A Treatise on the "Great Apostasy" (A Latter-Day Saints Teaching)

[XuDan]

But aren’t a lot of what was taught by Smith/Young still “doctrine” or at least still in their books? They are just not taught openly to the masses?

Some are. Some are flat out rejected. I’ll give three examples.

Example: Plural marriage was taught to be part of the “new and ever lasting covenant.” Now it is rejected and separated from it. Yet, they don’t remove it because they still teach that polygamy is a way of life in the “celestial kingdom.”

Example: It was taught that the events of the BoM were an account of the Native Americans and that the Hill Cumorah was the same hill in N.Y. where Smith “found” the golden plates. This is now something the LDS church tries to obfuscate. The position is now that Smith and all the prophets through Hinkley where just spouting off at the mouth and have no real clue. :doh2:

Blacks are now given the priesthood despite being expressly forbidden by LDS “scripture” and Dogma set in place by Young acting as “Prophet/President” of the LDS Church. This is obfuscated and brushed over when brought up, you only really see it discussed on message boards. They made “scripture” making this a total reversal of the position of Young and the BoA. You won’t even find the fully history of it taught in the Church History taught to members in classes. What happens is when they get to that section of the D&C, they say, “so this happened and now revelation was given undoing it.” Then they move on. It always seemed like, “God changed his mind.”

These are just three examples of how major points of Dogma changed. This doesn’t include any of the changes made in the temple ordinances or the changes to obligations of membership in their faith.

 

[kimg901]

Some are. Some are flat out rejected. I’ll give three examples.

Example: Plural marriage was taught to be part of the “new and ever lasting covenant.” Now it is rejected and separated from it. Yet, they don’t remove it because they still teach that polygamy is a way of life in the “celestial kingdom.”

Example: It was taught that the events of the BoM were an account of the Native Americans and that the Hill Cumorah was the same hill in N.Y. where Smith “found” the golden plates. This is now something the LDS church tries to obfuscate. The position is now that Smith and all the prophets through Hinkley where just spouting off at the mouth and have no real clue. :doh2:

Blacks are now given the priesthood despite being expressly forbidden by LDS “scripture” and Dogma set in place by Young acting as “Prophet/President” of the LDS Church. This is obfuscated and brushed over when brought up, you only really see it discussed on message boards. They made “scripture” making this a total reversal of the position of Young and the BoA. You won’t even find the fully history of it taught in the Church History taught to members in classes. What happens is when they get to that section of the D&C, they say, “so this happened and now revelation was given undoing it.” Then they move on. It always seemed like, “God changed his mind.”

These are just three examples of how major points of Dogma changed. This doesn’t include any of the changes made in the temple ordinances or the changes to obligations of membership in their faith.

Yes, I’m quite aware of these as are most people. But it is still practiced in Utah. I see them all the time and they are left alone. There is also the Native American/Jewish connection that has been proved false too! And as for their god, he sure does change his mind a lot. I would think God is ahead of the curve

 

[XuDan]

Yes, I’m quite aware of these as are most people. But it is still practiced in Utah. I see them all the time and they are left alone. There is also the Native American/Jewish connection that has been proved false too! And as for their god, he sure does change his mind a lot. I would think God is ahead of the curve

Those who do practice Polygamy are not LDS as most know them. They are most likely FLDS or one if it’s splinter groups. Frankly, the FLDS seem to be more like the early LDS church in many ways. Whereas the LDS, as discussed here, seem to be in apostasy to it’s founding dogmas.

Anyways, it’s best not to lump the sects of the restoration movement all together. I doubt that any member of the CoJCoLDS are active and open polygamists, as they would be excommunicated from the LDS Church. The FCoJCoLDS, or any of it’s splinter groups is another story altogether.

 

[kimg901]

Those who do practice Polygamy are not LDS as most know them. They are most likely FLDS or one if it’s splinter groups. Frankly, the FLDS seem to be more like the early LDS church in many ways. Whereas the LDS, as discussed here, seem to be in apostasy to it’s founding dogmas.

Anyways, it’s best not to lump the sects of the restoration movement all together. I doubt that any member of the CoJCoLDS are active and open polygamists, as they would be excommunicated from the LDS Church. The FCoJCoLDS, or any of it’s splinter groups is another story altogether.

That’s true. I figured you would point this out!!

 

[RebeccaJ]

Tom, please quote or show references that the C.C has or changed dogma(s)? And as for #3, none of your doctrine comes from the early church, your church has changed it to make it look as if it always was there. There is a word for this that escapes me at this moment. For #1, you would call God and Jesus a failure? They let mortal men destroy their Church? Wow!!!

Sophistry is the word, and along with a pragmatic bias, it is Tom’s main approach.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Let me try this very briefly.

1. When the Catholic Church CHANGES dogma they violate Catholic teachings concerning “preservation of tradition.” If this can be shown beyond a shadow of a doubt, Catholicism ceases to have any chance of being God’s Church.
2. When the CoJCoLDS changes teachings on a subject, you can criticize this and maybe it is a problem, but since “preservation of tradition” is not a LDS doctrine, our change/development has much less impact upon the truth claims of the CoJCoLDS.
3. When the CoJCoLDS is criticized for teaching doctrine xyz, and then in the 20th century the doctrine xyz is the subject of numerous books pointing to its belief by the Early Church this has 2 effects. First, the criticism is unfounded and may be dismissed as such. Second, the existence of such a doctrine in the 1840’s requires explanation and “God as the source” becomes more likely than it was before.
4. 1-3 does not mean that LDS emphasize ORTHDOXY like Catholics do. Nothing in 1-3 is inconsistent with a lack of emphasis upon ORTHDOXY.
   Charity, TOm

LDS want it both ways. Not preserving doctrine, is exactly why LDS say there was an apostasy. Yet, you want doctrines to change, because change indicates to you that there is ongoing revelation.

Of course, this is where your pragmatism comes in. Not preserving doctrines is only a favorable indicator when it supports LDS belief. The same for changing doctrine.

I hope you can understand, this twisting and turning to maintain a favorable view of Mormonism no matter what, is viewed as dishonest by those who don’t share your biases.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor;12912006:

So, I know that a pope or a Cardinal/Saint/Doctor can be theologically mistaken even concerning faith and morals (or in this case concerning the content of what is “faith and morals.”

Stephen168,
I had already read post #33 and I just re-read it. I think this might be some of our disconnect that we frequently experience.
Post #33 is built upon interpretation of scripture not shared/understood by the folks I referenced in my post. Tertullian, Pope Eluetherius, the majority of the church that considered the Shepard inspired, the numerous folks who considered the Epistle of Barnabas inspired, … these folks had the books of the Bible. Tertullian is one of the Father’s used to show how widespread quoting of scripture was. But the Church did not understand that revelation would end. They didn’t claim it had ended. They didn’t read those scriptures as the Catholic Church does today.
So my thought on Post #33 was that I had already anticipated it when in post #32 I said:

Thus I didn’t think I need to respond to past #33. You are welcome to your modern interpretation of the Bible, but I am point to the understanding folks like Pope Eluertherius and Tertullian had!

I thought I would point out your dishonesty as I did in post #31. You know that quote mining does nothing to prove the teaching of the Church. The disconnect is caused by your dishonesty.

The reason you cannot respond to post #33 is because it is based on the Christian New Testament which Mormons reject. The New Testament clearly says that Jesus Christ is The revelation; the Word of God. When he ascended into heaven the Church knew there would be no more revelation.

No, there is no dishonesty on my part, but thank you again for calling me a liar!
I recognize that the UNIVERSAL (as best I can tell) belief that revelation continued for over 1 century after Christ’s death was never dogmatically declared at a council (there were no councils other than the Council of Jerusalem - which was attended by folks who could receive revelation). My point in showing what all Christians believed was to show what all Christians believed not to show what Catholic authority declared DOGMA.
I might presume from your response you believe the only thing BELIEVED is that which is declared authoritatively by a council, and what ALL Christians believed outside of a council during the times between a council is either in PERFECT accord with the conciliar declarations OR is irrelevant. I have no such faith in Catholic councils. This doesn’t make me a liar, just a non-Catholic.
So, I presented evidence that a number of folks (even most folks from some of my evidence) did not believe revelation ended. You declared that because I know that there are things that rise to the level of DOGMA and things that do not, I am lying. You also seem to claim that the New Testament unambiguously declares that there will be no more revelation, but the early church and I disagree with your MODERN interpretation.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

So, I presented evidence that a number of folks (even most folks from some of my evidence) did not believe revelation ended.

You never provided ANY evidence. You made claims about what people thought but provided no proof of that. In the past, when you have provided proof, it was shown to be a misunderstanding on your part at best, and a fabrication at worst.

On the other hand in post #33 there are many quotes from the New Testament which you must ignore.

I also think the example of the Mormon Church having frequently changing dogma due to “continuing revelation” of a “prophet” was a hazard understood by the earliest Christians.

 

[kimg901]

Sophistry is the word, and along with a pragmatic bias, it is Tom’s main approach.

Thanks Rebecca. It was right there and I couldn’t think of it!!!

 

[Arandur]

I submit … Let us acknowledge … that LDS start from the fact/belief/conviction that a restoration occurred initiated by God through Joseph Smith. From this point many ideas have surfaced to explain why GOD felt the need to restore something and what that thing was that was lacking. Are there doctrines believed in some form by the early church that were almost universally mocked when Joseph Smith “restored” them? Yes.

I always find this one interesting. Just what do you think was distinctly preached by Smith (and successors) that you can show evidence for being believed in the early Church?

Let me offer you a shorter argument that I think is more solid:
Let us acknowledge that God is the same unchangeable being from everlasting to everlasting (D&C 20:17). Let us acknowledge that Christians, Jews, and Muslims all believe that God delivered revelation for all mankind through prophets of the Old Testament. We might say there is a “Chair of Moses” and Moses received revelation for all mankind. Let us acknowledge that Christians all believe that God delivered revelation for all mankind through Apostles (Prophet being one who speaks for God). Some Christians (Catholics) might even say there is a “Chair of Peter” which is the New Testament “Chair of Moses.”
We may lose some Protestants here, but the Catholics should follow along quite nicely. Let us acknowledge that there is a man today who sits in the “Chair of Moses/Chair of Peter” and that this man is the earthly leader of God’s church on earth. Of the handful of faiths that claim to have someone who is the valid successor of Moses, the valid successor of Peter, there is only one church that claims that God still communicates via revelation through Peter’s successor to the world. That is the CoJCoLDS. Others who claim to have someone who leads in the Chair of Peter of necessity must claim that God CHANGED the way He leads His church because for millennia these folks have not received revelation like Peter and Moses did.
I submit that God still leads His church as He did in the Old Testament, as He did in the New Testament, and as He does in the Restoration Testament by revelation! Thus, the church with the most solid claim of being God’s church on earth today is the CoJCoLDS.

I think this whole avenue is poorly conceived. There is no pattern from Scripture or history to support it. There have been several changes in priesthood (which Hebrews notes, and notes calls for a distinct change), as well as in leadership and the manner in which God both covenants with His people and in how He leads them. From Adam to Enoch to Noah to Shem to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to Moses, to the judges, kings, Davidic Kings, Temple eras, High Priests, etc. One can easily chart many changes in the manner of leadership of the people.

The one constancy is that there IS a continuance of the faithful, and of a line of authority, throughout time–particularly visible since Abraham. Smith’s position is that this continuity is totally broken – twice. And the first time it happens is AFTER Jesus’s Saving Work, AFTER the institution of the New Covenant in His Blood, AFTER the Holy Spirit is granted in a uniquely powerful way for the very first time to His Church.

It’s such a strange, illogical suggestion that it warrants a

Moreover, the whole notion that a single prophet has presided over the faithful, using the sort of revelation that Smith claimed, is also demonstrably false. That’s just not what the Scriptures record.

 

[JaminB123]

Just what do you think was distinctly preached by Smith (and successors) that you can show evidence for being believed in the early Church?

This is a great question. I asked TOm similarly in a different thread: “If the CoJCoLDS is a restoration of the church headed by Christ and St. Peter, why is it that we don’t find any record of early and current Mormon practices (polyandrous/polygamist marriage, Masonic handshakes, undergarment requirements, marriage in heaven, racist exclusions to holding the priesthood, prohibition on alcohol, acceptance of divorce, etc.) in the early Christian church?”

I don’t feel I ever received a good, direct answer to the question… which I suppose is an answer in and of itself. If Mormonism is a restoration of the early church, why is there no evidence of the things they claim to be “restoring”?

 

[Jerusha]

The only restored the wackiness of Gnosticism. But Joseph had access to Mosheim, who described some of the Gnostic beliefs.

 

[Arandur]

Maybe someday it will sink in, that Jesus Christ is THE Christian Revelation. Period.

The Holy Spirit is given to Christ’s Church. Inspired by the Spirit, She is led to all truth. Jesus did not leave us as orphans to wander around, poking in the dark, hoping to get it right. The Mormon lack of faith in this matter, is the most telling thing of all about Mormonism. Mormonism NEEDS the failure of Christ’s Church, so it is manufactured from nothing.

There is nothing to restore. The Revelation of Jesus Christ is the central Revelation of Christians. Not Joseph Smith or any other number of people who have claimed to be prophet-usurpers, through the ages.

Maybe someday it will sink in, that Jesus Christ is THE Christian Revelation. Period.

The Holy Spirit is given to Christ’s Church. Inspired by the Spirit, She is led to all truth. Jesus did not leave us as orphans to wander around, poking in the dark, hoping to get it right. The Mormon lack of faith in this matter, is the most telling thing of all about Mormonism. Mormonism NEEDS the failure of Christ’s Church, so it is manufactured from nothing.

There is nothing to restore. The Revelation of Jesus Christ is the central Revelation of Christians. Not Joseph Smith or any other number of people who have claimed to be prophet-usurpers, through the ages.

This is THE key point, really. I forget to highlight it sometimes. There is a passage in the Catechism, taken from a quote from St. John of the Cross, that illustrates the issue nicely:
“In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word - and he has no more to say. . . because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behavior but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty.”

The whole CCC series in context is wonderful about this topic, actually.
scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a1.htm#67
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a1.htm

Put simply, IF Jesus IS God Himself, the Word, the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and IF he became fully man and therefore revealed himself to us as fully as possible by becoming one of us, then how is it possible that there could be any more revelation, that revelation could somehow be incomplete?

You would not only be guilty of saying that Jesus held something back (he went through great pains to hold NOTHING back from us), didn’t finish his work, or lied, but that he simply was either not fully God or not fully man.

Ultimately, I find that usually we’re really using different meanings and distinctions of the terms “revelation” and “prophecy,” whenever this is discussed in contention. What the Catholic Church means by “revelation” is very specific in its different contexts. What others such as restoration movements mean is a mish-mash of many senses with very little understanding of the important distinctions of meaning. In the sense they most often really mean it when they say that “revelation” should continue within the Church, we Catholics would agree–yes, God DOES still guide the Church. It’s called the Magisterium (when we talk of definitive guidance about doctrine), the apostolic offices, and the Sensis Fidelis. To a Catholic, yes, of course God still works in His Church. That’s the whole point–and that’s why there can only be one true Church, and why the Catholic Church is the only one that could ever be it.

 

[Xavierlives]

It has been a while since I have posted on the forums, but I guess the Mormons have given up defending their faith here?

 

[Jerusha]

It has been a while since I have posted on the forums, but I guess the Mormons have given up defending their faith here?

Yep. Lost cause.

 

[Janderich]

Put simply, IF Jesus IS God Himself, the Word, the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and IF he became fully man and therefore revealed himself to us as fully as possible by becoming one of us, then how is it possible that there could be any more revelation, that revelation could somehow be incomplete?

Jesus did not simply want to become one of us. Christ becoming mortal is clearly insufficient, as evidenced by his apostles, for even they did not understand him during his life time. If Christ becoming man is the extent of revelation to us then I boldly proclaim that he failed and never did and never will lead us to eternal life. But thankfully, such is not the case.

No, Christ intends something much more, he wants us to become one with him. This is his testimony on the Mt. of Olives, “And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth. …That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thous has sent me” (John 17:19,21). And even then revelation will not end. For revelation is knowledge, and revelation is truth. And “what power shall stay the heavens? as well might man stretch forth his puny arm to stop the Missouri river in its decreed course, or to turn it up stream, as to hinder the Almighty from pouring down knowledge from heaven upon the heads of the Latter-day Saints” (D&C 121:33), as well as many others who so seek it.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Jesus did not simply want to become one of us. Christ becoming mortal is clearly insufficient, as evidenced by his apostles, for even they did not understand him during his life time. If Christ becoming man is the extent of revelation to us then I boldly proclaim that he failed and never did and never will lead us to eternal life. But thankfully, such is not the case.

No, Christ intends something much more, he wants us to become one with him. This is his testimony on the Mt. of Olives, “And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth. …That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thous has sent me” (John 17:19,21). And even then revelation will not end. For revelation is knowledge, and revelation is truth. And “what power shall stay the heavens? as well might man stretch forth his puny arm to stop the Missouri river in its decreed course, or to turn it up stream, as to hinder the Almighty from pouring down knowledge from heaven upon the heads of the Latter-day Saints” (D&C 121:33), as well as many others who so seek it.

Boldly proclaiming something that is false, does not make that something true.

Luke 24:

36 While they were still speaking about this, he stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be with you.”
37 But they were startled and terrified and thought that they were seeing a ghost.
38 Then he said to them, “Why are you troubled? And why do questions arise in your hearts?
39 Look at my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me and see, because a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you can see I have.”
40 And as he said this, he showed them his hands and his feet.
41 While they were still incredulous for joy and were amazed, he asked them, “Have you anything here to eat?”
42 They gave him a piece of baked fish;
43 he took it and ate it in front of them.
44 He said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and in the prophets and psalms must be fulfilled.”
45 Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures.
46 And he said to them, “Thus it is written that the Messiah would suffer and rise from the dead on the third day
47 and that repentance, for the forgiveness of sins, would be preached in his name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
48 You are witnesses of these things.
49 And [behold] I am sending the promise of my Father upon you; but stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”

I find it sad, that you believe Jesus to be such a poor teacher. That even after having risen from death, he attended to the Apostle’s formation, and strengthened them in their understanding. Promising then, to send the Holy Spirit that would clothe them with the power from on high. And you dare boldly proclaim Jesus a failure!

Of course, this event is followed by Pentecost, where Jesus fulfills the promise given to the Apostles in several ways and teachings, and given again, here in the last chapter of Luke, in verse 49.

Further, blessing them as HIS witnesses(verse 48). And you dare boldly proclaim that Jesus failed.

Jesus fulfilled His promise, of sending the Holy Spirit, which further strengthened the Apostles, Mary, Jesus’ Mother and all his disciples.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Jesus did not simply want to become one of us. Christ becoming mortal is clearly insufficient, as evidenced by his apostles, for even they did not understand him during his life time. If Christ becoming man is the extent of revelation to us then I boldly proclaim that he failed and never did and never will lead us to eternal life. But thankfully, such is not the case.

No, Christ intends something much more, he wants us to become one with him. This is his testimony on the Mt. of Olives, “And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth. …That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thous has sent me” (John 17:19,21). And even then revelation will not end. For revelation is knowledge, and revelation is truth. And “what power shall stay the heavens? as well might man stretch forth his puny arm to stop the Missouri river in its decreed course, or to turn it up stream, as to hinder the Almighty from pouring down knowledge from heaven upon the heads of the Latter-day Saints” (D&C 121:33), as well as many others who so seek it.

You really have a very low opinion of God incarnate, He’s just another man to you.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Jesus fulfills His promise, taught in the last chapter of Luke, that the Apostles would be clothed with power from on high.

Act 2:

1 When the time for Pentecost was fulfilled, they were all in one place together.
2 And suddenly there came from the sky a noise like a strong driving wind, and it filled the entire house in which they were.
3 Then there appeared to them tongues as of fire, which parted and came to rest on each one of them.
4 And they were all filled with the holy Spirit and began to speak in different tongues, as the Spirit enabled them to proclaim.

What effect does the Holy Spirit have on the Apostles? Let’s look to Peter, who denied Jesus and then at Pentecost stood with the Eleven, strengthened in full understanding, proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ as the witnesses they were chosen, by Christ, to be. (Do you think this was sham on their part?)

14 Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice, and proclaimed to them, “You who are Jews, indeed all of you staying in Jerusalem. Let this be known to you, and listen to my words.
15 These people are not drunk, as you suppose, for it is only nine o’clock in the morning.
16 No, this is what was spoken through the prophet Joel:
17 ‘It will come to pass in the last days,’ God says,
‘that I will pour out a portion of my spirit upon all flesh.
Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
your young men shall see visions,
your old men shall dream dreams.
18 Indeed, upon my servants and my handmaids
I will pour out a portion of my spirit in those days,
and they shall prophesy.
19 And I will work wonders in the heavens above
and signs on the earth below:
blood, fire, and a cloud of smoke.
20 The sun shall be turned to darkness,
and the moon to blood,
before the coming of the great and splendid day of the Lord,
21 and it shall be that everyone shall be saved who calls on
the name of the Lord.’
22 You who are Israelites, hear these words. Jesus the Nazorean was a man commended to you by God with mighty deeds, wonders, and signs, which God worked through him in your midst, as you yourselves know.
23 This man, delivered up by the set plan and foreknowledge of God, you killed, using lawless men to crucify him.
24 But God raised him up, releasing him from the throes of death, because it was impossible for him to be held by it.
25 For David says of him:
‘I saw the Lord ever before me,
with him at my right hand I shall not be disturbed.
26 Therefore my heart has been glad and my tongue has exulted;
my flesh, too, will dwell in hope,
27 because you will not abandon my soul to the netherworld,
nor will you suffer your holy one to see corruption.
28 You have made known to me the paths of life;
you will fill me with joy in your presence.’
29 My brothers, one can confidently say to you about the patriarch David that he died and was buried, and his tomb is in our midst to this day.
30 But since he was a prophet and knew that God had sworn an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants upon his throne,
31 he foresaw and spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, that neither was he abandoned to the netherworld nor did his flesh see corruption.
32 God raised this Jesus; of this we are all witnesses.
33 Exalted at the right hand of God, he received the promise of the holy Spirit from the Father and poured it forth, as you (both) see and hear.
34 For David did not go up into heaven, but he himself said:
‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand
35 until I make your enemies your footstool.”’
36 Therefore let the whole house of Israel know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified.”
37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and they asked Peter and the other apostles, “What are we to do, my brothers?”
38 Peter [said] to them, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit.
39 For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call.”
40 He testified with many other arguments, and was exhorting them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.”
41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand persons were added that day.

And you dare boldly proclaim that Jesus failed, and that the Apostles failed to understand.

It is the false teachings of Joseph Smith and his successors that have removed you from understanding.

 

[Arandur]

Jesus did not simply want to become one of us. Christ becoming mortal is clearly insufficient, as evidenced by his apostles, for even they did not understand him during his life time.

From another poster on a different thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=219350&postcount=5

---

The faith was delivered once for all to the Apostles:
In John 14:25-26, Jesus said to the Apostles, “These things I have spoken to you, while I am still with you. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, **he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.” **
In John 16:12-13, Jesus said to the Apostles, “I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.”

In Jude 1:3, it says, "Beloved, being very eager to write to you of our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints."
Anything contrary to the original teachings (traditions), which were received from the Apostles either by word of mouth or by letter, is to be avoided like the plague.
In 1 Cor 11:2, St. Paul said, “I commend you because you … maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.”

In 2 Thes 2:15, St. Paul said, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”

In Gal 1:6-9, Paul says, “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel–not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.”

---

Scripture says the Holy Spirit guides us into Truth–this is the Catholic understanding of how the Magisterium operates. We call it guidance, restorationists unhelpfully lump this function in as one of the many blurred senses in which they use the word “revelation.” By that sense, yes, Catholics believe in this sort of revelation.

Of course, the guidance is to “remembrance” of what we would term the “Deposit of Faith”–that faith “once for all delivered to the saints.” That quote from Jude being one of several Scripture passages that, standing alone, in a single sentence, completely annihilates any proposition of a total apostasy or a supposed “restoration” by some later claimant.

No, Christ intends something much more, he wants us to become one with him.

How true! What a pity LDS don’t believe in the Eucharist! Or that the Church is truly united with Christ as his Body and Bride! (for if it were, it could never fail as is claimed by Smith)

“…That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thous has sent me” (John 17:19,21).

Ah, another passage I love, for it shows how the Church must be indefectible to achieve its purpose. This, combined with the Test of Gamaliel, places any advocate of a “total apostasy” in the unenviable (blasphemous, really) position of calling Jesus a fool, a liar, false prophet, unfaithful, etc.

And even then revelation will not end. For revelation is knowledge, and revelation is truth.

And here is where we get into the confusion of senses in which restorationists use the term “revelation.” Catholics use much stricter, better defined senses of the word in our theology. If you want to say all truth = revelation, then sure, what has been revealed will continue to exist. But even with that misleading equation, truth has been revealed (past tense), just not yet (nor ever will be) fully understood. Just as God’s revelation of Himself in Creation will never fully be understood. That is, all the laws of physics and nature, all the physical world, is “truth” revealed and open to us. We just don’t understand it.

It is similar with Christ. God came to us fully on our own level, revealed Himself fully to us in Christ, gave us everything that we need for salvation. We as a Church are just plumbing the infinite depths of that revelation, under the Holy Spirit’s guidance. That the Spirit guides is “continuing revelation” of a different sort than the definitive revelation of God through Christ, and the means of salvation through Christ. That God still grants visions and prophecy and insights into the Divine (private revelation) is a different sort of revelation than what we are talking about, with different subject matter and different persons for whom it is intended and different manners for which it is to be received.

We speak of God’s revealing of Himself to the whole human race, and all the means of salvation necessary for us to be saved, being complete in Christ. Scripture allows no other possibility; neither does logic, nor Tradition.