Hayden Carroll Gets it All Wrong—Again!

 

I noticed the above short video by Hayden Carroll, in which he questions the Protestant selection of the 66 books of the biblical canon, and their rejection of the 7 extra apocryphal books, which are considered by the Catholic Church to be equally divinely inspired and canonical, as the other 66 books. He begins as follows:

A question I always like to ask Protestants is like, “Where did we get the canon from?” Catholics would say, “Well, it was us, right, in the early church councils”; but the Protestants are in a weird position, because they can’t appeal to the infallible authority of the councils, because they reject that.

That is an inconsistent argument from the LDS point of view, because the LDS Church likewise accepts the 66 books of the biblical canon—and rejects the 7 apocryphal books. If that puts the Protestants in a “weird position”, it should put the LDS Church equally in a “weird position”—because it likewise rejects those 7 apocryphal books. When the Lord commissioned the prophet Joseph Smith to make an inspired translation of the Bible, he inquired of the Lord if he should translate the Apocrypha, and the Lord gave him the following answer:

Doctrine and Covenants 91:

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning the Apocrypha—There are many things contained therein that are true, and it is mostly translated correctly;

2 There are many things contained therein that are not true, which are interpolations by the hands of men.

3 Verily, I say unto you, that it is not needful that the Apocrypha should be translated.

4 Therefore, whoso readeth it, let him understand, for the Spirit manifesteth truth;

5 And whoso is enlightened by the Spirit shall obtain benefit therefrom;

6 And whoso receiveth not by the Spirit, cannot be benefited. Therefore it is not needful that it should be translated. Amen.

So it looks like the Protestants had figured it out right. How they managed to figure it out right is beside the point; but it looks like they did; therefore his objections to their rejection of the Apocrypha is invalid—at least from an LDS point of view. Then he continues:

So they typically retreat to, well, the church recognized it. When they say the “church”, they just mean the body of believers; like, they just came together, and just recognized this. But there is one question that kind of shuts that down, is well, why does your Bible—you mentioned the Catholics have more books—why are you rejecting books that for a thousand years the believers thought were scripture, like the book of wisdom, or the first and second Maccabees? I think there is seven of them, if you have a 73 canon, compared to the 66 book canon. And I think that goes to show you that just saying the church was Spirit led to bring to this, they would have to agree that the church had it wrong for a thousand years.

There are several problems with that argument. Firstly, historically and traditionally, Christians have distinguished the 66 canonical books, from the 7 apocryphal books; and even in the Catholic Church, a distinction is made between the two. What the Protestants (and LDS) refer to as the “Apocrypha”, the Catholic Church refers to as the “Deuterocanonical” (meaning “second canon” or “secondly received”) books—to distinguish them from the “Protocanonical” (the 66) books, that were never disputed. The truth is that historically, there has always been a dispute about the two sets of books; and some early Church Fathers did not accept the 7 Apocryphal books, as being equally inspired as the 66 canonical books. Even in the Catholic Church it was not officially finalized, until the Council of Trent in 1546—in response to the Protestant Reformation, which had removed the Apocrypha from the Bible. The Council of Trent, which finalized the Catholic canon, was just a backlash against Protestantism. Hayden then continues as follows:

So it is like, so is the church being led by the Spirit recognizing the canon? Whatever that means, that is not biblical at all; that is not Apostolic at all.

That is illogical and doesn’t make sense, because it could be equally applied to the 66 books—which the LDS Church accepts as inspired and canonical. Then he continues:

That is just made up essentially by the Protestants, because they literally, their position was, we don’t need an infallible interpreter, we don’t need a Magisterium, all we need is the Bible. And then they started messing with all the books. And it is like, How can you be sure of the canon of the Bible, when first of all, there is no public revelation, there is no prophets to tell us in their view?

Again, that is not a valid argument from an LDS point of view, because the LDS Church accepts the 66 canonical books. How the Protestants came up with the 66 canonical books is beside the point—if they managed to get it right—which they did, according to LDS revelation. The LDS Church accepts the current 66 book canon as divinely inspired and containing the “fullness of the gospel”:

Doctrine and Covenants 42:

12 And again, the elders, priests and teachers of this church shall teach the principles of my gospel, which are in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, in the which is the fulness of the gospel.

So the real question that he needs to be asking is, how did the Protestants manage to get the canon right? The answer is, because historically and traditionally, there has always been a question mark over the canonicity of the 7 books—and the Protestants decided to be on the safe side, by rejecting the 7 books—and they turned out to be right, according to LDS revelation! Hayden Carroll then continues:

But also you are saying, the church was misled in those seven extra books anyway, for a thousand years? So anyway, I just feel like, when you start talking about it, it breaks down so easily.

Not so. It is his argument that breaks down completely. The Protestants managed to get it right—despite the fact that they managed to get a lot of other things wrong! They got a lot more things wrong than right! But they were lucky enough to get this one bit right—according to modern LDS revelation!

As a sidenote, when the prophet Joseph Smith was commissioned by the Lord to make an inspired translation of the Bible, the Lord informed him that the Song of Solomon (in Old Testament) was not an inspired book; so the biblical canon strictly speaking has only 65 inspired books, not 66—according to LDS revelation.

More From Kelly Powers on LDS Priesthood!

 

I noticed the above short YouTube video by Kelly Powers in which he finds fault with LDS priesthood. Skipping the initial introductory remarks, he begins his criticisms as follows:

If you are a Latter-day Saint, or AKA Mormon, most likely you know what I am about to share. According to teachings of Joseph Smith and other Presidents of your church, according to booklets like this called: The Restoration, and other sources that you could see online, or your own sources, teach that when the Apostles died—tell me if I am right, Mormons, if you are listening; tell me if I am right—is it not true that you believe that when the death of the Apostles took place in the first century, that the church ceased to exist as a whole? They had no authority to preach, teach, baptize, and go out in the authority as Christians, to go out and share things.

Not quite. We believe that the priesthood and Apostolic authority was lost, so that the church could no longer be led by revelation, as it originally was when the Twelve Apostles were in charge; and also that valid sacraments could no longer be performed. But that does not mean that the entire Christian church or religion was lost or ceased to exist; and that there were no more true, faithful, believing Christians left in the world who had a saving faith in Jesus Christ; and who collectively and broadly formed his “church”. A “church” by definition means a “body of believers” in Jesus Christ, who have a saving faith in him—and that was never lost. In the Book of Mormon it says that in the last days, God is going to restore the gospel, his true Church (possessing all the necessary priesthood, prophetic, Apostolic & divine authority), among the Gentiles, rather than among the house of Israel, because the Gentiles believe in him, and the house of Israel don’t:

3 Nephi 16:

6 And blessed are the Gentiles, because of their belief in me, in and of the Holy Ghost, which witnesses unto them of me and of the Father.

7 Behold, because of their belief in me, saith the Father, and because of the unbelief of you, O house of Israel, in the latter day shall the truth [i.e. the restoration of the gospel, the restoration of God’s true Church] come unto the Gentiles, that the fulness of these things shall be made known unto them.

So God respects the Gentiles, because of their belief in Jesus Christ (generally speaking), so that he is going to restore his true Church, the true gospel, in the last days among the Gentiles, rather than among the house of Israel (his ancient covenant people). So the loss of priesthood and Apostolic authority among the Gentiles, following the death of the original Twelve Apostles, does not mean that Christianity itself was lost, and there were no more true, faithful, believing Christians left in the world who had a saving faith in Jesus Christ. A “church” by definition means a “body of believers”—and that was never lost. In a revelation that God gave to Joseph Smith shortly before the LDS Church was officially organized or restored (now recorded as section 10 of the Doctrine and Covenants), in verses 53-55 the Lord says:

Doctrine and Covenants 10:

53 And for this cause have I said: If this generation [of Gentiles] harden not their hearts, I will establish my church among them.

54 Now I do not say this to destroy my church [which already exists in the world, among the Gentiles]; but I say this to build up my church [which already exists in the world, among the Gentiles];

55 Therefore, whosoever belongeth to my church [his true church, which already exists in the world] need not fear, for such shall inherit the kingdom of heaven.

In other words, God regards all true, faithful, believing Christians in the world (of whatever denomination), who have a genuine faith in Jesus Christ, as (collectively) belonging to his church (broadly speaking); and they will be saved. It is only when they start to knowingly and willfully reject the message of the Restoration, the restored gospel in latter days—after it has been brought to their knowledge—that they begin to bring damnation on themselves. Then he continues as follows:

This is known in your faith, your church, what is known as the Melchizedek authority. And you believe and taught that that was lost, and stopped, right when the apostles died. You believe and been taught that Joseph Smith claimed that this was restored in 1829 through him, when he had the hands laid upon him by Peter, James, and John, that gave him what is known as the Melchizedek Priesthood authority. If you are still listening, and if you are a Mormon listening, a Latter-day Saint, here is the Mormon dilemma, if you are still watching—And if you are a Christian, here is how to witness to LDS—Where do we see in scripture, from the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles, that anyone ever had what is known as the Melchizedek Priesthood other than Jesus?

Well, the obvious answer is, first and foremost, Melchizedek himself. If Jesus had a Priesthood after the order of Melchizedek, then Melchizedek was at least one other person, other than Jesus, who had that priesthood. The “dilemma” for him is that his theology makes Melchizedek greater than Jesus; because according to his theology, Jesus obtained his Priesthood from Melchizedek—but not so according to LDS theology. According to the theology of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Melchizedek obtained his Priesthood from Jesus, not the other way:

Doctrine and Covenants 107:

1 There are in the church two priesthoods, namely, the Melchizedek and Aaronic, including the Levitical Priesthood.

2 Why the first is called the Melchizedek Priesthood, is because Melchizedek was such a great high priest.

3 Before his day, it was called the Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God.

4 But out of respect or reverence to the name of the Supreme Being, to avoid the too frequent repetition of his name, they, the church in ancient days, called that priesthood after Melchizedek, or the Melchizedek Priesthood.

5 All other authorities or offices in the church are appendages to this priesthood.

6 But there are two divisions, or grand heads: one is the Melchizedek Priesthood, and the other is the Aaronic or Levitical Priesthood.

7 The office of an elder comes under the priesthood of Melchizedek.

8 The Melchizedek Priesthood holds the right of presidency, and has power and authority over all the offices in the church in all ages of the world, to administer in spiritual things.

That is what modern LDS scripture reveals to us about Melchizedek and his Priesthood. What is the point of having a new dispensation of the gospel—with hundreds of pages of new scripture by revelation added—if they are not going to provide us with additional information, additional knowledge, that we didn’t know from previous revelations? Every new revelation from God, in every age of the world, provides us with new information and additional insights not provided in earlier revelations. That doesn’t make them false. That would be like saying that Leviticus can’t be true because it tells us things that Genesis doesn’t; or Deuteronomy can’t be true because it tells us things that Leviticus doesn’t; or Jeremiah can’t be true because it tells us things that Isaiah doesn’t; or the New Testament can’t be true because because it tells us things that Old Testament don’t. That would be absurd. It is equally foolish to suggest that modern LDS scripture can’t be true because it tells us things that had not previously been revealed in the Bible. The Book of Mormon is a 500 page book of additional scripture; the Doctrine and Covenants is a 300 page book of additional scripture; and Pearl of Great Price is a 60 page book of additional scripture. What is the point of having all of that additional scripture by revelation from God, if they are not going to tell us anything new that we hadn’t known before? Modern LDS scripture does not contradict the Bible; it simply provides us with additional information about God and his works, and insights into God’s dealings with man, not previously revealed in the Bible. Then he continues as follows:

It says in Hebrews 7:24 that Jesus has an untransferable priesthood.

Not true, that is not what it says. It says that Jesus has an “unchangeable” priesthood, which is not the same thing:

Hebrews 7:

22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.

23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:

24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.

25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

If Jesus obtained the same Priesthood as Melchizedek, then there was at least one other person who had that same Priesthood, namely Melchizedek, and therefore it was not “untransferable”. Then he continues:

It is him and him alone. He will never die again. He has this given authority declared him to be this Melchizedek Priesthood have this authority. Now I want to challenge anybody listening: Go in the Old Testament, other than Genesis 14, where an actual individual known as the Melchizedek priest, find a single place that anyone ever had is known as the Melchizedek Priesthood authority. You won’t find it. You go to Psalm 1:10, it is prophetic, points to Jesus. Nowhere in the New Testament does it teach that anyone other than Jesus has what is known as Melchizedek Priesthood. Why is this relevant? Why I call this the Mormon dilemma? Because the whole foundation of Joseph Smith and the LDS church hinges on what is known as Melchizedek Priesthood authority; and if that does not exist, the whole church of the LDS comes crumbling down. So if you are LDS listening, provide something that there was a complete great apostasy, that this was lost, and that there was a need for it to be restored, and that you somehow can hold the keys, this authority, the Melchizedek Priesthood authority. Help me out. Where is the Bible teaching? Where did Jesus teach us? Thank you for watching.

The answer was given above. Modern LDS scripture does not contradict the Bible, it simply provides additional information not found in the Bible. If his objection to modern LDS scripture is that it contradicts the Bible, then obviously that is false, because there is no contradiction. If his objection is that it provides additional information not contained in the Bible, that is not a valid objection, because it is supposed to. Every new revelation from God, in every age of the world, has provided us with additional information not revealed in earlier revelations. This has been the consistent pattern in the Bible. What is the point of God giving us hundreds of pages of modern scripture by revelation, if it is not going to provide us with additional information, additional knowledge, additional insights into God’s dealings with man, which had not previously been revealed? So his criticisms of modern LDS scripture is baseless, and he ought to know better.

More From Kelly Powers vs Hayden Carroll!

 

In this short clip, Kelly Powers asks Hayden Carroll a very simple and reasonable question—to which Hayden Carroll seems unable to give a reasonable answer. The question he is asking is:

“How can you know what is in the Bible is true?” 

That is a good question. A better way of framing that question in my opinion would be:

“How can you know that the Bible is divinely inspired and word of God, and it is true?”

The most important item of knowledge about the Bible is not just that it is true; but that it is the divinely inspired word of God, and it is true. And my answer to it would be, “By faith;” and also, “By the power of the Holy Ghost”. As I read the Bible in faith, the Spirit of the Lord witnesses to me that it is divinely inspired and word of God, and it is true. That is how I know. And the same applies equally to the Book of Mormon. I know that the Book of Mormon is true and the word of God in exactly the same way—by the power of the Holy Ghost—no difference.

Here is an interesting quote from the Book of Mormon: “And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things” (Moroni 10:5). That is how I and anyone can know. See also 3 Nephi 16:6 (quoted in the previous post): “And blessed are the Gentiles, because of their belief in me, in and of the Holy Ghost, which witnesses unto them of me and of the Father.” That is how the Gentiles know (and anyone else in general knows or can know). Hayden Carroll’s answer to that question, however, is an absolute disaster; it is a disgrace.

 

Educating Kelly Powers About Mormonism!

 

I noticed the above video in which Hayden Carroll discusses the restored gospel, the beliefs and teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, with Kelly Powers, an evangelical Christian who does not have a favourable opinion of the LDS Church—except that Hayden Carroll doesn’t do a very good job of it; so I am going to add my two cents. It is a long video, so I am going to have to be selective, and comment only on a few highlights. At about 6:04 minutes into the video, Hyden Carroll asks the following question of Kelly Powers:

How do you feel about his [Mark Driscoll’s] rhetoric, about “Mormons are demonic”? How do you feel about that?

To that Kelly Powers, at around 7:52 minutes into the video (skipping some introductory remarks for brevity) gives the following answer:

… So, to answer your question, I do believe that the Mormon church is demonic, but I am not saying you as an individual are directly evil. That is not my intention. I believe if anyone is truly not believing in the biblical Jesus and the biblical gospel, they are being led astray by demonic influences. And that is how I would answer your question.

My answer to that would be that the LDS Church believes in the biblical Jesus and biblical gospel. The burden of proof would then be on him to demonstrate the opposite. Hayden Carroll, however, responds to it as follows:

How do you justify your view of the biblical Jesus, considering that the Trinity doctrine of the consubstantiation is not found in the biblical text, Right? Because I would just turn that back on you; and I would say: You are actually the one who doesn’t have the biblical Jesus, right? So now it is up to each of us to justify our Jesus, if you want to say it like that. … And … I have asked this question to I don’t know how many Christians, and not a single one is able to justify the Trinitarian notion of the oneness of God, using the Bible. … So I would criticize that … I would question the presumption that you have the correct understanding. … Let’s talk about how we know what the biblical Jesus is?

That is not a good start. I am LDS; and I have no issue with the concept of the Father and the Son being “consubstantial,” or being of the same “substance”. The controversy over the “substance” arose following the Arian heresy in the fourth century, who argued that the Father and the Son were not of the same “substance”—meaning that they were not made up of the same kind of “stuff”. That was his way of arguing that Jesus Christ was not truly divine—only God the Father was divine—which went contrary to historical Christian beliefs. And LDS scripture affirms the full divinity of Jesus Christ, no arguments. That is where the phrase “of one substance” or “consubstantial” in the Nicene Creed originates from. It is an affirmation of the divinity of Jesus Christ—against the Arian heresy which stated the opposite. Its purpose is to affirm the full deity of Jesus Christ, which Arius denied—and which the LDS Church, scripture, and doctrine fully affirms.

The purpose of inserting the phrase: “of one substance” in the creed, or “consubstantial” as he has chosen to express it, in describing the relationship between the Father and the Son, was not to convey the idea that the Father and the Son were “one being”. That issue arose much later. It was simply to affirm the full divinity of Jesus Christ—which the Arians denied—and which LDS theology fully accepts. LDS theology also teaches that the Father and the Son are two distinct and separate beings—which is a different issue from the concept of them being of the same “substance”. Then skipping some more of the discussion for brevity, at around 9:25 minutes into the video Kelly Powers raises the following objections to LDS beliefs and doctrines:

Right. So, one of the things that I find interesting is on the screen, if you can see that, this is 1 Nephi 14 [verses] 9 and 10. Just kind of going back to what you were just talking about a second ago. And this apparently was written 600 BC; so it is before the time of the birth of Jesus, before the Christian church, and all these different things. And it says this: “It came to pass that he said unto me, look and behold the great and abominable church, which is the mother of abominations, whose founder is the devil. He said unto me, Behold, there are save two churches only: one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore whoso belongeth not to the church of the lamb of God, belongth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth.” And I assume that you know Doctrine and Covenants 1:30, which says that the only true church is the Latter-day Saints. And I assume that you also know Joseph Smith’s testimony, when he is being asked to know which one to join, he is told they are all wrong, their creeds are an abomination, they are all being led astray.

So when I was sharing before you came on, a lot of times we as Protestants or Evangelicals, or I just call myself a born again Christian, we get labeled with this kind of like, this hatred, if you will, towards Latter-day Saints. And I think it is actually kind of a little bit reversed, if you know Joseph Smith; because it was actually Joseph Smith who actually first went out against the denominations and groups back then, claiming they were all wrong. They were all an abomination. And well, he was claiming that he was the one who was now giving them the true gospel. In fact, if you remember correctly, unless you are different, you know that the Articles of Faith talks about that you believe that God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, are three distinct persons; but it also says there are three gods; says three gods. And Joseph Smith also said, to know the first principle of the gospel is to know that God was once a man who became a God; and we can become gods too. Do you have any disagreement with anything I just shared there?

He asks several questions, and my answer to it is a little bit different from Hayden Carroll’s answer. In answer to 1 Nephi 14:9-10, about there being only “two churches” (the church of God, and the church of the devil), as he has pointed out, that was said around 600 BC. In that context, the word “church” is used in a generic sense; it is not used in a “denominational” sense. We know that there are far more than just “two churches” in the world (denominationally). What that passage of scripture (1 Nephi 14:9-10) is saying is that all the inhabitants of the earth—regardless of their religious affiliation (be they Christians or non-Christians), they all broadly fall into two categories: the “church of God” or the “church of the devil”. If they are good and righteous, and do what is good and right in their lives, they broadly fall into the category of the “church of God” regardless of their religious affiliation, and they will be saved; but on the other hand, if they are wicked and evil, and act unrighteously, they fall into the category of the “church of the devil” regardless of their religious affiliation, and they will be damned (unless they repent).

It is the same kind of thing that Paul teaches in Romans 2:6-16; also Peter in Acts 10:34-35; and Jesus in John 5:28-29. What all of that is saying is that people don’t have to be “Christians” to do what is good and right in their lives, be approved by God, and be saved. If they do what is good and right out of a good conscience, and according to their own cultural norms and religious traditions, they broadly fall into the category of the “church of God,” and will be saved; and if, on the other hand, they do wickedly, and act unrighteously, they fall into the category of the “church of the devil” (unless they repent), and will be damned: “… they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation” (John 5:29). That applies broadly to all of mankind, regardless of what particular “religion” they adhere to. That is the message that 1 Nephi 14:9-10 is trying to convey—which is also confirmed by Romans 2:6-16; Acts 10:34-35; John 5:28-29 in the Bible. That is the answer to the first part of his question.

Another passage of scripture he references is Doctrine and Covenants 1:30, in which the LDS Church is referred to as God’s “only true Church”. That is a different context. In that context, the word “church” is used denominationally. It is saying that the LDS Church is God’s only true “denominational” Church—that it is so acknowledged by God. It is still not saying that all the other churches are bad, or evil; or that their adherents cannot be classed as true believing Christians, who can have a saving faith in Jesus Christ. That is not what it is saying. The LDS Church respects other Christian churches and denominations. In Doctrine and Covenants 18:20 the Lord says, “Contend against no church, save it be the church of the devil”. In that sentence, in the first part, the word “church” is used denominationally. It is admonishing Latter-day Saints not to “contend” with, oppose, or fight against other Christian churches or denominations. The LDS Church respects other Christian churches (as well as non-Christian religions). In the second half of that sentence, when it says, “save it be the church of the devil,” in that part the word “church” is used in a non-denominational sense (as previously discussed). The “church of the devil” in that context simply refers to all the inhabitants of the earth who act wickedly, and do evil in the world—regardless of their religious denomination or affiliation. The LDS Church “fights” against the “church of the devil” by opposing wickedness and evil in the world—and promoting what is good and right. That is how it “contends” against the “church of the devil”—by opposing wickedness and evil in the world—in any shape or form—and advocating what is good and right instead. But it has no animosity towards other Christian churches and denominations—nor against non-Christian religions for that matter. All are respected from the LDS point of view. In Doctrine and Covenants 10:53-55 the Lord says:

Doctrine and Covenants 10:

53 And for this cause have I said: If this generation harden not their hearts, I will establish my church among them.

54 Now I do not say this to destroy my church, but I say this to build up my church;

55 Therefore, whosoever belongeth to my church need not fear, for such shall inherit the kingdom of heaven.

This revelation was received before the LDS Church was officially organized. In verses 54-55, the word “church” is again used in a generic, non-denominational sense. In other words, the Lord regards all true, faithful, believing Christians in the world (of whatever denomination), who have a saving faith in him, as belonging to “his church” (broadly speaking), and they will be saved. In the Book of Mormon, 3 Nephi 16 the Lord says:

3 Nephi 16:

6 And blessed are the Gentiles, because of their belief in me, in and of the Holy Ghost, which witnesses unto them of me and of the Father.

7 Behold, because of their belief in me, saith the Father, and because of the unbelief of you, O house of Israel, in the latter day shall the truth come unto the Gentiles, that the fulness of these things shall be made known unto them.

In other words, in the latter days (our day), the Lord is going to restore the gospel, his true Church, through the Gentiles, rather than through the house of Israel (his covenant people), because the Gentiles “believe in him,” and the house of Israel doesn’t. And how do the Gentiles “believe in him”? Because they are, for the most part, “Christians” (regardless of their particular denomination). The Lord respects the Gentiles, because of their “belief in him” (generally speaking), so that he is going to restore the gospel, his true Church, in the last days among the Gentiles, rather than among the house of Israel (his ancient covenant people). So Kelly Powers has got his understanding of LDS beliefs and doctrines badly wrong.

Another passage of LDS scripture that he has misunderstood and misquoted is the account of the First Vision, in which Joseph Smith asks the Lord which of the Protestant sects he should join (which he had encountered in the “religious excitement” that he speaks of); and the Lord tells him that he should join none of them, and that those “professors” of religion were all corrupt, and that their “creeds” were an abomination to the Lord. Again, that is not a reference to the whole of Christendom. It is a specific reference to that special group of Protestant sects that Joseph Smith had encountered in that religious “excitement” that he speaks of, who were actually fighting among themselves to gain supremacy among the people at the time. It is specifically their (Protestant) “creeds” and confessions that are being condemned—not the whole of Christendom. That pretty much answers all of Kelly Powers’ questions.

Hayden Carroll, however, in responding to Kelly Powers, goes off on a tangent, and talks about all kinds of unrelated and questionable topics that are irrelevant to the question that Kelly is asking. As far as Acts 15 is concerned for example, Kelly is entirely right—and Carroll is wrong. The “disputing” was not among the Apostles. It was with the Judaizers (certain Jewish converts to Christianity at the time) who insisted that the Gentile converts to Christianity should be “circumcized,” and adhere to the Law of Moses. That is what the “disputing” was about. And in either case, all of that is irrelevant to the original question that Kelly had been asking. Hayden Carroll likes to think that he is defending the LDS Church, while he is being an embarrassment to it. Then skipping a lot of irrelevant talks, and jumping to 33:30 minutes into the video, Hayden Carroll asks Kelly Powers the following question:

Okay, so help me understand. You believe the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith and practice for Christians. Is that true?

After which the conversation turns into another lengthy discussion about sola scriptura, which as previously discussed in my earlier blog posts, the LDS Church has no issue with. The theology and doctrine of the LDS Church is very much sola scriptura—the only difference being that we have a lot more “scripture” than traditional Christianity does. In addition to the Bible, we also have the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price; which together with the Bible, constitute the scriptural canon of the LDS Church. And the theology and doctrine of the LDS Church is derived strictly and exclusively from that scriptural canon—and from no other source. The fact that we believe in modern day prophets and Apostles, and in continuing revelation, does not alter that fact. Unless a new revelation is received and canonized, the theology and doctrine of the LDS Church is strictly based on, and derived from, the existing scriptural canon—and from no other source.

That has been the unanimous verdict of the presiding officers of the Church in the past, who have spoken authoritatively on the subject, as previously quoted and discussed in a previous blog post which can be seen here. There I have provided scriptural references, as well as authoritative quotes from Brigham Young, Joseph Fielding Smith, and Harold B. Lee (all former Presidents of the Church), as well as B. H. Roberts, affirming that LDS scripture is the ultimate and authoritative source of LDS theology and doctrine—thus affirming that LDS theology and doctrine is very much sola scriptura. I consider these sources to be infinity more authoritative than the personal opinions of Hayden Carroll, Thoughtful Faith, and such like. LDS theology is fully sola scriptura, absolutely, 100%, no arguments—the only difference being that we have a lot more “scripture” than traditional Christianity does.

The scriptural canon has not been the same throughout history. In the days of Moses, the canon consisted of the Pentateuch—the five books of Moses; and the theology of the Israelites would have been drawn exclusively from that source. In the days of King David, the canon would have consisted of the Pentateuch, plus all that the prophets had spoken up to that time; and the theology of the Israelites would have been drawn from that source. In the days of Jesus, the canon consisted of everything that the prophets had spoken or written up to that time; and that would have been the source of their theology at that time. In the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith, the canon consisted of the Bible plus all scriptures that he has added by revelation to it—Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price; which together with the Bible constitute the LDS canon of scripture—and the ultimate source of LDS theology and doctrine. That has been the pattern throughout history. Throughout the history of true religion, the theology of the religion has been drawn and derived from exclusively the scriptural canon at time; and our time is no different.