What did Jesus teach his Apostles that is not in the Bible?

[Seminarysnoozer]

Joseph Smith said "That is the great secret... It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God and to know...that he was once a man like us. Here, then, is eternal life--to know that only wise and true God, and you have got to learn how to become Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you. .. God himself, the father of us all dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ."

[prisonchaplain]

It's pretty clear that the references to "secret" (Gnosticism = secret knowledge, btw) teachings, and missing teachings relates to the LDS belief that the Bible is missing important truths. IMHO, the Bible contains what it is supposed to. The continuing revelations that we receive from prophets does not contradict biblical truth, nor do they fill in large gaps. Rather, they tend to explicate already revealed truths with particulars for a congregation and time period.

Pursuing extrabiblical teachings etc. can be dangerous.

[Traveler]

Originally Posted by Vort

What parts of the restored gospel and of the kingdom of God do we enjoy today that are not taught (overtly) in the scriptures?

Things taught at the temple, although not foreign to other teachings does introduce things in a manner that is not found in other places. For example that families are the foundation of divine or heavenly society (Kingdom). But since there is not a direct link to the 40 day teachings without something that so indicates there is no means to know for certain.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Originally Posted by prisonchaplain

It's pretty clear that the references to "secret" (Gnosticism = secret knowledge, btw) teachings, and missing teachings relates to the LDS belief that the Bible is missing important truths. IMHO, the Bible contains what it is supposed to. The continuing revelations that we receive from prophets does not contradict biblical truth, nor do they fill in large gaps. Rather, they tend to explicate already revealed truths with particulars for a congregation and time period.

Pursuing extrabiblical teachings etc. can be dangerous.

Interesting post. The Bible most certainly contains what someone wants it to contain. The question is – if that someone is G-d or if man has had any input at all. My concern is that if it is G-d only – why did he not say so somewhere in the Bible. Since the Bible is the direct result of human editing we know that it was man (through their collective opinions) that determined what to include and what to exclude. And so with your method (see if the idea of men deciding on their own to determine what is scripture - contradicts the Bible) we must look to the Bible to see if that was ever the means (and how often it was the means) to determine such things – the problem I have is that I find no such method anywhere in the Bible. I find no method anywhere in scripture to determine what is scripture, especially a group of men deciding such a thing without an angel or some one or something directing (like in the Book of Revelation).

Maybe one of the things Jesus taught during those 40 days was what to include in the Bible and what is scripture. We do know he thought things about the kingdom of G-d and what is scripture the Kingdom of G-d would use would fit into that category. I am sure that Jesus realized all of the doctrine issues that would divide believers into various sects and may have taught something to prevent divisions within the Kingdom of G-d. That fits the description in Acts.

So my question is – If Jesus wanted someone 2000 years ago to know something – why was it not written down. But we do not know if it was or was not written down. So why is it not in the Bible? Your answer is – because it was not meant for us to have? Or if there is some way that we do have it in other scripture – that we were not meant to know we have it?

My question is concerning that – what teachings from the Bible does that agree with?

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Originally Posted by Traveler

Interesting post. The Bible most certainly contains what someone wants it to contain. The question is – if that someone is G-d or if man has had any input at all. My concern is that if it is G-d only – why did he not say so somewhere in the Bible. Since the Bible is the direct result of human editing we know that it was man (through their collective opinions) that determined what to include and what to exclude.

I'm trying to discern if you've just attempted to discredit one of the four Sacred Works in your canon? We are indeed told that all Scripture is inspired by God, in Timothy's letter. Of course, that begs the question, which Scripture. We Protestants agree with your church that the 66 books of the Bible are certainly qualified. And yet, you say they are the opinions of men, heavily edited, etc.? Perhaps your response is more interesting than my post???

[changed]

This is not in the Bible...
The Lost Years of Jesus: The Life of Saint Issa - Notovitch

8 At this juncture, an old woman who had approached the group, the better to hear Issa(Jesus), was pushed aside by one of the spies, who placed himself before her.

9 Then Issa held forth: "It is not meet that a son should set aside his mother, taking her place. Whosoever respecteth not his mother, the most sacred being after his God, is unworthy of the name of son.

10 "Listen, then, to what I say unto you: Respect woman, for she is the mother of the universe, and all the truth of divine creation lies in her.

11 "She is the basis of all that is good and beautiful, as she is also the germ of life and death. On her depends the whole existence of man, for she is his natural and moral support.

12 "She gives birth to you in the midst of suffering. By the sweat of her brow she rears you, and until her death you cause her the gravest anxieties. Bless her and worship her, for she is your one friend, your one support on earth.

13 "Respect her, uphold her. In acting thus you will win her love and her heart. You will find favor in the sight of God and many sins shall be forgiven you.

14 "In the same way, love your wives and respect them; for they will be mothers tomorrow, and each later on the ancestress of a race.

15 "Be lenient towards woman. Her love ennobles man, softens his hardened heart, tames the brute in him, and makes of him a lamb.

16 "The wife and the mother are the inappreciable treasures given unto you by God. They are the fairest ornaments of existence, and of them shall be born all the inhabitants of the world.

17 "Even as the God of armies separated of old the light from the darkness and the land from the waters, woman possesses the divine faculty of separating in a man good intentions from evil thoughts.

18 "Wherefore I say unto you, after God your best thoughts should belong to the women and the wives, woman being for you the temple wherein you will obtain the most easily perfect happiness.

19 "Imbue yourselves in this temple with moral strength. Here you will forget your sorrows and your failures, and you will recover the lost energy necessary to enable you to help your neighbor.

20 "Do not expose her to humiliation. In acting thus you would humiliate yourselves and lose the sentiment of love, without which nothing exists here below.

21 "Protect your wife, in order that she may protect you and all your family. All that you do for your wife, your mother, for a widow or another woman in distress, you will have done unto your God."

As a female, I just had to post that . Consider it - Jesus taught at 12 years old... stands to reason he also taught when he was 14, when he was 18, 20 ... and yet we have none of this. We don't know what he taught when he was 12, only that he astounded doctors and priests in a temple with his understanding.... There are other texts that purport to fill in the gaps...

look through this site:
Pseudepigrapha, Apocrypha and Sacred Writings

how much of it have you read?

1 VERILY, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning the aApocrypha—There are many things contained therein that are true, and it is mostly translated correctly;
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 91:1)

I love the book of Tobit... (I think the metal plates the journey was about were scriptures, not money though)

[rameumptom]

I think that the Bible contains writings that are mostly inspired, but were given to us via God's transmission through humans. Humans make errors on occasion, and receive revelation and guidance through their own world-view and perceptions. For this reason, the Bible mentions the 4 corners of the earth (some thought the earth was flat), etc.

It isn't quite as Traveler suggests that it was a creation wholly fabricated via the machinations of man. Instead, God gives instruction, and man implements it to the best of his knowledge and understand (and willingness of accept truth). For this reason, even modern LDS scripture is not perfect, because it is still received through an imperfect media: prophets. And then each of us must imperfectly try to understand the teachings via our own inspiration and imperfections.

Have evil men attempted to corrupt it in the past? Undoubtedly. Jeremiah condemns those in his day who tried to corrupt the sacred writ. And the apostle John ends the Revelation with a warning and a curse to any who would tamper with his apocalypse. Still, God's hand is on the writings enough to ensure they contain a "fullness of the gospel." What does that mean? It means there's enough good stuff to save mankind, and in the instance of LDS teachings, to also exalt them.

[Traveler]

Originally Posted by prisonchaplain

[/FONT][/COLOR]

I'm trying to discern if you've just attempted to discredit one of the four Sacred Works in your canon? We are indeed told that all Scripture is inspired by God, in Timothy's letter. Of course, that begs the question, which Scripture. We Protestants agree with your church that the 66 books of the Bible are certainly qualified. And yet, you say they are the opinions of men, heavily edited, etc.? Perhaps your response is more interesting than my post???

There are a number of considerations when dealing with ancient scriptural Biblical text. We know that there are variations in the ancient manuscripts. Some variations scholars believe to have been accidental whereas others are believed to be deliberate. I have yet to find anyone knowledgeable of ancient “Biblical” manuscripts that believe that it was impossible that errors (invalid concepts) were introduced into any of the ancient manuscripts used to create any currently published Bible or that we can be sure which variant text G-d intends that we believe and maintain as “canon”.

Therefore there is one method currently being used and that is to “create” a version of a specific text or book of scripture by means of “editing” ancient manuscripts that were previously held sacred. Thus we know that of the 66 books currently used by most Christians there is not one that has not been subject to human editing and to what extent we do not even know for sure. All of this is done in a manner that I cannot find consistent with any method anciently used and recorded in scripture as the “sure or pure word of G-d”.

The Second level of human editing comes from decisions as to what “books” should be included and which books should be excluded especially if a document previously unknown in our generation is discovered. I would point out that there is in Biblical narrative situations when “forgotten” or lost scripture text were discovered and were added to the existing cannon. In our generation there are a number of texts that have been discovered but the “Biblical” method of adding to cannot is refused.

My point is not to debase Biblical scripture but only to insure that false doctrine is not created based on “creative” interpretations of isolated concepts that are not stable in the scriptures we do have. For all that I can understand and see the statement that any “new” doctrine must be validated with the Bible in its current form cannot possibly be true doctrine because even the establishment of the Bible with its various translations cannot withstand such scrutiny. So when you say the Bible contains what it should? I simply ask – let’s examine if that concept is Biblical or not. I question if this doctrine can pass your test of being Biblical. And so I ask – where does that doctrine come from?

The Traveler

[changed]

It's very simple. Once you learn how to tap into the Spirit, you simply read everything with the Spirit, and the Spirit lets you know what is right, what has been altered - it's that simple. No fancy degrees needed.

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 atranslated.
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.
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 91:1 - 6)

Do you know how to read with the Spirit? Not some wishy washy thing, you really can, and you can really find some pretty cool stuff .

It's how you learn the BoM is true - you can use the same meathod on anything you read.

[rameumptom]

Originally Posted by changed

It's very simple. Once you learn how to tap into the Spirit, you simply read everything with the Spirit, and the Spirit lets you know what is right, what has been altered - it's that simple. No fancy degrees needed.
.

This is only partially correct. The Spirit still teaches us within the confines of our own perceptions and understanding (Alma 29:8). So, if we are ignorant and believe the earth is only 6000 years old, or that it is flat, the Spirit isn't necessarily going to correct that wrong assumption. Why? Because the Spirit teaches us what we are ready to receive, and then teaches us the things that are necessary in the moment.

Just look at how Joseph Smith was taught via revelation. It wasn't all dumped on him in one moment. For him, Zion initially was a congregation. Then it became a gathering place in Kirtland, Ohio. Then it became a specific location in Missouri. Later, Joseph stated that all of North and South America constitute Zion.

Salvation? Joseph's view was consistent with orthodox Christianity at first. Then he found out that Alvin, his brother, was saved, meaning baptism in this life wasn't necessarily needed. Then he learned of the three degrees of glory. Later, he learned about baptism for the dead.

Joseph had no problem going back to previous revelations and updating them with new information, as the Spirit dictated. Why? Because it was an open canon.

This required Joseph not just to listen to the Spirit, but to be engaged in learning new things continually. He studied the Bible and became an expert on it. He studied Hebrew. He studied to become a Master Mason. The list goes on.