Is "Modern" or "Continuing" Revelation necessary?

[GaryTaylor]

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.

Yes and this is what I am saying in my previous post. These reading’s no-doubt affected my life also. I’ve read St John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, St Faustina and re-searched Fatima among others. All pretty amazing which I can’t deny and gave me a deeper understanding and bought me closer in faith also to the church. And they are a witness in truth to the path of the soul.

When I think of how something very good can be wrong, is when a follower takes off from the path on a solo flight. Without a constant check and balance of their own path with a proper spiritual guide. So a moment of clarity you gain, by say St John of the Cross, now takes on a very different direction in speculation. Or in some case’s an individual who is claiming to have visions but not confiding in anyone but there own understanding.

Of course I’m not saying this has happened to you, but in general I see this often today. If you asking me do I believe that a private revelation could unfold in real-time? Yes I do, but I like you also believe it will coincide with scripture. And when we are talking Revelation by John, its pretty difficult to understand how, when or why a specific event will happen.

I believe the Catholic Church is much more informed of this than we are. And I have no-doubt that followers of Christ are in good hands with Benedict.

Lets face it we have a prediction for what May 21st next month of the Rapture? This may not have anything to do with the Catholic Mystics in this thread. But its an idea of how an individuals thinking becomes greater than Gods own church?

God Bless, Gary

 

[pinay]

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.

There is nothing here that contradicts LDS position. The thing that separates us is your understanding that LDS “changed truths”. I have illustrated here (or was it in the preparedness thread?) that LDS practice does not change “Eternal Truth”.

Abraham and Jacob did not have many wives because their hearts were hardened. They have many wives to fulfill God’s promise of bringing up “seed” unto God. David had many wives not because his heart was hardened. He was the beloved. God gave him Saul’s kingdom and it included his wives.

Regardless of which side of the fence you are on the discussion, we can agree that neither Abraham nor Jacob ceased to be God’s chosen leader for His church just because they have more than one wife. And David did not lose favor with God because of his 7 wives - he lost favor because he took Bathseba by having Uriah killed.

What is a big lesson we learn from David is that man cannot choose for himself to have more than one wife. God needs to ordain it (or in your words, “allow” it). And we see all throughout church history that God giveth and God taketh away commandments according to the needs of the time.

Joseph Smith did not take on more than one wife on his own. God commanded it. Looking through the lens of history, I can understand why God would do so. When an extermination order is given over Mormons (amazingly, this Missouri law did not get rescinded until 1976!), one has to wonder how priesthood authority can be passed on.

In any case, the Truth did not change from the beginning of time until today. And that Truth as we understand it is that God ordains one woman to one man (Eve to Adam) as the template of earthly existence but allows multiple wives to the benefit of His Kingdom.

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.

The Atonement was fulfilled. The work goes on. Because as it is right now, Thomas Monson and Benedict XVI are preparing for Jesus’ second coming.

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.

So, would you then say that because of this understanding that the catholic doctrine changed? Of course not. Or maybe it did. Depends on your definition of “doctrine”. You’ve been using “doctrine” and “practice” almost interchangeably, so I can’t be sure.

The practice changed, the truth did not. Which is what I’ve been trying to tell you all along.

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.

We (LDS) do not claim to receive “new” truth as you have depicted. We believe that Jesus Christ is not just 0 to 32 A.D. Jesus Lives! Today! Right now! And yes, He is STILL the Word!

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.

Not so. See my comments about Abraham, Jacob, etc. above. Polygamy in LDS history is not “revealed truth”. Polygamy is a practice just like keeping the Sabbath on a Saturday. God instructs. We follow.

 

[SteveVH]

Joseph Smith did not take on more than one wife on his own. God commanded it. Looking through the lens of history, I can understand why God would do so. When an extermination order is given over Mormons (amazingly, this Missouri law did not get rescinded until 1976!), one has to wonder how priesthood authority can be passed on.

Pinay, the Church was persecuted severely and living under an “extermination order” for much longer than the Mormon Church has even been in existence. The first 33 Popes of the Catholic Church were martyred. Why did not God command polygamy during that time if that was the purpose of this purported command to Joseph Smith? Did God also command Joseph to commit adultery by taking other men’s wives?

In any case, the Truth did not change from the beginning of time until today. And that Truth as we understand it is that God ordains one woman to one man (Eve to Adam) as the template of earthly existence but allows multiple wives to the benefit of His Kingdom.

So God commands us to have only one wife but desires multiple wives to benefit His kingdom? Are you saying that God lifted the law of having one wife until enough little Mormons were running around and then imposed it again? Please explain.

So, would you then say that because of this understanding that the catholic doctrine changed? Of course not. Or maybe it did. Depends on your definition of “doctrine”. You’ve been using “doctrine” and “practice” almost interchangeably, so I can’t be sure.

The practice changed, the truth did not. Which is what I’ve been trying to tell you all along.

Please show me where I have confused “practice” (or discipline) with doctrine.

We (LDS) do not claim to receive “new” truth as you have depicted. We believe that Jesus Christ is not just 0 to 32 A.D. Jesus Lives! Today! Right now! And yes, He is STILL the Word!

Not so. See my comments about Abraham, Jacob, etc. above. Polygamy in LDS history is not “revealed truth”. Polygamy is a practice just like keeping the Sabbath on a Saturday. God instructs. We follow.

Well, adultery is just a practice also, but it involves a direct violation of God’s law, just as polygamy does. We would consider God’s commandments as doctrine.

 

[pinay]

Pinay, the Church was persecuted severely and living under an “extermination order” for much longer than the Mormon Church has even been in existence. The first 33 Popes of the Catholic Church were martyred. Why did not God command polygamy during that time if that was the purpose of this purported command to Joseph Smith? Did God also command Joseph to commit adultery by taking other men’s wives?

Adultery is having relations with a person not your spouse. If the person is your spouse, you are not committing adultery. Unless you believe Abraham is adulterous this does not hold water.

As far as LDS is concerned, the Catholic church was in apostasy, so there was no reason to bring up seed unto it. Yes, this does not sound good to you, and that’s completely understandable. But, if you look at it in the eyes of an LDS, you’ll see why this does not refute the statement (of opinion, I might add, because that’s only my opinion about reasons why God would allow polygamy in Joseph Smith’s time).

So God commands us to have only one wife but desires multiple wives to benefit His kingdom? Are you saying that God lifted the law of having one wife until enough little Mormons were running around and then imposed it again? Please explain.

Desire is not the correct word. Did God desire killing when he commanded Joshua to kill the men, women, and children of Canaan? Did He desire indulgences when the Pope decreed it?

Please show me where I have confused “practice” (or discipline) with doctrine.

Okay, see… doctrine is a tricky word especially for me - because English is only my 3rd language.

Doctrine for me means - codified instructions. So yeah, to me, doctrine changes. All the time. In the Catholic church even. I mean, one day we were instructed to say mass in Latin, then the next day we weren’t. I see the Council in Nicea and the Vatican Councils and I see the results of them as a change in doctrine.

But, from the way you are using doctrine, it seems like for the Catholic church it is change in practice, for the LDS church it is change in doctrine… so I can’t really grasp exactly what you are saying about CHANGE. So, I use “Eternal truth” instead. Because, there’s no question on what that means.

Well, adultery is just a practice also, but it involves a direct violation of God’s law, just as polygamy does. We would consider God’s commandments as doctrine.

Where in the Bible - any version. You can even throw in the Book of Mormon where God commanded/allowed adultery. Remember - adultery means having relations with somebody who is not your spouse.

If God’s commandments are doctrine - then would you say that doctrines changed between Old and New Testaments?

 

[GaryTaylor]

1 Timothy 3:2 would be the marriage according to Christ. Aside from the fact its illegal in the Civil world.

“The overseer then must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, an able teacher”

 

[pinay]

1 Timothy 3:2 would be the marriage according to Christ. Aside from the fact its illegal in the Civil world.

“The overseer then must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, an able teacher”

There are a lot more verses than that in the entire body of the Holy Bible that deals with husband and wife. You can’t pick one verse and say, “That’s it!”. That’s the thing about the Scriptures - you kinda have to read the thing in its entirety and bounce each belief against the whole thing.

 

[SteveVH]

Adultery is having relations with a person not your spouse. If the person is your spouse, you are not committing adultery. Unless you believe Abraham is adulterous this does not hold water.

Joseph Smith was taking the wives of other men, while they were still married, not to mention cheating on Emma. That is adultery.

As far as LDS is concerned, the Catholic church was in apostasy, so there was no reason to bring up seed unto it. Yes, this does not sound good to you, and that’s completely understandable. But, if you look at it in the eyes of an LDS, you’ll see why this does not refute the statement (of opinion, I might add, because that’s only my opinion about reasons why God would allow polygamy in Joseph Smith’s time).

I see. It looks like God’s plan kind of backfired as there are approximately 1.3 billion Catholics and growing today.

Desire is not the correct word. Did God desire killing when he commanded Joshua to kill the men, women, and children of Canaan? Did He desire indulgences when the Pope decreed it?

Then change “desire” to “will”. My point still stands. And as far as indulgences are concerned yes, I believe He did desire it as there is nothing wrong with indulgences for those that understand what they are. It was the abuse of selling indulgences by local bishops that was the problem, not indulgences in themselves. But this is not the thread in which this should be discussed.

Okay, see… doctrine is a tricky word especially for me - because English is only my 3rd language.

I’m impressed. You do very well for a 3rd language.

Doctrine for me means - codified instructions. So yeah, to me, doctrine changes. All the time. In the Catholic church even. I mean, one day we were instructed to say mass in Latin, then the next day we weren’t. I see the Council in Nicea and the Vatican Councils and I see the results of them as a change in doctrine.

But, from the way you are using doctrine, it seems like for the Catholic church it is change in practice, for the LDS church it is change in doctrine… so I can’t really grasp exactly what you are saying about CHANGE. So, I use “Eternal truth” instead. Because, there’s no question on what that means.

I would define a doctrine as the essential elements of one’s faith. Catholic doctrines are summed up in the creeds and expounded upon in the Catechism. In other words, doctrines are the revealed truths of Jesus Christ, and yes, they are eternal.

Where in the Bible - any version. You can even throw in the Book of Mormon where God commanded/allowed adultery. Remember - adultery means having relations with somebody who is not your spouse.

Well, I would draw a distinction between adultery and fornication. To commit adultery you must be married. To cause another to commit adultery, they must be married. To have relations outside of marriage would be fornication. God has never commanded anyone to commit adultery or fornication. Please show me where.

If God’s commandments are doctrine - then would you say that doctrines changed between Old and New Testaments?

No. His commandments have not changed. They were made clear and given even deeper meaning by Jesus Christ. Not only was murder forbidden, but even cursing another. Not only was adultery forbidden, but even lusting in one’s heart, and so on.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Christ speaks in Matthew 19:4-6 And it goes like this; which relates directly to Adam and Eve and Gods intention.

Haven’t you read, He replied, that at the begining the Creator made them male and female, and said, for this reason a man will leave his mother and father and be united with his wife. And the Two will become One flesh. So they are no longer Two but One. Therefore what God has joined together let man not seperate.

What Mose’s permitted was not this way from the begining. It was allowed by God because of mans heart in this period. And Christ also speaks on this several times.

Hey, I’m not judging you, you obviously believe and hear something other. But there is very good reason why marriage is as it is in the CC. And by large its served mankind very well in the history of civil man.

God Bless, Gary

Why wouldn’t women by the same logic be allowed 5-6 husbands?

 

[IHSpetros]

I never heard of “modern revelation” so I can’t really comment on that. However, I have heard of “private revelation” which is actually mentioned in the Catechism. What I can say about private revelation is that it does not add to the deposit of Faith which has once for all been given to the saints. Its function is primarily to illucidate further on already revealed dogma and to bring us closer in devotion to Christ and his Church.

 

[flyonthewall]

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.

I understand the reasoning behind your statement, but I am not sure I agree with the statement: “He has said all there is to say in his one Word”. That is limiting what God has to say.

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.

Okay.

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)

Anything that is “revealed” is a revelation, whether it be Jesus Christ or the things given to the prophets of old, or the Lord’s will for an individual.

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.

I know the difference, it is the way you frame it that takes some getting used to.(Only saying that it is different than I am accustomed to)
If a so called “private” revelation effects the entire Church, wouldn’t that then be public revelation?..meant for the entire church not just an individual.

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?

I think it moves us that much closer in beliefs, more common ground if you will.

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.

I think others have done a good job at explaining this.
There is nothing in the LDS teachings that have reversed or changed any eternal truths. Polygamy was a practice. Marriage was the truth. Blacks in the priesthood(or not being able to hold it) was a practice…Priesthood was the truth.
Just like in the OT and NT…The Law of Moses was the practice. The practice changed with the new revelation of Jesus Christ.
Animal sacrifice was a practice. We no longer perform animal sacrifice because there was a new revelation that put a stop to it.

According to your line of reasoning, the NT must be false because it changes the law that came before…But I know you do not see it that way.

 

[rmcmullan]

flyonthewall, those are all good comments. I just want to bring it back to the original question. I think everyone sees the need for modern revelation. And that church practices can be changed without changing the underlying doctrine. Moses was not given the higher priesthood because of the “hardness of the hearts” of his people, they still had a long way to go before they could receive the full gospel.

So my point is that the enternal truths of heaven have to be adapted to the willingness and ability of the people to receive it. If you say no more revelation is needed, you are thinking of a one way communication, from God to man only. No feedback loop. It’s a question of whether God still talks to us, loves us and works with us isn;t it?

 

[GaryTaylor]

flyonthewall, those are all good comments. I just want to bring it back to the original question. I think everyone sees the need for modern revelation. And that church practices can be changed without changing the underlying doctrine. Moses was not given the higher priesthood because of the “hardness of the hearts” of his people, they still had a long way to go before they could receive the full gospel.

So my point is that the enternal truths of heaven have to be adapted to the willingness and ability of the people to receive it. If you say no more revelation is needed, you are thinking of a one way communication, from God to man only. No feedback loop. It’s a question of whether God still talks to us, loves us and works with us isn;t it?

Right this is whats said in Matthew.

JESUS Replied…“Mose’s permitted you to divorce because your Hearts were Hard. But its was not this way from the beginning”.

How was it from the begining? Well we have what God said in the beginning, what Christ said at the end. But lets misinterpret what man said inbetween? Geez there’s some astounding knowledge for you.

“If you say no more revelation is needed, you are thinking of a one way communication, from God.”

RIght, and this is never going to stop either. For the simple fact the Jacobs ladder leans on God and continues to bring Souls to God. So its perpetual till the end of time. The Souls which gravitate towards God are obviously given knowledge. Some do not understand what they heard or comprehend the knowledge, yet they know they are on the path. These are the largest majority.

So no its not the question, its a known.

The question is how do you know the message you received is correct? And what give’s you the authority to take what you heard and build another church contrary to Gods in the Bible? What confirmation is there of the message you received, where’s the check and balance system.

Where’ the proof its of God?

And there is no “Good Job” interpreting Gods word to fit your needs. Its manipulation through interpretation which was given permission by Sola Scriptura. So we have one problem on top of another, and no-where in the history of the world has two-wrongs made anything right.

God Bless, Gary

 

[GaryTaylor]

For the Mormon Church to be true, it must be assumed that God’s Church on earth, instituted by Jesus Christ, somehow failed and that revelation was not completed with the death of the last apostle but instead was withheld until God saw it fit to reveal it to Joseph Smith centuries upon centuries after Christ had died to inaugurate the New Testament.

What importance should we then place on the life of Jesus Christ? So he died in Vain? And the Word of God became lost till Joe Smith found it in the woods of NY state, USA?

This would then make every single Soul inbetween who is a confirmed messanger of God, a lie. This would make Fatima and all the Mystics a lie. Zeitoun, Egypt in 68-70 a lie. All the visitations of the Blessed Mother a lie.

This would also then place the Book of Mormon directly next to the Holy Bible in divinity.

So who is really dealing in Half-Truths?

 

[mark_avery]

To hear the word of god directly and to be guided by the holy spiritus are two unique blessings,but i would be cautious with the first(i say because of experience) for the devil comes or can come to you, when allowed from god and his will, hence; and lead me not into temptation.like the angel of light,which can for first time hearer`s, sound very convincing.

The obvious examples of who to follow,would be the biggest paradigm there is possible i.e the catholic church,for the pope is so much a force.whether right or wrong to other beliefs,and such a personally humble and intelligent, empathy filled man,by the holy spirit he could not of prevailed for so long if it was not for the truth that he so submits.

Too be very basic or fair,we always look for the big sign`s or revelations in life i.e, the most beautiful woman(or intelligent),the biggest salary,the tastiest food,the best holiday destination,the most expensive cloths,(not all of us that is)and it goes on,and usually leading to GOD! the most powerful provider of all.(Unitarian examples being small in comparison).

So the answer to the thread and such need is in your own attitude and given intelligence, to are fallen state and necessity for a common denominated leadership i.e the papacy and such processes that sustain our acumen, and of which are handed down,for us to build upon in a Big Way.

MUCH LOVE…

 

[Mary_Jessica]

Lets face it we have a prediction for what May 21st next month of the Rapture? This may not have anything to do with the Catholic Mystics in this thread. But its an idea of how an individuals thinking becomes greater than Gods own church?

   I agree with you on this totally. Just because someone has a "divine revelation" or intense spiritual experience does not mean that they know everything. This I think can show its error to the individual, but sadly sometimes it sends people to corruption. That is why I think that humility and obedience are important. We are mere children and cannot show ourselves the way. When something of that nature happens I think it is a call to give up our way. Everything unfolds in Gods time and we need to accept that somethings we cannot comprehend or are not yet meant to know. That is where the faith comes in, we can trust in Christ and face uncertainty without fear. 
      God Bless, Mary

 

[rinnie]

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.

Put this with post 12 on the teaching of the CCC and thats what I wanted to say

The easiest way I can say it is Christ revealed everything that was to be revealed. But the Holy Spirit is continuing to teach us the truth that has been revealed to us.

This Truth that has been revealed by Christ takes years for the human mind to understand. And the Holy Spirit knows what we can understand and when the time it is to reveal the understanding.

ANd the Holy Spirit can choose who ever he wants to reveal it to. BUt as far as divine revelation it is never a new Revelation it is just a better understanding of the Revelation that was already revealed to us. ANd the Church will confirm if a understanding is indeed divine and came from the Holy Spirit. But if the Church does not accept it and it does not line up with every single scripture written or oral with the word of God it did not come from the Holy Spirit. Hope that makes sense the way I said it.

 

[SteveVH]

I understand the reasoning behind your statement, but I am not sure I agree with the statement: “He has said all there is to say in his one Word”. That is limiting what God has to say.

What other Word does God have?

Anything that is “revealed” is a revelation, whether it be Jesus Christ or the things given to the prophets of old, or the Lord’s will for an individual.

I understand, Fly, and I’m not trying to be difficult here. The prophets of old, however, are not in the same category as Jesus. Jesus wasn’t just another prophet. All prophecy in the Old Testament, in one way or another, part by part, little by little, pointed to Christ. When He came prophecy was completed. I will say that my OP probably could have been better worded. It really does come down to “public” vs. “private” revelation. As I have said over and over, God continues to communicate to His Church, not for the purpose of changing those essential beliefs that we call “doctrine”, but to lead us into deeper understanding of that doctrine. This is not only through “private revelation”, but in the everyday life of the Church; its teachings, its liturgies, its sacraments, and so on. I will no be so obstinate as to say that this is not “revelation” of sorts, but I hope you can distinguish between the two, and I think you can.

I know the difference, it is the way you frame it that takes some getting used to.(Only saying that it is different than I am accustomed to) If a so called “private” revelation effects the entire Church, wouldn’t that then be public revelation?..meant for the entire church not just an individual.

Not as the Catholic Church has defined it. Maybe as you have defined it.

I think it moves us that much closer in beliefs, more common ground if you will.

I hope so.

I think others have done a good job at explaining this. There is nothing in the LDS teachings that have reversed or changed any eternal truths. Polygamy was a practice. Marriage was the truth. Blacks in the priesthood(or not being able to hold it) was a practice…Priesthood was the truth.

Which would mean that the practice was contrary to the truth.

Just like in the OT and NT…The Law of Moses was the practice. The practice changed with the new revelation of Jesus Christ. Animal sacrifice was a practice. We no longer perform animal sacrifice because there was a new revelation that put a stop to it.

Because Christ was the final sacrifice. He is the “Lamb”. We offer this final sacrifice in every Catholic Church in the world, each day. Just as the prophets revealed God’s plan slowly, in parts, culminating in the incarnation of God Himself in the person of Christ, so all sacrifice culminated in the one, everlasting sacrifice of the Lamb of God. It is not so much that things stopped, it is that they were fulfilled.

According to your line of reasoning, the NT must be false because it changes the law that came before…But I know you do not see it that way.

No I don’t. The New Testament was hidden in the Old, and the Old Testament revealed in the New. It is one story of salvation history fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

 

[SteveVH]

flyonthewall, those are all good comments. I just want to bring it back to the original question. I think everyone sees the need for modern revelation. And that church practices can be changed without changing the underlying doctrine. Moses was not given the higher priesthood because of the “hardness of the hearts” of his people, they still had a long way to go before they could receive the full gospel.

So my point is that the enternal truths of heaven have to be adapted to the willingness and ability of the people to receive it. If you say no more revelation is needed, you are thinking of a one way communication, from God to man only. No feedback loop. It’s a question of whether God still talks to us, loves us and works with us isn;t it?

 

[flyonthewall]

What other Word does God have?

As I stated, I understand your line of reasoning…Jesus Christ is our interface with the Father…No man comes to the Father except through Jesus Christ, and everything that comes from the Father comes through Jesus Christ.
To me, the statement: “He has stated all He has to say in His one Word”, carries the implication that He will not say any more…the Heavens are silent and man is left to his own devices…which niether one of us believes.

I understand, Fly, and I’m not trying to be difficult here. The prophets of old, however, are not in the same category as Jesus. Jesus wasn’t just another prophet. All prophecy in the Old Testament, in one way or another, part by part, little by little, pointed to Christ. When He came prophecy was completed.

Did the prophets of old have the word of God? If so, did it not carry the same authority as if Jesus Christ Himself presented it? If they were His true representatives, why would they not carry the same authority?

I will say that my OP probably could have been better worded. It really does come down to “public” vs. “private” revelation. As I have said over and over, God continues to communicate to His Church, not for the purpose of changing those essential beliefs that we call “doctrine”, but to lead us into deeper understanding of that doctrine. This is not only through “private revelation”, but in the everyday life of the Church; its teachings, its liturgies, its sacraments, and so on. I will no be so obstinate as to say that this is not “revelation” of sorts, but I hope you can distinguish between the two, and I think you can.

If I am understanding you correctly, we are stating the same thing. Revelation, modern or continuing revelation has not stopped. If I am understanding you correctly, it is through revelation that your church and its leaders are being lead to “deeper” understandings. Though you do not use the same vocabulary to state it.

Not as the Catholic Church has defined it. Maybe as you have defined it.

Catholic speak does not always line up exactly with LDS speak so I can agree with that, even though our meanings may agree.

I hope so.

Which would mean that the practice was contrary to the truth.

That would be like saying the Law of Moses was contrary to the truth because it was not the same as what was revealed by Jesus Christ…or, what Jesus Christ established was contrary to the truth because the Law of Moses came first.

Because Christ was the final sacrifice. He is the “Lamb”. We offer this final sacrifice in every Catholic Church in the world, each day. Just as the prophets revealed God’s plan slowly, in parts, culminating in the incarnation of God Himself in the person of Christ, so all sacrifice culminated in the one, everlasting sacrifice of the Lamb of God. It is not so much that things stopped, it is that they were fulfilled.

When it was fulfilled it stopped. That is a fact. When God no longer required it, He put a stop to it…which is what we are saying.

No I don’t. The New Testament was hidden in the Old, and the Old Testament revealed in the New. It is one story of salvation history fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

But the OT is different than the NT. Things changed. The way God did things in the OT is not the same as the way He taught in the NT. Both are founded upon revelations from God, but the practices are different.

 

[SteveVH]

As I stated, I understand your line of reasoning…Jesus Christ is our interface with the Father…No man comes to the Father except through Jesus Christ, and everything that comes from the Father comes through Jesus Christ.
To me, the statement: “He has stated all He has to say in His one Word”, carries the implication that He will not say any more…the Heavens are silent and man is left to his own devices…which neither one of us believes.

I’m going to draw what is probably a very poor analogy here, but bear with me.

Say I decide to buy my daughter a new car on her birthday (fat chance ). I start giving her little hints about what her present will be. It has wheels. It has a seat. She knows something, but it could be a bicycle at this point. I tell her it weighs a lot. Now it could be a motorcycle. On her birthday she awakes to see a large covered object sitting in the driveway. It is obviously a car. Now the mystery is almost solved. We walk out to the driveway and begin, slowly, uncovering the vehicle. She sees the tires, the bumper, the color of the paint, the back window, the roof and finally the entire car. What was waiting to be revealed has been fully revealed. There is nothing more to be revealed. Now she gets to know the car. She learns how it handles on the road. She learns where the windshield wipers are; how to turn on the brights; how the sound system works. All of these little “revelations” surround THE revelation of the car. That is what I mean when I say that “He has stated all He has to say in His one Word”. The focus is Christ; He is the Word. The rest is just getting to know Him better.

Did the prophets of old have the word of God? If so, did it not carry the same authority as if Jesus Christ Himself presented it? If they were His true representatives, why would they not carry the same authority?

Well, no prophet carried the same authority as Christ because no prophet carried the same authority as God. What they wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is no less the word of God, however, because it came from God. The difference between Christ and the prophets is that while the prophets received the word of God, Christ is the Word of God.

If I am understanding you correctly, we are stating the same thing. Revelation, modern or continuing revelation has not stopped. If I am understanding you correctly, it is through revelation that your church and its leaders are being lead to “deeper” understandings. Though you do not use the same vocabulary to state it.

Catholic speak does not always line up exactly with LDS speak so I can agree with that, even though our meanings may agree.

I think I can agree with you on this. Wow, did I actually say that?

That would be like saying the Law of Moses was contrary to the truth because it was not the same as what was revealed by Jesus Christ…or, what Jesus Christ established was contrary to the truth because the Law of Moses came first.

That is not at all what I am saying, although Moses may not be the best example. Moses’ allowance of divorce was contrary to truth, as Jesus pointed out. The notion of “an eye for an eye” was contrary to truth, as Jesus also pointed out. These were not God’s laws. Truth is truth and cannot change. God is Truth and He does not change.

When it was fulfilled it stopped. That is a fact. When God no longer required it, He put a stop to it…which is what we are saying.

Not really. Sacrifice did not stop. It was the type of sacrifice that stopped. The sacrifice of Christ is eternal and never stops. All former sacrifices were a “type” of the sacrifice of Christ. In Him, finally, the perfect sacrifice was offered and continues to be offered. Yes, animal sacrifice stopped, but only because it found its perfection in Christ.

But the OT is different than the NT. Things changed. The way God did things in the OT is not the same as the way He taught in the NT. Both are founded upon revelations from God, but the practices are different.

The Old Testament, in my mind, can be boiled down to a faithful, loving, very patient God who pursued His children even though they kept running from Him and turning away from Him. I see no difference in the New Testament. He gave His very life for the very people that nailed Him to the cross; us. Through all of the different authors, the different genres of writing, the different circumstances, the different events we find in the Old Testament, we find the common thread of a faithful, loving and saving God. God is constant. He did not change from the Old Testament to the New.