Holland as he tries to innoculate the Saints from the Bible!!!
From the article: In this Church, even our young Primary children recite, “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”
I don’t think I’ve yet encountered an LDS missionary (of any lengthy convo, that is) who doesn’t get around to basically saying this same thing, citing Amos 3:7 as a proof quote to underscore the “need” for an ongoing living revelator: Surely the Sovereign Lord does nothing without revealing his plan to his servants the prophets. [The way they often apply this verse, I’m often thinking, What? Now we have prophet-weathermen because the Lord won’t let it rain & snow without telling an LDS prophet of his “plan?”]
Ya gotta understand how LDS missionaries have often plastered this verse on others & how it’s used: The following is a bit of an exaggeration of the tone, but not much: “Naa, Naa, Naa, Naa, Naa…we have a 24/7/365 living revelator & you doe-on’t.” Now if I took the same angle Holland took with describing an ongoing “revelator and seer” I think folks would say “ho-hum…why do we need him again?” What do I mean?
Well, how often does somebody cite a previous sermon or Journal of Discourses reference by an LDS "prophet" or general authority only to be told, “Ya know, that’s not LDS canon!” or “You can’t hold an LDS 'prophet' or 'apostle' accountable for every obscure spiritual message he gives in public, can you?”
Well, now we’re really befuddled. Here, LDS have lectured us left & right about the need for living revelators & seers via general conference messages, Ensign mag articles, sermons, teachings, writings, etc. (So tell us again why it’s our issue if you consider what any “prophet”—dead or alive—has voiced publicly to be obscure?)
I think it’s downright disingenuous to hype up tone & content-wise to…
IN ONE BREATH…
“We’re the only church on earth that has a living prophet who speaks for God on all things”…
AND THEN IN THE NEXT BREATH TELL US…
“Yeah, we know all about that ‘speaking for God’ thing but you know…
(a) …”Nobody’s perfect…”
(b) …”these guys engage in countless public speculations…”
(c) …”we were hoping you wouldn’t notice all that much of what they’ve had to say ‘cause we assigned much of it to that round file over there we call the ‘obscurity bucket…’
(d) …”and, besides, nobody knows for certain if what they say has been recorded accurately…these are things that were just reported to have been said at one time or another…I mean, come on, they’re only God’s living prophet, president, revelator, seer & representative on earth…What? Do you expect us to have an accurate stenographer on hand to at least 100% accurately report what they’ve said in sermons & general conferences?”
So my questions? What good is an ongoing living “seer & revelator” of God if he can’t properly ID who God is? (“He’s Adam.” “You’re kidding?” “Nope.” “Imagine that. Well, we’ll just have to name our most prominent university after you because of your amazing perception of who God is!”)
What good is an ongoing living “seer & revelator” of God (like Young) if he inserts ourselves in place of the Savior’s blood a temporary doctrine of individual blood atonement? (How trustworthy then is to apply Amos 3:7 in any absolute way to an LDS prophet?) Or since Young inserted our blood for Jesus’ blood in that doctrine, what about an LDS “prophet” like John Taylor who emphasizes the LDS church as saviors of the world due to the practice of baptizing dead folks?
What we keep hearing from Mormons is along these lines: "What I don't understand is why anti-Mormons want to look up obscure things that someone or another was reported to have said at one time or another and then try to claim that their statement somehow is a core doctrine of the LDS Church. Tell me, is everything that comes out of the mouth or the pen of every pastor, preacher, priest, elder, minister, bishop, cardinal, reverend, or whatever of every other church the authoritative gospel of that particular religion? Is every book published by any Baptist minister now a core doctrine of the Baptist religion? Is every word that every Pope has uttered core doctrine of the Catholic Church? I don't understand why you set such an unreasonable standard for the LDS Church and its members."
Answer: It’s not us who have set the standard & built it up. It’s LDS who cite Amos 3:7 & say God doesn’t do anything without revealing His plan & will to His prophet. So you expect to tell us that we can continually look to him for ongoing plan revelations and ongoing will revelations but when we do, you say, “Hey don’t be disappointed…99.99999999999% of what he has to say won’t even qualify as core doctrinal level statements let alone be sustained as a new revelation. What gave you the idea that everything that comes out of the mouth or the pen of every living revelator, seer, prophet, God’s only authoritative rep on earth is the authoritative gospel? Why we just can’t understand how you would misconstrue our build-up of an Amos 3:7 prophet!!!”
From the article: I testify that the heavens are open. I testify that Joseph Smith was and is a prophet of God, that the Book of Mormon is truly another testament of Jesus Christ. I testify that Thomas S. Monson is God’s prophet…
I would like to address the other major doctrine which characterizes our faith but which causes concern to some, namely the bold assertion that God continues to speak His word and reveal His truth, revelations which mandate an open canon of scripture. …our friends in some other faiths shut the door on divine expression that we in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints hold dear.. Imputing no ill will to those who take such a position, nevertheless we respectfully but resolutely reject such an unscriptural characterization of true Christianity.
Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that we buy what LDS criticize others for…Let’s say, “OK, heaven’s revelationally wide open…God still reveals Scripture…You’re telling us His mouthpiece is that old guy over there…Let’s take a look @ what he has to say since I guess we need to apply Amos 3:7 according to the way you’ve structured it…”
Two minutes later we say, “Wait a minute.” You say, “What?” “I thought you told me that the Lord does nothing without revealing his plan to his prophet?” “And?” “Well, I just reviewed his general conference talk on the Lord’s will?” “And?” “Well, when’s this going to be added to the D&C as a new revelation?” “Uh, it probably won’t be.” “Why not?” (Silence)
Bottom line: Stop putting “prophets” up on the New Scripture-producing pedestal if you’re going to keep lambasting them as dried-up, antiquated sources of irrelevant obscure directives from the Lord (like Brigham Y. talking about individual blood atonement or Adam=God). Otherwise, it’s far too easy for you to distance yourself from them when they embarrass you; and then to elevate them to the highest post on earth when you want your PR ambassadors to be able to market, “See, we have God’s ONLY direct authoritative pipeline to earth.”
As for your references to our pastors, preachers, priests, elders, ministers, bishops, cardinals, reverends, churches, southern Baptist ministers, and even the Pope, you just let us know when they claim to be New Scripture-producing factories and then you can hold them all to the same standard. (The same can be said, minus the Pope, re: just letting us know that any ONE of these titled persons claims to be God’s ONLY direct authoritative pipeline to earth…then when that day comes, please hold them to the same standard!) Until that day comes, stop the double standards, the double-talk, etc.!!!
That all seems to have died on the grass outside the Carthage Jail.
This is “breaking news” why? In before moved to “religion”
Funny you should mention that. I was just wondering why (not really) the books of Mormon are written in King James English.
You would think after reading Holland's article that the LDS "Doctrine & Covenants" is just teeming (& pregnant) with all kinds of recent "God-thoughts."
How utterly mistaken. Even a 1918 occultic dream by Joseph F. Smith took another 60+ years, I believe, to be voted on as "Scripture." The 1890 "Manifesto" was never pretended by its proclaimer to be "revelation" from God (not worded as such; not described as such).
The only kinds of things in there are the Mormon god changing his mind for the time being about how promiscuous polygamy is; and whether or not the Mormon doctrine of skin color being a curse is enough to keep a black priestholder out of its priesthood. (And boy, what a coincidence that there just happened to be social & governmental pressure on each of those things to make an LDS "prophet" buckle?)
The mods have chosen to move all open LDS threads to the news section. It was originally posted in the religion forum.
From the previous thread:
Do Mormons believe:
1. Polytheism. There are many, many gods. Millions. And the millions of mormon men alive today will become a god and get their own planet and populate that planet.
2. The God of this earth was once a man on another planet who was a presumably a good Mormon.
3. Jesus was once a good earthly human/Mormon who has already attained godhood.
Also, what about the women? Do they become gods as well?
You're not suggesting that Joseph Smith, that poor illiterate farm boy from Vermont, actually had access to a copy of a King James Bible in 1830 are you?
That’s what they spoke and read. It was what they were used to. The BOM was translated into the language of the day.
I’m sure glad he didn’t translate it in San Francisco in the last decade. I’d hate to read that in Ebonics!
I'm sure alot of the African slaves in America didn't speak ebonics then. (I don't know why you'd drag ebonics into the discussion except as a red herring) But many of them did sing spriritual hymns to encourage themselves. I dont think any of them had "thee or thou" in the content.
I guess you missed “in the last decade”
So much for the tongue in check effort. It must be late, I’m off to bed.
G Night.
The King James language of 1604 was the language of 1830? That doesn’t make sense. Did Andrew Jackson use “thee” and “thou”?
Well, Mormons themselves make a distinction between how many gods they “believe in” versus how many gods there may actually be. (They would claim that even with there being additional gods, the fact that they don’t “believe in them” would negate polytheism for them).
The problem with this spin-doctoring is that whether one is worship-fully or only philosophically a polytheist doesn’t negate the definition. If you believe many true gods exist, you are, by definition a polytheist. Secondly, even if we go with their “game,” the fact that they believe the “godhead” consists of 3 gods means that even with these three, that is plural gods & that again = polytheism.
Also, I would assume that if they think they are godhood bound, and if you ask them, “Do you believe in yourself & your ability to attain godhood?” – if they say “yes” … well that’s at least god #4.
Spencer W. Kimball, an LDS “prophet” of the 70s, said to an LDS crowd: "Brethren, 225,000 of you are here tonight. I suppose that 225,000 of you may become gods" (from The Ensign, November 1975 republished in 1980)
[This, despite the prophet Isaiah's plain words in his book--like Is. 44:8 & 43:10: Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any. (Isaiah 44:8) [Hey, if Isaiah's God doesn't know of any gods besides Him, that's good enough for me.] In the chapter before that, Isaiah gives a testimony whereby he knows of no gods formed before him or after him (Isaiah 43:10). Either the Mormons have a totally dunce god, a god who hit his head & suffers amnesia & can't forecast the future, or "Oops!" Smith stumbled over following thru on his read-the-bible-thru-in-a-year course and missed those verses prior to his book of the dead "Book of Abraham" & his King Follett sermon.]
Do Mormons believe: 3. Jesus was once a good earthly human/Mormon who has already attained godhood.
The Mormon Christ is but a "saved being"--a mere creature like dear ole Dad:
"Christ is a saved being” (McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, Vol. 3, p 257) “Modern revelation speaks of our Lord as he that ‘ascended up on high, as also he descended below all things, in that he comprehended all things, that he might be in all and through all things, the light of truth ‘ (D&C 88:6). Christ's rise to the throne of exaltation was preceded by his descent below all things. Only by submitting to the powers of demons and death and hell could he, in the resurrection, serve as our exemplar of a saved being, one who had placed all things beneath his feet. ‘I am Alpha and Omega,’ he said, ‘Christ the Lord; yea, even I am he, the beginning and the end, the Redeemer of the world. I, having accomplished and finished the will of him whose I am, even the Father, concerning me—having done this that I might subdue all things unto myself—retaining all power, even to the destroying of Satan and his works at the end of the world, and the last great day of judgment.’ (D&C 19:1-2.)” (McConkie and Millet, Doctrinal Commentary on the Book of Mormon, vol. 1, p. 234)
(Please also see McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, Vol. 3, p. 238 where he said Jesus "Needs salvation"...”Came to earth to work out His own salvation”)
Also, what about the women? Do they become gods as well?
Yes. But only if they reach the highest level of Mormon heaven—the celestial kingdom. LDS don’t like to venture out “too far” on the limb of comments about goddesses above.
According to Elaine Anderson Cannon:As early as 1839 the Prophet Joseph Smith taught the concept of an eternal mother, as reported in several accounts from that period. Out of his teaching came a hymn that Latter-day Saints learn, sing, quote, and cherish, "O My Father," by Eliza R. Snow [she was, BTW, a “wife” of more than one LDS “prophet”]. President Wilford Woodruff called it a revelation (Woodruff, p. 62).
The hymn’s lyrics include:
In the heav'ns are parents single?
No, the thought makes reason stare!
Truth is reason; truth eternal
Tells me I've a mother there.
When I leave this frail existence,
When I lay this mortal by,
Father, Mother, may I meet you
In your royal courts on high? (Hymn #. 292 in LDS hymnbook]
(The reference, BTW, is to a “divine mother” not simply a biological mother.)
Do Mormons believe: 2. The God of this earth was once a man on another planet who was a presumably a good Mormon
Elaine Anderson Cannon added: In 1909 the First Presidency, under Joseph F. Smith, issued a statement on the origin of man that teaches that "man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father," as an "offspring of celestial parentage," and further teaches that "all men and women are in the similitude of the universal Father and Mother, and are literally the sons and daughters of Deity" (Smith, pp. 199-205).
Elder Jeffrey R. Holland = ignorant horse’s ass
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.