CA article: "What's Your Authority?" Discussion

[TOmNossor]

LivingWaters7,
Concerning the Vision of Pope Leo XIII.
You are suggesting it would seem that this is a revelation give to Pope Leo XIII for the church. It is not “public revelation” because the truth claims associated with the vision or absent the vision have no bearing on the salvation of people.

This vision is not in the category of things I am asking about. It is IMO important for the salvation of thousands of Catholics whether the remarried can take communion. If the Pope claimed to receive a revelation on this subject would it be a revelation, would it be public revelation.

Do you believe Pope Leo XIII received inspiration like the authors of scripture?

Now, if you believe Pope Leo’s vision was from God, what happened at the end of the 75-100 years to either show Satan’s victory or God’s. The link you point to is very clear that Satan didn’t win, but that the church headed by Pope Francis is not the Catholic Church in communion with the Apostles. I am not sure how familiar you are with these Catholic controversies, but I have mentioned them here a few times (the Most Holy Family Monastery from a recent thread is a favorite of one of my Ultra Trad friends).

What many Catholics on this board in unison with many Ultra-Trads claim is “preservation of tradition” it cannot be.

Be all that as it may or may not be, the Vision of Pope Leo XIII would not have been tagged as “public revelation” by either my original definition or be the definition I am exploring.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

We would agree with this statement. What I don’t understand is if Public Revelation is the set of truths that contain all

that is necessary for salvation then how can you believe in continuing revelation? Does that mean that you might not have all that is necessary for salvation right now? What about the poor folks 100 years ago? And if revelation always continues does anyone ever have all that is necessary for salvation? They can’t. That is an impossibility if you believe the definition you have given.

From the Christian point of view, Jesus revealed all that is necessary for our salvation which is exactly why we are in no need of further revelation.
I am glad I was able to restate a position.
My two challenges to that in post #50 and clarified and restated in post #59 are my attempts to interact with that definition and explain why it doesn’t solve this question for me.

You asked, " What I don’t understand is if Public Revelation is the set of truths that contain all that is necessary for salvation then how can you believe in continuing revelation?"

From a LDS perspective as I understand this, I do not see salvation as a product of embracing truths that are contained in the “set of truths that are necessary for salvation.” I do believe modalist LDS and tri-theist LDS and Social Trinitarian LDS can (along with numerous non-LDS) embrace that which is necessary to receive the fullest gifts God desires to bestow upon us. As long as ones modalism or ones tri-theism does not interfere with ones relationship with Christ and the transformative power that relationship provides in our lives, then theological propositions are much less important. It is also true that LDS believe that we have centuries of pre-mortal experiences with God. So while from my HUMAN viewpoint I can acknowledge that some theology would likely make relationship with God more or less embraceable (just like going through life without burdens like childhood cancer or other difficulties could have an impact), I believe that EVERY person has the PERFECT set of challenges and advantages to lead them into the perfect relationship with God (it is how we approach God through those challenges that determines if we will accept what He offers us or reject Him due to the challenges).

That being said there are two purposes for revelation/inspiration within the CoJCoLDS. We too want to be guided to a more full understanding of God and His purpose for our lives (and personal as well as public revelation can be part of our guidance and custom challenges). General Authorities have the ability to receive revelation for the guiding of the world toward this more full understanding. This can only enhance our ability to “know God,” but to “know God” is to have an interpersonal relationship with Him not to know true propositions about his nature and being. Secondly, revelation/inspiration is offered to deal with specific issues be they for an individual/local congregation/church as a whole. We do not believe that the intelligent men who lead the church are guided only by their intelligence in resolving issue, but are inspired from God in resolving issues, making mission assignments, and doing numerous other things.

If Cardinal Coccopalmerio and Tettamanzi are correct about the proper way to deal with the remarried and the Eucharist and not partaking of the Eucharist for the remarried is not the ONLY option (as per a 1984 document written by Cardinal Ratzinger and approved by Pope John Paul II) I cannot see how this does not have a rather direct and profound impact upon the salvation of thousands of people. It would seem to me that a decision on this would be a decision that impacts the “set of truths necessary for salvation.”

Peter received revelation about Jewish dietary laws and how this would impact the Christian Church. The Jerusalem Council made a decision about the “burden of circumcision” and if this would be part of the Christian Church.
It would seem to me that the “burden of annulments OR abstinence” could be resolved by revelation and would have just as large of an impact on salvation for many as the “burden of circumcision” might have had.

To summarize:
Do you see the two or so problems I point to with respect to saying “public revelation” is all that is necessary for salvation and it is COMPLETE? What should I understand differently?
Do you see why I do not believe within a LDS context continued revelation denies that 1836 LDS (or 1722 Catholics) are saved. The idea that knowing or possessing, “the set of truths that contain all that is necessary for salvation” has little to do with receiving the gifts God desires to bestow upon His children (individually or collectively).
Charity, TOm

 

[LivingWaters7]

Tom,

I see no need to get into long winded hypotheticals, as my position on this matter, which is the Catholic position, is very simple. You seem to be confused as to what exactly I am stating, so hopefully this post will clarify:

No, I am not suggesting that Pope Leo XIII’s vision was a revelation for the Church, nor that it was public revelation (I’m not sure where I implied such a thing, especially when the link was given without comment). The Catholic belief is that, as I have already stated, public revelation, the Deposit of Faith, is complete. There is no more public revelation to be had. Public revelation contains all that is necessary for salvation, and that revelation, personified in the Divine Person, Jesus Christ, is finished. There will not be a day down the road where a Pope will claim that God revealed a new sacrament necessary for salvation to him, for example. That public revelation is contained in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Having said that, Catholics also believe that as time passes, we continue to unfold and understand that public revelation, through the Holy Spirit. Through the Holy Spirit, God provides more clarity and a fuller understanding of what has already been revealed. When the Church has Ecumenical Councils, or instances of Papal Infallibility, we do not believe that these are completely new definitions of the Truth. The Councils on the nature of God did not reveal completely new ideas about God. It has always been believed that there is one God who eternally exists as three distinct Persons. What the Councils did, and do, is formally define what has been believed, and expand on it, with the protection of the Holy Spirit.

As Catholics, we readily accept the reality of visions and revelations from Heaven given to man. Our history is filled with examples of such things (the most well known examples being those involving Mary). These are termed “private revelations” because we are not required to believe them, although the Church may say that certain revelations are indeed worthy of belief. With the vision of Pope Leo XIII, I did not post it as an example of public revelation (since, as I had stated before I posted it, we believe that public revelation is complete), but as an example of how a Pope could receive a revelation that prompts him to do something (such as state that the Prayer of St. Michael should be part of the Mass).

As far as the Eucharist for the [invalidly] remarried, all I will say (because that is completely off topic) is that, going with the theme of public revelation, the Church will never change its definition of marriage (since that is part of public revelation, the Deposit of Faith).

That’s all, as I won’t participate further in derailing the thread.

 

[pablope]

No. I’m quite fallible.

Jon

Okay…so how can you be sure that no one if infallible?

 

[SteveVH]

I am glad I was able to restate a position.
My two challenges to that in post #50 and clarified and restated in post #59 are my attempts to interact with that definition and explain why it doesn’t solve this question for me.

You asked, " What I don’t understand is if Public Revelation is the set of truths that contain all that is necessary for salvation then how can you believe in continuing revelation?"

From a LDS perspective as I understand this, I do not see salvation as a product of embracing truths that are contained in the “set of truths that are necessary for salvation.” I do believe modalist LDS and tri-theist LDS and Social Trinitarian LDS can (along with numerous non-LDS) embrace that which is necessary to receive the fullest gifts God desires to bestow upon us. As long as ones modalism or ones tri-theism does not interfere with ones relationship with Christ and the transformative power that relationship provides in our lives, then theological propositions are much less important. It is also true that LDS believe that we have centuries of pre-mortal experiences with God. So while from my HUMAN viewpoint I can acknowledge that some theology would likely make relationship with God more or less embraceable (just like going through life without burdens like childhood cancer or other difficulties could have an impact), I believe that EVERY person has the PERFECT set of challenges and advantages to lead them into the perfect relationship with God (it is how we approach God through those challenges that determines if we will accept what He offers us or reject Him due to the challenges).

That being said there are two purposes for revelation/inspiration within the CoJCoLDS. We too want to be guided to a more full understanding of God and His purpose for our lives (and personal as well as public revelation can be part of our guidance and custom challenges). General Authorities have the ability to receive revelation for the guiding of the world toward this more full understanding. This can only enhance our ability to “know God,” but to “know God” is to have an interpersonal relationship with Him not to know true propositions about his nature and being. Secondly, revelation/inspiration is offered to deal with specific issues be they for an individual/local congregation/church as a whole. We do not believe that the intelligent men who lead the church are guided only by their intelligence in resolving issue, but are inspired from God in resolving issues, making mission assignments, and doing numerous other things.

If Cardinal Coccopalmerio and Tettamanzi are correct about the proper way to deal with the remarried and the Eucharist and not partaking of the Eucharist for the remarried is not the ONLY option (as per a 1984 document written by Cardinal Ratzinger and approved by Pope John Paul II) I cannot see how this does not have a rather direct and profound impact upon the salvation of thousands of people. It would seem to me that a decision on this would be a decision that impacts the “set of truths necessary for salvation.”

Peter received revelation about Jewish dietary laws and how this would impact the Christian Church. The Jerusalem Council made a decision about the “burden of circumcision” and if this would be part of the Christian Church.
It would seem to me that the “burden of annulments OR abstinence” could be resolved by revelation and would have just as large of an impact on salvation for many as the “burden of circumcision” might have had.

To summarize:
Do you see the two or so problems I point to with respect to saying “public revelation” is all that is necessary for salvation and it is COMPLETE? What should I understand differently?
Do you see why I do not believe within a LDS context continued revelation denies that 1836 LDS (or 1722 Catholics) are saved. The idea that knowing or possessing, “the set of truths that contain all that is necessary for salvation” has little to do with receiving the gifts God desires to bestow upon His children (individually or collectively).
Charity, TOm

So revelation has nothing to do with salvation? Is that your position?

 

[Stephen168]

I have looked to the Fathers and I see DEVELOPMENT or CHANGE (they are related) and I see this occurring via an authority that claims to not receive revelation.
LivingWaters7;12784657:

What is your understanding of the Catholic

understanding of “public revelation”? What does it mean when Catholics state that “public revelation” is complete? What is “public revelation” to a Catholic?

Truth be told, I think I could use some education on this topic.

Interesting.

No, I’m not mistaken (and I invite any other actual Catholics to comment as to whether I am mistaken).

I read your blog on the subject and it was very well done. Most interesting was how the claims of the Catholic Church and the Mormon Church are very similar. And how the claims Mormonism makes about Christians, especial the Catholic Church are wrong. In the comments- how, in Mormonism, current ‘prophecy’ trumps previous ‘prophecy’ so how can one feel comfortable with current ‘prophecy.’

Of course the subject of this thread is authority. As I have shown, the authority claimed by Mormonism is inconsistent with Christian history, and inconsistent with its own history; as I noted in posts #28 and #58.

Tom, being a heterodox Mormon, tries to make claims about Mormonism which Mormonism doesn’t make about itself. In this thread he claims: In Mormonism, changing doctrine is OK because of continuing revelation. As I pointed out in post #55, this is not true.

So ‘revelation’ as Tom is trying to use it is a red herring on the subject of authority. And on the subject of Christian authority, Mormonism’s claims fail.

 

[Tarquin]

Originally Posted by Tarquin
No, my statement points out the fact that fiction writers contradict themselves in their writing.

My point is that the author of the BOM did not contradiction himself in his understanding of the geography he was describing. Joseph Smith’s statements (maybe writing) about BOM geography produce contradictions with the BOM and with themselves. He didn’t even know if the BOM described 100’s of miles or 1000’s of miles. But, the author of the BOM described a consistent geography.

My point is that a fiction writer would contradict himself; you admit that Joseph Smith contradicted himself. By the same token, the author of the Book of Mormon contradicted himself in terms of its fictional geography.

And of course you know I believe the alter inscribed before 600BC with NHM is as direct of a HIT as possible for the BOM considering it is in the correct relationship to Jerusalem AND Bountiful and the correct time (and any inscription would not have vowels). But I think you have subscribed to the “wrong vowel sounds and .” that discounts Nahom. I find this baffling, but perhaps such is my blinders.

No, you misunderstand. Yes, it is your blinders. It is not just vowels but different consonants, as well as torturing the name of a place out of the name of a tribe inscribed on an altar - to say nothing of the total lack of evidence linking the location of the altar with the location of a wandering group of Jewish Christians 600 BC - and all the other details provided elsewhere…

[Originally Posted by Tarquin
[COLOR=“RoyalBlue”]By “less said,” I was obviously referring to what Joseph Smith said in the Book of Mormon about Book of Mormon geography, not to what has been said nearly 200 years later. … … Applying my comment about “the less said” to modern Mormon Anthropologists/Archeologists is called building a straw man argument, as you well know.

I knew what you were referring too perhaps you misunderstood my response, but I am glad we agree that 600 is unequal to “less.” And I do not think I am building a strawman instead I think you merely misunderstood me (probably due to my poor communication).In that case, if you knew what I was referring to, you intentionally distorted or ignored it, by seemingly arguing against it via a straw-man argument you put place of it. There is no joy in an agreement that is irrelevant to the issue. Of course 600 is unequal to “less” but the 600 has absolutely nothing to do with what was being addressed. We can just as easily say ten million or the square of a thousand is unequal to “less” - it would be as pertinent - in other words, impertinent. No, I did not misunderstand you. Instead of addressing the problem with Joseph Smith, you directed your attention to what someone had written over a century after his time. That is not misunderstanding; that is avoidance.

If you are open minded you should read Sorensons book Mormon Codex, and stop demanding the BOM took place in NY. I can acknowledge that the plates being in Palmyra I does nothing positive for the Mesoamerican theory. But 20+ years of fleeing with no geographic references is a naturalistic way to explain how Moroni might have gotten the plates to NY. I generally favor supernatural ways, but I really find neither problematic.

Ha ha that is rich! I do not “demand” the BOM took place in NY. I simply point out that that is where it obviously is centered, based on what Joseph Smith said about it; what the Book of Mormon said about it; correlations of place names; what all the early prophets believed about it, and preached when they preached on that subject. I rather enjoyed the Malaysia argument, so that shows I’m open-minded. An open mind would recognize the impossibility of connecting the pagan Nhhm with the fictitious Nay-Home.

And I still cannot see how Nahom is not a powerful and profound HIT for the BOM, but I surely have some form of bias/blinders that try as I might (and I have) I cannot shed.

You bet your sweet bippy you do. As explained ad dolorem mortem, (as I currently understand the factual history, not the “faithful history”) one word is the name of a tribe appearing on an altar which altar and location has nothing to do with migrating Jews, Judaism, or Christianity (at the time it was engraved) - stop, why am I doing this again! It is not “a powerful and profound HIT” because there is absolutely nothing - not a single grain of sand - linking the pagan cemetery with anything - not a single word - in the Book of Mormon, except three ***transliterated ***characters - ‘n’, ‘h’, and ‘l’.

“Well, I think it’s a strong argument.”
Of course you do! You’re a Mormon! You had to convince yourself it’s connected, or you might begin to lose faith, which might lead to apostasy, and that, fellow traveler, must be avoided at all costs.

 

[Tarquin]

Apostles were never part of the founding of the Mormon Church and they didn’t get any authority until Brigham Young claimed they did to gain control of the Mormon Church after the death of Joseph Smith. The crisis that blew the latter-day-saint movement into pieces.

The Mormon Church was 5 years old before there were any Mormon Apostles and the claim that authority comes from Apostles was an invention of Brigham Young; 14 years after the establishment of the Mormon Church.

Important observation. Also, Brigham Young’s election as prophet was invalid. He lacked a proper quorum, and rejected the votes of those who voted against his motion.

I think you are confusing “revelation” with “guidance” and we are speaking past one another.

That is a helpful observation for me, even though it wasn’t me you were addressing. Thank you.

On this board you have shown that you misunderstand Newman, most Catholic beliefs, Christian history, and the scientific proofs against the Book of Mormon. When you are shown how very wrong you are, you stop posting for a few months and then return with the same old stuff again.

That is a useful observation, for me as well as for he. Thanks again.

 

[SteveVH]

My point is that a fiction writer would contradict himself; you admit that Joseph Smith contradicted himself. By the same token, the author of the Book of Mormon contradicted himself in terms of its fictional geography.No, you misunderstand. Yes, it is your blinders. It is not just vowels but different consonants, as well as torturing the name of a place out of the name of a tribe inscribed on an altar - to say nothing of the total lack of evidence linking the location of the altar with the location of a wandering group of Jewish Christians 600 BC - and all the other details provided elsewhere…

Yeah, isn’t it interesting that in our Scriptures the places and the people that are described are real. One can walk in the streets of Jerusalem, and if you have ever been inside the wall it isn’t a whole lot different then it was in the time of Christ. We can go to Galilee, and Bethlehem and Nazareth and roam the ancient cities of Egypt. We can go to Athens and Corinth and view the remnants of the past civilization, which are also very well documented. They’re all there. It is real.

We have evidence of many, many ancient cultures. I live in southwest Colorado, close to some very ancient ruins of the Anaasází (“Ancient Ones”) Indians who lived in the 12th century BC. It was a great civilization and the evidence for that is all over the place, from their cliff dwellings to their intricate pottery, farming techniques, etc., etc. The point is that these folks were around a very long time ago and we know a lot about them from what they left behind. Why? Because they are real. We didn’t make them up.

When one has absolutely not one shred of evidence of any place or people described in a text that is purportedly “sacred” and “inspired” it should give one great pause. I am truly amazed that anyone could buy into the Book of Mormon and therefore to the one who claims to have written it.

Peace.

Steve

 

[TOmNossor]

Tom,

I see no need to get into long winded hypotheticals, as my position on this matter, which is the Catholic position, is very simple. You seem to be confused as to what exactly I am stating, so hopefully this post will clarify:

No, I am not suggesting that Pope Leo XIII’s vision was a revelation for the Church, nor that it was public revelation (I’m not sure where I implied such a thing, especially when the link was given without comment). The Catholic belief is that, as I have already stated, public revelation, the Deposit of Faith, is complete. There is no more public revelation to be had. Public revelation contains all that is necessary for salvation, and that revelation, personified in the Divine Person, Jesus Christ, is finished. There will not be a day down the road where a Pope will claim that God revealed a new sacrament necessary for salvation to him, for example. That public revelation is contained in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Having said that, Catholics also believe that as time passes, we continue to unfold and understand that public revelation, through the Holy Spirit. Through the Holy Spirit, God provides more clarity and a fuller understanding of what has already been revealed. When the Church has Ecumenical Councils, or instances of Papal Infallibility, we do not believe that these are completely new definitions of the Truth. The Councils on the nature of God did not reveal completely new ideas about God. It has always been believed that there is one God who eternally exists as three distinct Persons. What the Councils did, and do, is formally define what has been believed, and expand on it, with the protection of the Holy Spirit.

As Catholics, we readily accept the reality of visions and revelations from Heaven given to man. Our history is filled with examples of such things (the most well known examples being those involving Mary). These are termed “private revelations” because we are not required to believe them, although the Church may say that certain revelations are indeed worthy of belief. With the vision of Pope Leo XIII, I did not post it as an example of public revelation (since, as I had stated before I posted it, we believe that public revelation is complete), but as an example of how a Pope could receive a revelation that prompts him to do something (such as state that the Prayer of St. Michael should be part of the Mass).

As far as the Eucharist for the [invalidly] remarried, all I will say (because that is completely off topic) is that, going with the theme of public revelation, the Church will never change its definition of marriage (since that is part of public revelation, the Deposit of Faith).

That’s all, as I won’t participate further in derailing the thread.
The thread was about a CA article. I assume you agree with me that the CA article made an incorrect statement about the source LDS authority claims (they said the Protestants authority comes from the Bible and LDS authority comes from the BOM).

I do not know how to resolve Vatican I with the claim that the Catholic Church receives revelation/inspiration other than just “private revelation” (which I interpret as merely God’s speaking into the lives of an individual). I had previously held and still lean towards the view that “no public revelation” means “no corporate revelation.”
I will see what SteveVH has to say.
Thank you for your time.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

So revelation has nothing to do with salvation? Is that your position?

No.
My position is that believing a proposition about God like, “Christ has 2 wills” or believing a proposition about God like, “Christ has 1 will” has very little to do with one’s salvation. Folks were excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church for holding what the RCC considers to be the wrong view. Christians alive today hold the “wrong” view. The RCC even pronounced judgments upon those who held the “wrong” view but were dead when this was defined in the 6th Ecumenical Council. I believe Christ has 1 will, but for very different reasons than do the Oriental Orthodox Christians.

An example with direct LDS parallels.
The idea that unbaptized infants who die are not in hell was condemned very explicitly during the Pelegian controversy. I have discussed how I consider non-limbo based “hope for the unbaptized infants” to be difficult if not impossible due to the statements of 2-3 Ecumenical Councils and a number of Popes. LDSs via revelation have received a number of bits of information so that we might know the provisions God has for those who are unbaptized and/or die ignorant of the atonement and even ignorant of God. D&C 138 is one of these “continuing revelations” delivered to Joseph F. Smith the prophet in 1918.
It is my opinion that in 1918 there was greater light and knowledge concerning this vexing question than there was in 1845 (and certainly greater than before 1830). God delivered a revelation of the truth to his prophet. That being said, those who died in 1917 ignorant of this and those who died in 1919 understanding and believing this are in most cases and most ways largely unaffected by this greater light and knowledge when it comes to their salvation.

Also, I believe God will reveal to a member of the twelve where my son should serve his mission. I believe this will have an impact upon the salvation of my son and the salvation of folks he is called to teach. This decision will be made by relying upon revelation from God not just upon intelligent good men and their reasoning.

The more I have thought about the formulation I offered earlier the more I have thought it important.

The Jerusalem Council made a decision about the “burden of circumcision” and if this would be part of the Christian Church. This was made via revelation by men who received revelation. It had no impact upon the salvation of some Jewish men, but as a “burden” could have (and I would suggest the omnipotent God knew it would have) had an impact upon the salvation of some perspective Christians who were not circumcised.
Today the Catholic Church faces a question about the ESSENTIAL (correct?) sacrament of the Eucharist and the remarried. Hundreds+ of Catholics are unworthily receiving the sacrament because they are having marital relations with their second husband/wife and intend to continue doing so. Hundreds+ of Catholics are abstaining from the Eucharist and/or have left the faith primarily or solely because they choose marital relations with their current spouse over the Eucharist. This BURDEN screams to me for the need of revelation, but it cannot be solved in the same way the “burden of circumcision” was solved.

I could formulate a Catholic answer to the above question, but I maintain the revelation is just as valuable to the solution of the “burden of circumcision” as it would be to the “burden of annulments OR abstinence.”

It seems that LivingWaters7 considers my hypotheticals to be off topic. I am offering the hypotheticals because utilizing the definitions provided creates confusion FOR ME and the hypotheticals illustrate this.
Before this thread I viewed the term “Public Revelation” = “Corporate Revelation” and “Private Revelation” = “Individual Revelation.” With this view I still struggle to see how the huge developments documented by Newman and others are not “Corporate Revelation” IF they are guided by God.
With this thread I am exploring the idea that “Public Revelation” = “the set of truths that contain all that is necessary for salvation.” With this view I struggle to see how the huge developments documented by Newman and others are not adding to “the set of truths that are necessary for salvation.” To reject these developments BEFORE they were defined is sometimes a reason for excommunication but usually has little impact upon ones standing in the church. To reject these developments AFTER they are defined is a reason for excommunication and not because of opposition to church authority, but because of HERESY or wrong belief.

Orestes Brownson well stated much of my problems shortly after Newman’s essay and he called Newman’s theory thoroughly Protestant. Four Bishops in America criticized Newman’s essay one asked Brownson to critique it. The essay was received with suspicion in Rome. The Ultra-Trad critics of Vatican II follow Bronson. Even Dollinger and the more scholarly Old Catholics apply Bronson’s ideas to Vatican I. I think applying Bronson’s ideas to many Councils causes similar problems (though Trent may be an exception).

Summary to follow…

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

So revelation has nothing to do with salvation? Is that your position?

So in answer to your question, Revelation matters in the CoJCoLDS.
What you may have detected is that I do not believe orthodoxy or “right belief” is of the same degree of importance in the CoJCoLDS as it is in the Catholic Church.
Revelation answered questions for the Apostolic Church after Christ’s assentation when Apostles lived and Episcopes / Presbyters lived. Sometime after John, Paul, Peter, James, … no longer wrote and spoke some aspect of “revelation” was absent and Episcopes/Presbyters continued on without it.

Charity, TOm

 

[LivingWaters7]

Many LDS are under the mistaken impression that orthodox Christians, including Catholics, believe (or that the implication of their belief is) that God is silent, doesn’t speak anymore, the Heavens are closed, etc. You will see many LDS, including leaders, make these statements either explicitly or implicitly.

The reality is that Catholics believe that Heaven is as open as it has always been, that God still speaks to man, and guidance from Heaven continues. When Catholics speak of public revelation (a technical term) ending, it seems as if LDS want it to mean something that it isn’t, and we see this right in this thread, despite repeated correction. Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit is intimately involved in the workings of the Church. Catholic history is literally filled with examples of the Heavens being open, with many visions, Heavenly visitations, manifestations, etc.

From this article, catholicbasictraining.com/apologetics/coursetexts/1i.htm:

***"Public revelation is the special revelation which God began with His direct communication with His inspired prophets and which ended with the death of the last Apostle (Saint John the Evangelist, around 100 AD). This public revelation is also known as the deposit of faith.

Private revelation can never supplant, contradict or replace public revelation – any private revelation must be in accord with the public revelation, or it is clearly false. This important aspect of private, post-Apostolic special revelation is ignored or denied by groups such as the Mormons, who constantly rely on new alleged “revelations” to support their novel and constantly changing doctrines."

"Private revelation is a form of special revelation which is provided to support and exist in harmony with public revelation. It does not seek to replace or redefine the deposit of faith, but rather seeks to provide a greater understanding of particular devotions which can lead to a growth of spirituality. No private revelation is a source for new teachings (because there are no new teachings) although it can provide confirmation and support for a newly defined doctrine.

Public revelation is the form of special revelation given to the Church by Jesus Christ and passed on via the Apostles and their disciples. This revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle (Saint John, around the year 100 AD) – meaning that all the truths of Christianity were imparted at or before this time and that no new doctrines or teaching can be invented or created – nor can any be removed – if Christianity is to remain authentic.

Sacred Oral Tradition is the form of public special revelation which was not written down under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, although it may have been committed to paper.

Sacred Scripture is the public special revelation which has been written down under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and has been assembled through the actions of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church (acting in accord with the will of God) in the Bible."***

I especially appreciate the concept of the implication of public revelation being complete to mean that no new doctrines or teachings can be invented, created nor removed, if Christianity is to remain authentic. In Mormonism, we see the opposite of this. Within its relatively short history, there have been varying ideas related to the nature of God taught by various LDS leaders (including purported prophets). Such a notion simply is not possible in Catholicism.

 

[SteveVH]

So in answer to your question, Revelation matters in the CoJCoLDS.

That wasn’t the question. I asked whether or not you believed revelation had anything to do with salvation? I’m not really sure why continuing revelation is so important to you. What could possibly be revealed that could be greater than Jesus Christ? What could you possibly need in addition to Jesus Christ?

What you may have detected is that I do not believe orthodoxy or “right belief” is of the same degree of importance in the CoJCoLDS as it is in the Catholic Church.

Yes, I detected that and we are in agreement. Think about what you said. What you are saying is that it really isn’t important whether or not we know the truth. Really? Tell me that I am completely misunderstanding you.

Revelation answered questions for the Apostolic Church after Christ’s assentation when Apostles lived and Episcopes / Presbyters lived.

It allowed us to peer deeper into the one revelation of Christ. No writer of the New Testament gave us new revelation, apart from that of Jesus. They all spoke of and to and about that one revelation, from the Gospel of Matthew to the Book of Revelation. There can be no further revelation. When the ultimate treasure has been found one has no need to keep searching for something more.
TOmNossor;12799779:

Sometime after John, Paul, Peter, James, … no longer wrote and spoke some aspect of “revelation” was absent and Episcopes/Presbyters continued on without it.

What aspect of “revelation” was absent? Polygamy, multiple gods, stories of peoples and places that cannot be supported with any evidence whatsoever? The Church possessed the deposit of faith given once to it by the Apostles, and guarded and protected that deposit of faith from error. No revelation was absent. Just the opposite. The church had the fulfillment of all revelation. The fact that you believe in continuing revelation by definition means that you believe you do not yet have the fulfillment of all revelation. You still need to receive it. May I ask, do you believe that there will ever be one, final revelation, summing up everything he has revealed before?

Peace.

Steve

 

[JonNC]

Okay…so how can you be sure that no one if infallible?

Which one of us is not stained by the fall?

Jon

 

[pablope]

Which one of us is not stained by the fall?

Jon

How does being stained by the fall affect infallibility?

 

[TOmNossor]

By the same token, the author of the Book of Mormon contradicted himself in terms of its fictional geography.

The author of the BOM included 600 New World geographical references/clues. These present a consistent view of a geography.
If you are responding to the things I am saying, then your statement here CAN only mean that you are of the opinion that the BOM text contradicts itself. An example of this might be that on page 23 city X and Z are listed as being on opposite banks of river Y just a stone throw across the river away from one another, then on page 108 city X is on the banks of river Y but city Z is a 5 day journey in the opposite direction. I claim that with 600 references no such contradictions occurred and thus the test you offer for “fiction” shows that the BOM is not fiction (or is well crafted fiction).
Alternatively you may be claiming that the BOM author is Joseph Smith so the BOM may be internally consistent, but the author’s statements (Joseph Smith’s statements) creates the inconsistency. This would be rather blatantly not interacting with what I have been saying, but it is the ONLY way I can understand how you can keep saying what you are saying?

So, what inconsistent geography did the author of the BOM place in the BOM?

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

It is not just vowels but different consonants, as well as torturing the name of a place out of the name of a tribe inscribed on an altar - to say nothing of the total lack of evidence linking the location of the altar with the location of a wandering group of Jewish Christians 600 BC - and all the other details provided elsewhere…

…
An open mind would recognize the impossibility of connecting the pagan Nhhm with the fictitious Nay-Home.
…
one word is the name of a tribe appearing on an altar which altar and location has nothing to do with migrating Jews, Judaism, or Christianity (at the time it was engraved) - stop, why am I doing this again! It is not “a powerful and profound HIT” because there is absolutely nothing - not a single grain of sand - linking the pagan cemetery with anything - not a single word - in the Book of Mormon, except three ***transliterated ***characters - ‘n’, ‘h’, and ‘l’.

The reason NHM is profound is not merely that it is an inscription that dates to the correct timeframe for Lehi’s journey, but that it falls in the exact right place when one walks from Jerusalem, turns at Nahom, and arrives at Bountiful on the Red Sea. Linked to this journey are some 50 or so other points of geographical reference that point to NHM as being Nahom.
You may call this coincidence if you wish, but I still think it significant.

The fact is that 1 Nephi says that a toponym based on the Semitic root NHM existed just after 600 BC in a location considerably down the Arabian Peninsula to the south southeast of the Levant and somewhat inland from the Red Sea, from which, traveling due east, one would arrive at a place with flowing fresh water, iron ore deposits, timber, bountiful vegetation, cliffs, etc. (none of which would have been expected by anybody who didn’t live there or nearby and none of which are exactly common in Arabia). And we now know that a toponym based on the Semitic root NHM did in fact exist circa 600 BC – not 900 AD, nor even 100 AD, nor even 200 or 2200 BC, but circa 600 BC – in a location considerably down the Arabian Peninsula to the south southeast of the Levant and somewhat inland from the Red Sea, from which, traveling due east, one does indeed arrive at a rather unique place with flowing fresh water, iron ore deposits, timber, bountiful vegetation, cliffs, etc. (a place that is, to this day, very little known, bounded as it is by rugged mountains and the horrific Rubâal-Khali desert on the one side and by the Arabian Sea on the other, in a general region that is strikingly unpopulated even by the low standards of the Arabian Peninsula).

Finally, why do you speak of NHL? Is that just a typo? The Altar is NHM, the place in the BOM is Nahom.

In that case, if you knew what I was referring to, you intentionally distorted or ignored it, by seemingly arguing against it via a straw-man argument you put place of it. There is no joy in an agreement that is irrelevant to the issue. Of course 600 is unequal to “less” but the 600 has absolutely nothing to do with what was being addressed. We can just as easily say ten million or the square of a thousand is unequal to “less” - it would be as pertinent - in other words, impertinent. No, I did not misunderstand you. Instead of addressing the problem with Joseph Smith, you directed your attention to what someone had written over a century after his time. That is not misunderstanding; that is avoidance.

Over and over I say that I do not care that Joseph Smith didn’t know where the BOM took place. If the truth claims I believe are True, Joseph Smith being ignorant of the place setting of the BOM fits within that context.
It 600 points of geographic data in the text as extracted by Sorenson and listed in his books. The 600 points are in the BOM not in Joseph Smith’s writings or thoughts or …
I am surely not intentionally distorting anything.
I am accepting your premise that Joseph Smith didn’t write a book based on a real geography. I just believe Joseph Smith “translated” a book based on real geography.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

Important observation. Also, Brigham Young’s election as prophet was invalid. He lacked a proper quorum, and rejected the votes of those who voted against his motion.

Brigham Young didn’t have the authority to even call for a vote because it was Sidney Rigdon that held the “keys to the kingdom.” According to Joseph Smith’s definition of Mormon authority it is not held by the “apostles” in Salt Lake City because Brigham Young never had it.

 

[Stephen168]

The thread was about a CA article. I assume you agree with me that the CA article made an incorrect statement about the source LDS authority claims (they said the Protestants authority comes from the Bible and LDS authority comes from the BOM).

Which can be answered without your anti-Catholic polemics. Like this:

The authority of the CoJCoLDS LIKE the authority of the post ascension (of Christ) church is the divinely chosen, revelation guided, men who are called Apostles and who we believe speak for God (ie they are “prophets” or ones who speak for God).

This is all that was required to correct the CA article on Mormon authority.

You ignore the facts which prove that Mormon Apostles were never meant to have authority over the whole Mormon Church. Apostles were never part of the founding of the Mormon Church and they didn’t get any authority until Brigham Young claimed they did to gain control of the Mormon Church after the death of Joseph Smith. The crisis that blew the latter-day-saint movement into pieces.

Mormon Doctrine changes so quickly that most of the Mormon Apostles seem to have been wrong in their communications with God according to later Mormon Apostles.
The Mormon Church was 5 years old before there were any Mormon Apostles and the claim that authority comes from Apostles was an invention of Brigham Young; 14 years after the establishment of the Mormon Church.

Accepting change as a result of “continuing revelation” is accepting the natural result of continuing revelation. But while you claim here to accept change, the Mormon Church does not and after a review many of your posts including #20 on this thread, I don’t believe you truly accept change either.
Change has been touted by the Mormon Church and every Mormon as being the hallmark of the Great Apostasy. So while you claim to be free to judge by different standards; it is not true.

If I were a Mormon in 1844, it would have been because I believed in the claims of Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith claimed the authority of Mormonism was with the First Presidency; Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith, and Sidney Rigdon. After the death of Joseph and Hyrum Smith on June 27, 1844, the authority of the Church would have been in Rigdon. I would have been a Rigdonite because that is where Joseph Smith claimed the authority to be, and Rigdon also rejected Joseph Smith’s inventions which were inconsistent with the Bible and the Book of Mormon (e.g. polygamy, baptism of the dead, polytheism).
But now we know that many of Joseph Smith’s claims have been proven false. If his claims which are subject to third party verification, like the Book of Mormon, have been proven false, I see no reason to believe claims which can never be verified. Reason would have me conclude Joseph Smith was a false prophet, so I see no reason to move to Monongahela, Pennsylvania.

Tom, being a heterodox Mormon, tries to make claims about Mormonism which Mormonism doesn’t make about itself. In this thread he claims: In Mormonism, changing doctrine is OK because of continuing revelation. As I pointed out in post #55, this is not true.
So ‘revelation’ as Tom is trying to use it is a red herring on the subject of authority. And on the subject of Christian authority, Mormonism’s claims fail.

You can’t support current Mormon teaching on Christian authority, so you avoid it.

Did the gates of Hell prevail against the Mormon ‘Church’ when your presidents taught false doctrine?
Was polygamy a false doctrine?
Was Adam being God a false doctrine?
Was the priesthood banned a false doctrine?
Was Christ’s atonement being insufficient requiring blood atonement a false doctrine?
By who’s authority?