Is "Modern" or "Continuing" Revelation necessary?

[1voice]

I hope all the Good Catholics posting here are in favour of continuing revelation. You ought to be, it’s part of your church’s teachings: catholic.com/library/Private_Revelation.asp

I think the discussion you mean to have is public vs. private revelation. Private revelation is on going so long as the Holy Ghost is present. The Catholic church considers all personal revelation to be private though and not binding on the church as a whole. I am sure that God does speak to individuals but he doesn’t give laws to individuals that bind other men.

I dont know. I look at what happened in the Bible and figure that Jesus probably does the same things today … why would he change? He spoke to Annanias (sp?) … just a regular Christian person and told him that he wanted him to go to Judas’ house and look up Saul/Paul … and pray for him his eyes to be healed and for him to be filled with the Holy Spirit… Whats the difference between then and now? Ananias was not an Apostle … he just knew the Lord’s voice and obeyed. How did he do that? He didnt say: “Who is this really?” … Ananias, just a regular Christian, knew without any question or hesitation who was talking. His only problem was with Paul’s reputation for killing people like … him.
… Jesus said: “My sheep know my voice” He also said … If you obey … you will know the truth and the truth will set you free. Ananias obeyed … and the truth that he obeyed set Paul free to become one of the greatest men that ever lived… why cant that happen now? Joan of Arc … heard God’s voice. John Bosco … heard God. Brother Lawrence knew God personally. What changed?

 

[SteveVH]

In my mind, revelation is how God has always spoken to His children. To say that God has said all He is going to say, is very sad indeed.
If God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, then He will continue to communicate with His children, both individually and collectively.
So in answer to the OP, “modern” or “continuing” revelation IS necessary.

Thanks for your comments Fly.

Do you realize that what you have said is that the Father’s only Word, Jesus Christ, is not sufficient? He has communicated His plan of salvation and the nature of His being in Jesus Christ. It is only in Christ that we are saved. For what else are you looking?

You also know very well that we do not claim that God no longer communicates with His Church or the members of His Church individually. In fact, He continues to draw all men and women to Himself. But all communication centers on the unfolding mystery of Jesus Christ. Would you agree that Christ is the Word? Would you also agree that Christ is God’s only Word?

 

[SteveVH]

I hope all the Good Catholics posting here are in favour of continuing revelation. You ought to be, it’s part of your church’s teachings: catholic.com/library/Private_Revelation.asp

I think the discussion you mean to have is public vs. private revelation. Private revelation is on going so long as the Holy Ghost is present. The Catholic church considers all personal revelation to be private though and not binding on the church as a whole. I am sure that God does speak to individuals but he doesn’t give laws to individuals that bind other men.

You make a great point, mcmullan. Public vs. private revelation is really at the center of the discussion, especially since the Catholic Church, for the most part, is the only Church that draws such a distinction. The distinction is whether or not a revelation wouId or should change Church doctrine. I am not aware that there is any such distinction in Mormonism? Maybe you could educate me here.

Thanks for your comments.

 

[rmcmullan]

The Mormon version is even more layered than public vs. private. But it’s related to the lay priesthood. Let’s say I’m responsible for…well whatever church calling I have. Or for that matter, if I was Catholic, as a father I am responsible for the welfare of my family. So I could get revelation for their benefit or for my benefit if it was to do with a church calling where I work with other people.

Is it binding on them? I don’t think so. If I am prayinging earnestly and I get the impression that my wife should make me 100 grilled cheese sandwiches, that’s for me. I might be able to convince her but I think it’s way off to say something like “Darling, you must make me 100 grilled cheese sandwiches. This is the Lord’s will! He has revealed it to me!” I might tell her that’s what I think and we’ll be blessed if she can do it.

Maybe we are a lot more like you Catholics?

 

[SteveVH]

The Mormon version is even more layered than public vs. private. But it’s related to the lay priesthood. Let’s say I’m responsible for…well whatever church calling I have. Or for that matter, if I was Catholic, as a father I am responsible for the welfare of my family. So I could get revelation for their benefit or for my benefit if it was to do with a church calling where I work with other people.

Is it binding on them? I don’t think so. If I am prayinging earnestly and I get the impression that my wife should make me 100 grilled cheese sandwiches, that’s for me. I might be able to convince her but I think it’s way off to say something like “Darling, you must make me 100 grilled cheese sandwiches. This is the Lord’s will! He has revealed it to me!” I might tell her that’s what I think and we’ll be blessed if she can do it.

Maybe we are a lot more like you Catholics?

As far as the type of private revelation you are speaking of, I would probably call it a “prompting of the Holy Spirit”. This happens through prayer when making major decisions in life such as a job change or moving to another state, for instance.

This thread, however, is intended to take into account larger issues that might affect the Church. In Catholicism, for instance, the apparitions of Mary are extrememly important but have never changed Catholic doctrine, nor are they required to be believed in order to be a faithful Catholic. The children at Fatima had received some very important messages from Mary and that information actually went clear to the Pope. Nevertheless, not one iota of doctrine was changed because of it.

This would be in contrast to revelations in the Mormon Church concerning polygamy and blacks in the priesthood which did an about face based upon “new” revelations. The point is, if “truth” is given through revelation, and that “truth” changes, was it ever a revelation to begin with?

 

[pinay]

This would be in contrast to revelations in the Mormon Church concerning polygamy and blacks in the priesthood which did an about face based upon “new” revelations. The point is, if “truth” is given through revelation, and that “truth” changes, was it ever a revelation to begin with?

I’ve addressed this briefly in a different thread (I think it was the one about “preparedness”). I remember you responded to my mention of Mosaic Law.

So, we both agree that Moses was a prophet. We both agree that Mosaic Law was created by Moses by virtue of revelation. We both agree that Mosaic Law was superceded by a higher law. Does that then mean that what Moses got was not revelation to begin with? Was Moses a false prophet?

We both agree he was not.

So, what we have here is not that “truth” changed. God’s laws are eternal and doesn’t change. The application of the law changes - the practice changes. Because, just like I mentioned in that other thread about how God teaches (Matthew 13) - he teaches to Man according to their understanding. God is perfect and His Word is perfect, but He has to work through the imperfections of Man. Therefore, He teaches line upon line, precept upon precept. Here a little, there a little until we get the fullness of truth.

So that, when the church decreed that nobody can heal the sick on the Sabbath by virtue of “Thou shall keep the Sabbath Day Holy” and then Jesus healed the sick on the Sabbath it is not that God lied or Moses lied.

When Jesus gave the instruction not to preach to the gentiles it wasn’t that He lied when we are now instructed to preach the Word everywhere.

When God instructed to keep the priesthood in the lineage of Levi, it wasn’t that He lied - or Jacob lied - when the priesthood was spread to the tribe of Joseph, and now to all worthy men of any tribe.

Yes, Jesus Christ fulfilled the Word through His atonement. This means that all that is required for our salvation has been revealed. No, this doesn’t mean that we are now fully capable of understanding everything about the Kingdom.

So what does this mean when things change… does this mean the the “truth” is like the flopping of the wind - it can change at any moment’s notice? NO!. The Truth is eternal.

What changes - is MAN’S understanding of the eternal truth.

For example - polygamy.
Jacob had many wives sealed to him by the power of God. David is the same. That’s truth.
Jesus then declared men are to have one wife. Did the truth change???
No. Our understanding changed. Marriage is eternal. Earthly marriage is bound by earthly laws. Eternal marriage is bound by God’s laws. This is not found in Catholic teaching… but, even Catholics agree that neither Jacob nor David were sinners for having more than one wife. So, they reconcile everything through Jesus Christ - that Jesus Christ can CHANGE truth. Nope. He doesn’t. God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. LDS explains the ETERNAL TRUTH of the matter. That marriage is eternal. Marriage does not end in death. So that, a Catholic widow can remarry not because marriage ends in death, but because God’s eternal truth declares that Jacob may have more than one wife if GOD so ORDAINS it.

The wierd thing is Catholics sense the truth of eternal marriage. My devout Catholic grandmother was widowed in World War II. She never remarried. She said she is waiting to be with her husband again when she dies. And I say, Amen, grandma!

 

[flyonthewall]

Thanks for your comments Fly.

Do you realize that what you have said is that the Father’s only Word, Jesus Christ, is not sufficient? He has communicated His plan of salvation and the nature of His being in Jesus Christ. It is only in Christ that we are saved. For what else are you looking?

That is not what I am saying at all. I am saying that God the Father and Jesus Christ are not limited in what they can communicate or say.
God’s communication to Noah was not the same as it was to Abraham or Moses. People of different times and places require different direction. Yes, ultimately it all leads to the same message of Jesus Christ and the atonement, but people in different places need direction taylored to their specific circumstances.

You also know very well that we do not claim that God no longer communicates with His Church or the members of His Church individually. In fact, He continues to draw all men and women to Himself. But all communication centers on the unfolding mystery of Jesus Christ. Would you agree that Christ is the Word? Would you also agree that Christ is God’s only Word?

Yes, I do understand your claim to private revelation. As I see it, If God is not giving public revelation to your church leaders, for the benefit of your church, then God is not leading your church.

As I read through this thread and the different things and ways things are stated, I come away with the sense that we use the term “revelation” differently.
When the Lord opens our understanding about something, that is revelation. If the Pope comes to grasp a concept that was not fully understood before, that is revelation…public revelation because it is for the benefit of the whole church. If the Lord did not reveal that understanding, then it is simply a philosophy of man.

Without “modern” or “continuing” revelation, then there is no new understanding of the things of God, that may have been revealed, but not fully grasped.

This is how I see it anyways.

 

[Chris-WA]

So, what we have here is not that “truth” changed. God’s laws are eternal and doesn’t change. The application of the law changes - the practice changes. Because, just like I mentioned in that other thread about how God teaches (Matthew 13) - he teaches to Man according to their understanding. God is perfect and His Word is perfect, but He has to work through the imperfections of Man. Therefore, He teaches line upon line, precept upon precept. Here a little, there a little until we get the fullness of truth.

I would basically agree with you here, except that Jesus Christ is the fullness of truth par excellence. We Catholics say that Jesus is the definitive revelation of God, and that everything in the Old Testament was primarily in preparation for the coming of Jesus in the fullness of time (what Mormons would call the meridian of time).

Yes, Jesus Christ fulfilled the Word through His atonement. This means that all that is required for our salvation has been revealed. No, this doesn’t mean that we are now fully capable of understanding everything about the Kingdom.

Which is why the Catholic Church believes in the development of doctrine through the protection of the Holy Spirit, which means increased understanding of the truth over time, not new revelation that is 180 deg different than previous revelation.

So what does this mean when things change… does this mean the the “truth” is like the flopping of the wind - it can change at any moment’s notice? NO!. The Truth is eternal.

It does in the LDS world. The LDS church seems to have new revelations whenever it faces heat from external threats. When it faced pressure from the U.S. government, the LDS church had a revelation to suspend polygamy. When it faced pressure from external factors, the LDS church suddenly had a revelation to extend the priesthood to blacks. Neither of these examples fit your argument that God is changing things because of man’s understanding.

For example - polygamy.
Jacob had many wives sealed to him by the power of God. David is the same. That’s truth.

Here you delve into beliefs not shared by others outside the LDS church. We do not believe in sealing, nor do we believe that God orchestrated polygamous marriages.

Jesus then declared men are to have one wife. Did the truth change???
No. Our understanding changed.

No the truth did not change. Marriage was always intended to be between one man and one woman. But neither is it true that our understanding changed. Understanding has nothing to do with it. Moses permitted polygamy because of the hardness of the people’s hearts–as a concession when Israel failed to live up to the covenant. Polygamy has always been an inferior form of marriage, something ancient Israel picked up from the pagan world around them. Then eventually Christ came and set things straight, the way they were always supposed to be. So what did Joseph Smith do 1800 years later? He took marriage a giant step backward again by not only permitting polygamy, but by elevating it to the highest form of marriage as delineated in D&C Sect 132. It’s as if Joseph undid what Christianity repaired 2000 years ago.

Marriage is eternal. Earthly marriage is bound by earthly laws. Eternal marriage is bound by God’s laws. This is not found in Catholic teaching… but, even Catholics agree that neither Jacob nor David were sinners for having more than one wife. So, they reconcile everything through Jesus Christ - that Jesus Christ can CHANGE truth.

No we don’t say that at all. Jesus doesn’t change truth. He simply restored marriage to the state it was always intended to be. Then Joseph Smith undid it 1800 years later.

That marriage is eternal. Marriage does not end in death. So that, a Catholic widow can remarry not because marriage ends in death, but because God’s eternal truth declares that Jacob may have more than one wife if GOD so ORDAINS it.

Marriage is not eternal. It is the way God chose for us to raise children on the earth. Since we are not doing that in heaven, there is no need for marriage, as Christ said so Himself in the New Testament. A Catholic widow being able to remarry on earth has nothing whatsover to do with Jacob having more than one wife simultaneously. The two are totally unrelated.

The wierd thing is Catholics sense the truth of eternal marriage. My devout Catholic grandmother was widowed in World War II. She never remarried. She said she is waiting to be with her husband again when she dies. And I say, Amen, grandma!

No we don’t. Your are just projecting your LDS beliefs onto your Catholic grandmother. It has nothing to do with a belief in eternal marriage.

 

[rmcmullan]

Well I think this does tie in very well with the original topic and addresses some of the points made. I guess the question I want to address is if there is revelation, would it contradict current practices?

SteveVH, a question to you is do you consider the promptings of the HG to be personal revelation? I do but I think perhaps you don’t. I wanto to make sure though.

To my way of thinking, there is the law, based on truth, and there is the law adapted to specific situations. The law is a rule that mostly applies but exceptions are made. The most confounding one I’ve come across is after the 10 commandments are given, including “Thou Shalt Not Kill”, Israel goes in a slaughters every living creature in Jericho. Why’d they do it? Modern revelation. Their prophet told them it was God’s will. That Jericho had been “ripened in iniquity”. They were given similar contradictory instruction when they reached the promised land concerning the Caininites. That didn’t mean they were free to kill whoever they felt like, the general rule still held.

 

[thirddec]

I am lost in this somewhere; accepting that Christ is the word and God; and the Holy Spirit is God as well; and that God was communicating to the Jews before Christ and left a large volume of the scripture with them that we now use and continued to speak or work with the Apostles in creation of the New Testament Books. If Gods communication with humanity is only achieved through Christ the Word ; who is communicating to us when the Holy Spirit is operating and is the message not going to be one and the same. Christ came incarnate in order to be the one and only atonement for our sins. Even while on earth all three communicated at the Baptism of Jesus. Jesus by example and words; the holy spirit came down in the form of a dove visual; then a voice was heard in heaven “this is my son”. God is God and he chooses to reveal himself how he decides and to ignore a revelation from God would be silly. Should everyone there have ignored the vision of the dove and closed their ears to the Fathers voice and just focused on Christ ?
But as previous people have stated there is private and there is Church revelations.
I don’t see the point of deciding which of Gods revelation methods are more superior although I can understand why it must be very cautious with private revelations.

I think I will pray and maybe God will provide me with a private revelation on the matter ; which of course I would probably be best to Keep private ?

 

[puzzleannie]

I don’t know what you mean by modern or continuing revelation. There is no new Divine Revelation since the death of the last apostle who recorded it, having received it from Christ through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Any so-called revelation since that time is private revelation, is authentic only when judged so by the Church, never ever contradicts Divine Revelation as protected and handed on by the Magesterium through Sacred Scripture and Tradition, and is not binding for belief on Catholics. Private revelation merely repeats in a manner suited to the time, place and audience, some aspect of Divine Revelation for the benefit of those recipients.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Well I think this does tie in very well with the original topic and addresses some of the points made. I guess the question I want to address is if there is revelation, would it contradict current practices?

SteveVH, a question to you is do you consider the promptings of the HG to be personal revelation? I do but I think perhaps you don’t. I wanto to make sure though.

To my way of thinking, there is the law, based on truth, and there is the law adapted to specific situations. The law is a rule that mostly applies but exceptions are made. The most confounding one I’ve come across is after the 10 commandments are given, including “Thou Shalt Not Kill”, Israel goes in a slaughters every living creature in Jericho. Why’d they do it? Modern revelation. Their prophet told them it was God’s will. That Jericho had been “ripened in iniquity”. They were given similar contradictory instruction when they reached the promised land concerning the Caininites. That didn’t mean they were free to kill whoever they felt like, the general rule still held.

The commandment better reads “Thou shall not commit murder”. There is a difference between the to murder is the illegal taking of life. Killing is not. If the commandment was not to kill, then God would have been in violation of his own Law. The Caininites were in violation of Gods Laws as a pagan people and by the law, their lives were forfet. If you Look deeply into all the laws that God gave to the Israelites you have to look not only at what they say, but why?

Example pork has to be cooked all the way through or you run a high risk of illness, lamb and beef do not have to be cooked as throughlly, Most of the Laws had more to do with cleaning one self and makeing sure you were clean when around others. Why? Maybe to help prevent the spread of illness. As time has progressed the ability to clean our houses and dishes and bodies have progressed as well so a lot of those “laws” are no longer needed as the same thing is being accomplished without them. Also, when it looks has if Jesus is changing them that is not what is happening. He is makeing the people look that the reason for it as those in power had taken then form being for the good of the people to being a burden on the people. Christ was restoring the true meaning for the Laws.

 

[GaryTaylor]

St John of the Cross is focused on scripture in the OP paragraph. You have to consider that he and St Teresa of Avila were aware of each other, and in the same area, at the exact same time. So, he is understanding of what the Lord is very capible of doing, as the Lord so wills it, this is also a known.

The times when the Lord steps into real time and speaks through a Seer. Doesn’t change scripture one iota nor can it. Whats no different today that through the entire Bible is when evil is prevelant and the vision of God becomes lost. He either comes or sends someone to show the obvious truth which they cannot see. So, to correctly understand what is happening, is through a Miracle like Fatima, or the Blessed Mother, or a Seer like Teresa of Avila. Man is able regain the vision of the Lord through all the obstacles of the physical world.

puzzleannie is then correct in her statement. I would only add that should you chose not to follow a private revelation as fatima or do follow, it doesn’t distract from this truth. And that truth is however you chose to view fatima, millions re-gained the vision of God. So while the triumphs of Mary may be very quiet, they are nonethless very real. And so would be the gifts of those such as Teresa of Avila or the Seers of Fatima.

The faithfull who become Blessed with a Grace from the Lord are the balance to all those who went astray. Through their gift other’s see and then follow God. No different than with Edith Stein who was converted by reading Teresa of Avilas Interior Castle.

Listen there are Mystics in the Church today who are living, and remain unknown and chose to do so. This isn’t a new truth.

God Bless, Gary

 

[SteveVH]

I don’t know what you mean by modern or continuing revelation. There is no new Divine Revelation since the death of the last apostle who recorded it, having received it from Christ through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Any so-called revelation since that time is private revelation, is authentic only when judged so by the Church, never ever contradicts Divine Revelation as protected and handed on by the Magesterium through Sacred Scripture and Tradition, and is not binding for belief on Catholics. Private revelation merely repeats in a manner suited to the time, place and audience, some aspect of Divine Revelation for the benefit of those recipients.

As my post says, I am interested in how those who claim continuing revelation (of the type that changes their doctrines) react to the words of St. John of the Cross. I think it is a superb summation of the Catholic postition. I, of course, agree with you and I hope my posts have made that clear.

 

[SteveVH]

Well I think this does tie in very well with the original topic and addresses some of the points made. I guess the question I want to address is if there is revelation, would it contradict current practices?

SteveVH, a question to you is do you consider the promptings of the HG to be personal revelation? I do but I think perhaps you don’t. I wanto to make sure though.

To my way of thinking, there is the law, based on truth, and there is the law adapted to specific situations. The law is a rule that mostly applies but exceptions are made. The most confounding one I’ve come across is after the 10 commandments are given, including “Thou Shalt Not Kill”, Israel goes in a slaughters every living creature in Jericho. Why’d they do it? Modern revelation. Their prophet told them it was God’s will. That Jericho had been “ripened in iniquity”. They were given similar contradictory instruction when they reached the promised land concerning the Caininites. That didn’t mean they were free to kill whoever they felt like, the general rule still held.

 

[Mary_Jessica]

BTW while Steve mentions St John of the Cross. Its worth noting his Literature of “Dark Night of the Soul” is considered a Masterpiece in Mysticism. And he is recognized as one the most important mystics in Christianity.

When you believe you really understand the Bible? Read what St John of the Cross has to say, and I’m postive you will walk away a deeper understanding.

God Bless, Gary

St. John of the cross I think was transformed by the spirit. His book saved my life in many ways. I am not sure what you mean by continuing revelation. I do think the Virign Does come to guide us along. We are meant to evolve in way that moves us closer to God, if that is continuing revelation than how could that be bad. I don’t think scriptures need changing but through time we can learn to understand the true message in a more accurate way. This process can even be seen in the Church.

 

[SteveVH]

That is not what I am saying at all. I am saying that God the Father and Jesus Christ are not limited in what they can communicate or say.

Well I am not at all saying that God is limited in what He can say. I would not use the word “they”, here, as the Father and the Son always “say” the same thing. The reason this is true is that Christ is “the WORD” of God. There is no other Word. It is not that God is limited, it is that He has said all there is to say in his one Word.

As I have pointed out, this does not mean that we will not ponder this Word and, over time, continue to receive a deeper understanding of this Word through the Holy Spirit as God desires. I would define Revelation as the deposit of faith handed down to us by the Apostles. There is no further “revelation” that could ever change that “truth”. Therefore, all further “revelation” can only lead us back to that one truth and deepen our understanding of that one truth. Any so-called “revelation” that conflicts in any way with that one truth would be false.

God’s communication to Noah was not the same as it was to Abraham or Moses. People of different times and places require different direction. Yes, ultimately it all leads to the same message of Jesus Christ and the atonement, but people in different places need direction taylored to their specific circumstances.

That is the job of the Church and precisely why Christ started a Church; to spread the kingdom of God to the whole world. However, you are trying to equate the revelation of Jesus Christ to the revelation received by the prophets of old. As scripture tells us:

"In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son" (Heb 1:1-2)

Yes, I do understand your claim to private revelation. As I see it, If God is not giving public revelation to your church leaders, for the benefit of your church, then God is not leading your church.

It is because you do not understand the difference between private and public revelation. It is not that private revelation cannot effect the entire Church. It means that there is no revelation which can change the doctrines established from the deposit of faith given to us by the Apostles. For instance, based upon private revelation from St. Faustina, Pope John Paul, II established Divine Mercy Sunday which must be recognized by the entire Church. It did not change doctrine in any way.

Continued…

 

[SteveVH]

As I read through this thread and the different things and ways things are stated, I come away with the sense that we use the term “revelation” differently…

I have thought for a long time that definitions are a huge factor in communication between Catholics and Mormons. Now that you understand our definition, do you still have a problem with our position?

Without “modern” or “continuing” revelation, then there is no new understanding of the things of God, that may have been revealed, but not fully grasped. This is how I see it anyways.

As long as that revelation does nothing to change original doctrines I would agree with you. This is the problem that many see in the LDS Church when a “new” revelation completely changes an “old” revelation (polygamy and blacks in the priesthood). Both cannot be the “truth” therefore one or both are false.

 

[SnakeMauler]

Continuing revelation is annoying, just ignore the people.

 

[SteveVH]

I’ve addressed this briefly in a different thread (I think it was the one about “preparedness”). I remember you responded to my mention of Mosaic Law.

So, we both agree that Moses was a prophet. We both agree that Mosaic Law was created by Moses by virtue of revelation. We both agree that Mosaic Law was superceded by a higher law. Does that then mean that what Moses got was not revelation to begin with? Was Moses a false prophet? We both agree he was not.

I do not agree that Mosaic law, for the most part, was created by Moses by virtue of revelation. There is a difference between what God “allows” and what God “wills”. God never desired divorce and Jesus made this clear. God never desired polygamy, and Jesus made that clear. Moses allowed them because of the hardness of their hearts. As to the dietary laws, Jesus told them that it was not what goes into the mouth of a person that makes him unclean, but, rather what comes out of his heart. He did the same with laws concerning the Sabbath. Jesus was constantly pointing out to the Jews that their “laws” were missing the point and that believers in Him were no longer subject to the law, not because the “truth” had changed, but because they were missing the “truth” to begin with.

So, what we have here is not that “truth” changed. God’s laws are eternal and doesn’t change. The application of the law changes - the practice changes. Because, just like I mentioned in that other thread about how God teaches (Matthew 13) - he teaches to Man according to their understanding. God is perfect and His Word is perfect, but He has to work through the imperfections of Man. Therefore, He teaches line upon line, precept upon precept. Here a little, there a little until we get the fullness of truth.

Yes, here a little, there a little, until the coming of Jesus Christ who fulfilled all previous revelation. The Old Testament prophets all pointed to Jesus. All of mankind was waiting for Jesus. When He came, it was fulfilled. The kingdom of God was at hand. The waiting was over.

So that, when the church decreed that nobody can heal the sick on the Sabbath by virtue of “Thou shall keep the Sabbath Day Holy” and then Jesus healed the sick on the Sabbath it is not that God lied or Moses lied.

When Jesus gave the instruction not to preach to the gentiles it wasn’t that He lied when we are now instructed to preach the Word everywhere.

When God instructed to keep the priesthood in the lineage of Levi, it wasn’t that He lied - or Jacob lied - when the priesthood was spread to the tribe of Joseph, and now to all worthy men of any tribe.

No, it was that they did not fully understand because the fullness of revelation in Christ had not yet occurred. For instance, Christ did not do away with the command to keep the Sabbath day holy, He just showed us how to keep the Sabbath day holy.

Yes, Jesus Christ fulfilled the Word through His atonement. This means that all that is required for our salvation has been revealed. No, this doesn’t mean that we are now fully capable of understanding everything about the Kingdom.

Nor have we claimed to fully understand. But what is it that we are to fully understand? It is the one Word spoken by God in the person of Jesus Christ. Do we receive communication from the Holy Spirit to help us understand the one Word? Absolutely. But we would not consider that “revelation” as in receiving a “new” truth. Jesus IS the Truth. Do you see where we are coming from? I think it is more a problem in defining words than it is in understanding concepts.

So what does this mean when things change… does this mean the the “truth” is like the flopping of the wind - it can change at any moment’s notice? NO!. The Truth is eternal.

What changes - is MAN’S understanding of the eternal truth.

When polygamy is a supposed “revealed truth” and then that changes 180 degrees, it looks to me like the “truth” you believed before is no longer the truth, which in turn means that it was not from God.

For example - polygamy.
Jacob had many wives sealed to him by the power of God. David is the same. That’s truth.
Jesus then declared men are to have one wife. Did the truth change???
No. Our understanding changed. Marriage is eternal. Earthly marriage is bound by earthly laws. Eternal marriage is bound by God’s laws. This is not found in Catholic teaching… but, even Catholics agree that neither Jacob nor David were sinners for having more than one wife. So, they reconcile everything through Jesus Christ - that Jesus Christ can CHANGE truth. Nope. He doesn’t. God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. LDS explains the ETERNAL TRUTH of the matter. That marriage is eternal. Marriage does not end in death. So that, a Catholic widow can remarry not because marriage ends in death, but because God’s eternal truth declares that Jacob may have more than one wife if GOD so ORDAINS it.

The wierd thing is Catholics sense the truth of eternal marriage. My devout Catholic grandmother was widowed in World War II. She never remarried. She said she is waiting to be with her husband again when she dies. And I say, Amen, grandma!

Chris-WA answered this more than adequately so I won’t belabor the point.