Is Mormonism Christian ?

[mfbukowski]

Wow, you really haven’t looked into what the Catholic Church teaches! “Doesn’t even try?” That’s funniest thing I’ve heard all day.

Glad to brighten your day.

I notice you didn’t offer any answers. Maybe I’ll take your advice and start the threads, if I have the time. But every time I have done that before I have not gotten any answers either because Catholics don’t have them.

 

[mfbukowski]

Yes, they are revelations…think back a couple of hours…Revelation that pertains to the Salvation of all mankind. These are doctrine. And revelation that pertains to actions and guidance, these are the statements that the Pope makes, ex cathedra. Most often, if not always, the clarifications given ex cathedra are in regards to doctrine, and particular circumstances. For example, Humanae Vitae covers contraceptive use. It is not doctrine but an explanation of how doctrines are applied to a modern issue.

This is why Jesus sent the Holy Spirit. To guide. Guidance is given to individuals and to the bishops of the Church. This is in fact is revelation.

The pope does not act alone. The pope is one bishop among many. The bishops, acting together as one in councils, provide the leadership of the Catholic Church. If/when the Pope speaks ex cathedra, he is speaking on behalf of all of the bishops.

RebeccaJ
I know you have said this before, but can you see that I am fighting the same fight I have before against Catholics who seem to not acknowledge need for revelation or actually oppose it?

Who am I supposed to believe, you or the ones who say that there is no further revelation?

The pope does not act alone. The pope is one bishop among many. The bishops, acting together as one in councils, provide the leadership of the Catholic Church. If/when the Pope speaks ex cathedra, he is speaking on behalf of all of the bishops.

Have you ever led a committee to make a decision and you had to draft it? Typically the reality of the situation is, there is a discussion, somebody writes it up and the others agree. Multiple people discuss things to make a decision. They are not handed verbatim identical text by the holy spirit. True, the discussion can be spirit guided.

This sounds an awful like the seventies and the prophet and the q of 12 in conference to me. Can you tell me the difference without an ad hominem about Joseph Smith? Please avoid something like “yes but the difference is that we are guided by the spirit while you are guided by that con-man and polygamous gunslinger JS.” Thank you. We can pretend civility ok?

 

[Arandur]

We learn a few things from this quote.
1- “Gospel” means message- no one was preaching from a different book- they were preaching different messages

“Good News” more directly, but yes. I’m a Catholic, not a Protestant ; I know it’s not limited to books.

2- Paul is shocked that the Galatians were already going astray- a symptom of the apostasy which later took over after Paul was not around to correct them any more. There are many more evidences of quotes like this.

We’ve covered this ground. yes there are other observations and warnings of apostasies–deceptions and untruths. No evidence is offered here or anywhere in Scripture that it “took over” or conquered the Church after Paul left, though. As I have explained, such an extrapolation just does not follow. And even if it did, it would apply equally to the “fallings away” that have happened to Smith’s churches.

3- That if anyone preached another message than the one Paul taught, they should be accursed. The implication is that if they preached the SAME message Paul preached, they should not be cursed. Paul must have wondered what would happen when he was not around any more to correct all these wayward churches. Yet I think he had an expectation that others would preach the true gospel after he was gone. But he knew there would be a falling away eventually, as he mentions in Thessalonians.

Yes, he obviously meant that those who preached the same Gospel would not be accursed. And yes, he knew that others were and would preach the true Gospel after him. He also knew that the Church would always have to struggle with deceptions and false teachers, hence the warnings.

4- We should not be trying to “please men” by following their doctrines and traditions, but following Jesus Christ, who gives us the truth by

Agreed. You will say that Catholics are following men and not Jesus, and I will say that LDS are following men and not Jesus. To find out which is which we have to go deeper. I naturally have an advantage because the Church has historical continuity to the founding Apostles, who got it straight from Christ. You have continuity only to a single man, Joseph Smith, and a millienia+ long abandonment of man by God to explain.

5- Revelation. Paul says he wasn’t taught by anyone but the revelations of Jesus Christ. No magesterium no tradition no pope. In fact he says NOT to follow those things.

Paul received his mission by private revelation and he taught that public revelation which Christ revealed in his coming. Paul does NOT say anything about not following the Magisterium, pope, or Tradition. He does say (right here) to follow the Gospel preached by the Apostles, talks about Peter’s role as head of the Apostles elsewhere, and tells us to follow Tradition elsewhere (2 Thess 2:15, I believe; it is under discussion in another thread). Since Magisterium is another word for the apostolic authority, pope is another word for the Petrine office, and Tradition is, well, the very Tradition Paul speaks of elsewhere, Paul actually says the exact opposite of what you claim. He in fact tells us to follow those things.

Ask Paul. I think he would say that it cannot be destroyed, but needed to be restored by revelation since that is how he found it himself.

Could you elaborate on why you think there is a difference there? Why something might need to be “restored” if it wasn’t lost or broken? How that can happen without Satan prevailing against God?

 

[Arandur]

Ah yes the old reductio ad absurdam
Of course I don’t mean that. But a little help on burning heretics and the crusades and how to handle the reformation might haved helped, don’t you think?

I don’t see your connection. Also, you might want to check out some modern historical scholarship on those events. I bet you share common misconceptions about them.

Pardon a mechanical analogy. Inductively, if you have a system where the parts are always going haywire and malfunctioning, needed to be altered and rebuilt, you would conclude that the system is not reliable. There would come a point after 2000 years of tinkering with that system where one could clearly say that the system itself was malfunctioning and no longer the same system it was. All I am saying is that after 2000 years of heresies reformations crusades apologetics for all of the above, political intrigue and doctrinal tweaks to justify this and that, the church is not the same as it was…

But to me, the preponderance of evidence is clear.

So you say that if false teachings keep cropping up and people choose to leave the Church or even break away from it in groups, that this is evidence that the foundation of Truth the Church is built on has failed, been broken?

What of the breakaway groups and false teachings that occur to the LDS church? Be consistent, now. As I keep pointing out, you really must be careful how you attack the Church or defend your own. This is another example where your attack, if true, would defeat your own church as well.

 

[mfbukowski]

So what’s the problem? A Catholic is not compelled to act or believe in any way that is against their conscience.

I was responding to Arandur. But isn’t this the way heresies happen? It appeard he said that heresies result when members follow their own consciences.

We are to do nothing apart from the Church of Christ, once we are Members of the Body. The approach that you illustrate is exactly what has lead to the thousands of schisms, sects, and contradictory doctrines. It has demonstrably failed, and so is obviously not what God intended.

You two should talk sometime and get the story straight. I liked the part about being NOT what God intended the best.

Talk amongst yourselves

 

[Arandur]

Too familiar. It’s broken 800 year old philosophy that was disproven long ago. As I said elsewhere: Newsflash: the earth now goes around the sun.

The only place they teach that stuff is in Catholic universities. Prove me wrong. Try to find one contemporary philosopher who is not catholic who believes that.

Really now? Show me where it was disproven. Explain to me the argument or link me to it.

And why is it so objectionable to you?

By “contemporary philosopher,” do you mean “atheist?” Or am I allowed to use non-Catholic believers in God? If so, we have a famous example in C.S. Lewis, but it won’t be hard to find others, ones who are still alive.

I notice you didn’t offer any answers.

Wrong. I gave you one answer and explained why I wouldn’t get into the rest–it would derail this thread enormously further. There are time reasons as well. I also did provide good starting points for you to go to find the answers. You could just try Google, as well, or Catholic Encyclopedia, or G.K. Chesterton, or conciliar documents, or Theology of the Body, or the Catechism, or ask a good priest or apologist. The answers to your questions are often so common and prevalent that your assertion is just ridiculous. Hence my amusement.

 

[RebeccaJ]

RebeccaJ
I know you have said this before, but can you see that I am fighting the same fight I have before against Catholics who seem to not acknowledge need for revelation or actually oppose it?

Who am I supposed to believe, you or the ones who say that there is no further revelation?

The confusion is no on the part of us Catholics. We are in agreement. You seem to not be grasping that we define revelation in two ways. Which, we have discussed before.

Also, the catechism is quite clear about revelation.

Have you ever led a committee to make a decision and you had to draft it? Typically the reality of the situation is, there is a discussion, somebody writes it up and the others agree. Multiple people discuss things to make a decision. They are not handed verbatim identical text by the holy spirit. True, the discussion can be spirit guided.

Yes, this is what we believe about the councils. Same thing for when a pope is selected. I had never checked out the whole goings on for selecting a pope. I read about it recently. Very prayer and Eucharist centered.

This sounds an awful like the seventies and the prophet and the q of 12 in conference to me. Can you tell me the difference without an ad hominem about Joseph Smith? Please avoid something like “yes but the difference is that we are guided by the spirit while you are guided by that con-man and polygamous gunslinger JS.” Thank you. We can pretend civility ok?

Authority given to the Apostles who gave that authority to the Bishops by the laying on of hands. Apostolic succession, every Bishop has it.

Mormons lack this authority.

 

[mfbukowski]

But now a Catholic? Only goes to show that God is active in the hearts of Mormons as well as Catholics, for many Catholics convert to other denominations as well.

Also shows God is not limited except by mankind.

Peace>>>AJ

Dang that’s actually a good point. I guess Mormons CAN be led by the spirit if they find Catholicsm

 

[Arandur]

I was responding to Arandur. But isn’t this the way heresies happen? It appeard he said that heresies result when members follow their own consciences.
You two should talk sometime and get the story straight.

Perhaps another example will help. When Scripture is interpreted, is it properly interpreted just on the basis of the sentence in question, or in the context of the entire body of Scripture, or at least the rest of the book in which it is written?

Any issue is properly considered in context of what can help you figure out its meaning or what to do. In this way, Christian should choose to act within the context of what he knows of Christ. Since Christ lives in the Church and intended his followers to do so as well, Christ intends that we make our choices and inform our beliefs in the context of the Church.

The Church calls us to follow our consciences, yes, but to properly form our consciences. We can err when we make our decisions because we are foolish humans; what we may think is following our conscience can be being led astray. We do the best we can, but that’s why we try to form and train our consciences to a better pursuit of Christ who is Truth.

 

[mfbukowski]

No, obviously.
What relation does this comment have to what I said?
Perhaps I should rephrase my original comment. Are you supposed to live your life apart from the LDS church? Are you supposed to live your life apart from Christ? Or should you let Christ be your guide and discipline yourself to live every action and indeed “capture every thought and make it obedient to Christ?”
That is what I meant. Once we’re in the Church, which is the Body of Christ, why would it be right for us to act apart from it, or to discard its teachings rather than consider everything in the context of the Church?

As Mormons we are encouraged to first follow our consciences and Jesus Christ. If we are led elsewhere, so be it.

 

[RebeccaJ]

As Mormons we are encouraged to first follow our consciences and Jesus Christ. If we are led elsewhere, so be it.

 

[mfbukowski]

A very charitable and peaceful approach. One that is supported and encouraged by the Catholic Church.

Me, I enjoy the dialog. I work at being more charitable. Of course, I think I get better at it. Mormons keep telling me otherwise.

Well I must admit we are both starting from zero, so anything is an improvement for either or both of us

 

[RebeccaJ]

Dang that’s actually a good point. I guess Mormons CAN be led by the spirit if they find Catholicsm

I am pretty darn certain that look is not Catholic. Or Mormon.

 

[mfbukowski]

Perhaps I should rephrase again, or use an example. John the Baptist was a prophet, right? Did his gift of prophecy make him the head of the faith? Did he exercise an LDS-style “Prophet” office?

What about his father, or righteous Simeon and Anna the Prophetess, who were given confirmations of who Jesus was not just for themselves, but for all people to know? Did that make them the head of the church at the time? Why wasn’t it the High Priest?

We could go through these kind of examples from the Scripture (public revelation given to someone who did not hold some singular office of “prophet”), but I’m more interested in knowing who you think was the official “Prophet” Christ appointed, why, and then what happened after.

Running out of time but yes, John opened the dispensation for the savior – and those were private revelations that got recorded – and publicized for everyone. Like Paul-- his revelation was private and not for the church but for himself. Peter held the prophetic keys for revelation to the church. Properly speaking, the Pauline epistles were writings of an apostle which were later “canonized”. All apostles are ordained as prophets seers and revelators, but only one has the keys at any one time. That’s why the q of 12 has all the keys when the prophet dies until another is chosen.

It’s perfectly consistent. That’s the beauty of it, Perfectly consistent with scripture. No conflicts anywhere.

 

[1holycatholic]

Worship to the unknown god was reasoned, until Paul came and gave them light to the real God of which willingly they believed.

Peace>>>AJ

The Bible addresses Natural Theology.
Here (Rom 1):
19 For what can be known about God is perfectly plain to them, since God has made it plain to them:
20 ever since the creation of the world, the invisible existence of God and his everlasting power have been clearly seen by the mind’s understanding of created things. And so these people have no excuse:
21 they knew God and yet they did not honour him as God or give thanks to him, but their arguments became futile and their uncomprehending minds were darkened.
22 While they claimed to be wise, in fact they were growing so stupid
and here (Acts 17):
17 In the synagogue he debated with the Jews and the godfearing, and in the market place he debated every day with anyone whom he met.
18 Even a few Epicurean and Stoic philosophers argued with him. Some said, ‘What can this parrot mean?’ And, because he was preaching about Jesus and Resurrection, others said, ‘He seems to be a propagandist for some outlandish gods.’
19 They got him to accompany them to the Areopagus, where they said to him, ‘Can we know what this new doctrine is that you are teaching?
20 Some of the things you say seemed startling to us and we would like to find out what they mean.’
21 The one amusement the Athenians and the foreigners living there seem to have is to discuss and listen to the latest ideas.
22 So Paul stood before the whole council of the Areopagus and made this speech: 'Men of Athens, I have seen for myself how extremely scrupulous you are in all religious matters,
23 because, as I strolled round looking at your sacred monuments, I noticed among other things an altar inscribed: To An Unknown God. In fact, the unknown God you revere is the one I proclaim to you.
Study Natural Theology - you have no excuse not to.

 

[1holycatholic]

Underlined for emphasis.

I didn’t say Jesus is the many, but that in the many Jesus is.

I have free will, but not when it comes to the Catholic church?: then it is not free will.

Do I have free will to worship Christ anyway I chose and not be in danger of condemnation?

By the Catholic Church I am condemned but not by Christ? How does that work?

Peace>>>AJ

You have free will. Christ established one, and only one Church, the Catholic Church. Nobody is forcing you to accept or reject Christ’s Catholic Church. If you have a quarrel with the Catholic Church then you have a quarrel with Christ.

 

[seekdatruth]

Warning! Long Post! To be read only by those who want to know something!

Well calling someone’s faith “bull doo doo” doesn’t give one confidence in that person’s intentions.
I didn’t mean your faith, just the marketing strategy of dodging questions by asking questions of your own and sidelining with playful semantics
We don’t believe that God is an alien polygamist.

Nor do we believe that God came from another planet and has many spirit wives either.

If you really want to know what we believe, I will be happy to tell you but chances are, you will not believe what I tell you because we have been so misrepresented.
Try me.

Our doctrine is contained in the standard works of the church, and now where else. Should you want quotes showing that from official sources, I will be glad to give them to you.
Yet when I read stuff from official sources and ask a question about it, someone always says something that totally contradicts what was in writing, or is found in the D&C, or again just doesn’t answer

I think many of the misrepresentations I see and hear are from the fact that we answer questions others don’t even ask.
Yes, dodge my question and answer a question I didn’t even ask

I was discussing this personally with a noted anti-mormon last week, and I think that some personal understanding was reached about that.

We actually answer the following questions that I think you have never considered in detail. I know that the catechsim has some cursory answers to these, but the usual answer from Catholics is “it’s a mystery”.

What did God “do” for all eternity before he created this world? If God created time, does it even make sense to speak of a “time” “before” creation?

Why did God create us at all?That is a great mystery He has not yet revealed. Do YOU know the secret meaning of life? If so, tell me! [wringing hands eagerly]

If our spirits are eternal going forward, wouldn’t they be eternal going “backward”? What?

If Jesus and Mary now have a body, they exist in space and time.
“Where” are their bodies? Is heaven a spatial place they exist in?

Why wouldn’t God want his children to become like him? Isn’t he capable of that?** Insert entire OT and NT here. We are created in His image, but we are from dust. **

Why is there a limit to the Catholic notion of “theosis”?Read the Old Testament, particularly the 10 commandments

Is it fair that the Pope and a drug addict rapist murderer who genuinely converts on his death bed have the same reward in heaven?
** That depends on whether or not the drug rapist…was truly repentant for his sins. Who can judge but God? What does that have to do with contradictions in between the BOM and the the rest of Scripture? **

What exactly is “being” and how can 3 persons have the same one? How many other people can have the same “being” as the 3? Could it include hundreds or thousands of persons? If so, would they also be “God”?
The Trinity has been explained on these forums, use your “search” bar.

To a Muslim, Catholics are polytheists (all Christians are). Why are they not polytheists, if they believe God consists of 3 persons?Buhler? Anyone? So you know what Muslims believe, but not the Catholic Church?

Mormons answer those questions NON-DOCTRINALLY. Some of these non-doctrines are highly speculative. Others were taught by some prophets, or believed by them. Many are believed by most members and perhaps even included in student manuals. That is rare but it happens. I was taught in Catholic school that Limbo was doctrine.

But all are speculative and non doctrinal, like Limbo, unless they are in the standard works.

If you could honestly answer these questions, I might be Catholic. But you and your church don’t even try.

We answer them, and you say we believe that God is a “polygamist alien”.
**It’s a conclusion that I’ve drawn from what I actually HAVE heard and read. Define “polygamist” define “alien” **

In fact, our beliefs are very similar, but you won’t believe it.
I still need some ‘splainin’ from the LDS Church, or you if you feel qualified, before I accept that.

I will respond only to those who show evidence of actually having read the post. All others will get “read the post”.

 

[mfbukowski]

It was the first half of that message #263 that was more relevant. Starting with "Where the argument of “continuing revelation” ending is circular (as a “proof” of apostasy) is that first you must establish that “continuing revelation” occurs, was meant to occur after Christ, and means (is defined as) what you think it means. Fact is, I have seen no other non-Smithian groups that agree with any of those three points as Smithians believe them. It is a Smithian innovation backed up in only in Smithian works–which, if they must rely on themselves to demonstrate it, rely on circular reasoning.

I call it circular because you cannot presume those three premises about “continuing revelation” and use them as evidence for any sort of apostasy. You must first prove your premises."

First, I don’t need to, because your own assertion of continuing revelation is incorrect and so far unsupported.
Second, I gave at least one reference, though I did not quote the verse: John 14:26 “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” “Remembrance” is a past tense reference. It is done.
Third, I have you the logical arguments from the reality of the Incarnation and the Divine Institution of the Church as Christ’s Body, ensouled with the Holy Spirit, that means that God has revealed Himself to us fully, and that we have all the guide we need unto Salvation.
Fourth, I explained there, in opposition to the idea expressed by you or Dianaiad that “continuing revelation” was needed to teach, how everything can be taught that was already revealed.
Fifth, we have talked about how revelation is properly defined, and the difference between public and private revelation.

Your response contained no argument against any of these.

No. I compared and contrasted the two. I made an observation about how the pope is often vilified for the “arrogance” of infallibility, while the LDS “prophet” claims more. I also tried to explain how the process through which the Holy Spirit guides and protects truth within the Church (through the gift of infallibility where it applies), as well as the continuing teaching authority of the Church, should satisfy this need the LDS observe for Spirit-guided teaching.

That is what it comes down to, is it not? You want God’s continued guidance in the Church, recognize that it is necessary? Well, the Catholic Church recognizes that as well, and contains that gift.

That’s not what I was saying, though if I didn’t explain it well, I’m sorry.

I think we are using two different senses of “revelation.” You should know what I’m going off of, since the Catholic definitions have been posted. I still am not entirely sure what you’re using, since you’ve applied several different senses of the world.

In the sense that you seem to primarily be using “revelation,” as inerrant guidance of the Spirit, then yes, the Church exercises that form of revelation.

It’s Spirit-led and confirmed guidance that the Church exercises and experiences. Thus God still speaks to and through His Church.

What is different is that our God keeps no secrets, but has revealed Himself to us fully through Christ and the Holy Spirit. The glorious truth is that He has already come down to our level and holds nothing back. He still guides and leads, as well, through the Church.

How can that reality somehow not satisfy you? It is far greater than the idea that God is secretive and distant, that He occasionally tosses scraps of truth to some specific man, scraps that we need but that He’s been holding back. No, the Smithian sects show their gnostic origins with this idea of secret knowledge, and this model of revelation denies the intended universality of Christ’s Church and his saving act. It makes little of Christ’s sacrifice to say that he did not finish his work, but that more needs to be revealed yet for us to have salvation.

If that doesn’t sound like what you believe, please clarify, and please define “revelation” and its types and purposes. If you believe that all that is needed for Salvation has been revealed, then I wonder what we’re arguing about.

The short answer:
The reasoning is not circular. You presume no continuing revelation and I presume it exists. It has to exist because otherwise you would not know that Jesus is the Christ. You cannot know it any other way. I have already discussed that what you call public revelation is private revelation made public. As I told Rebecca, the process is similar to your pope speaking “ex cathedra” when necessary. He personally gets the revelation and makes it public. Because of his office, it applies to the whole church. Same for us.

Continued…

 

[mfbukowski]

It was the first half of that message #263 that was more relevant. Starting with "Where the argument of “continuing revelation” ending is circular (as a “proof” of apostasy) is that first you must establish that “continuing revelation” occurs, was meant to occur after Christ, and means (is defined as) what you think it means. Fact is, I have seen no other non-Smithian groups that agree with any of those three points as Smithians believe them. It is a Smithian innovation backed up in only in Smithian works–which, if they must rely on themselves to demonstrate it, rely on circular reasoning.

I call it circular because you cannot presume those three premises about “continuing revelation” and use them as evidence for any sort of apostasy. You must first prove your premises."

First, I don’t need to, because your own assertion of continuing revelation is incorrect and so far unsupported.
Second, I gave at least one reference, though I did not quote the verse: John 14:26 “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” “Remembrance” is a past tense reference. It is done.
Third, I have you the logical arguments from the reality of the Incarnation and the Divine Institution of the Church as Christ’s Body, ensouled with the Holy Spirit, that means that God has revealed Himself to us fully, and that we have all the guide we need unto Salvation.
Fourth, I explained there, in opposition to the idea expressed by you or Dianaiad that “continuing revelation” was needed to teach, how everything can be taught that was already revealed.
Fifth, we have talked about how revelation is properly defined, and the difference between public and private revelation.

Your response contained no argument against any of these.

No. I compared and contrasted the two. I made an observation about how the pope is often vilified for the “arrogance” of infallibility, while the LDS “prophet” claims more. I also tried to explain how the process through which the Holy Spirit guides and protects truth within the Church (through the gift of infallibility where it applies), as well as the continuing teaching authority of the Church, should satisfy this need the LDS observe for Spirit-guided teaching.

That is what it comes down to, is it not? You want God’s continued guidance in the Church, recognize that it is necessary? Well, the Catholic Church recognizes that as well, and contains that gift.

That’s not what I was saying, though if I didn’t explain it well, I’m sorry.

I think we are using two different senses of “revelation.” You should know what I’m going off of, since the Catholic definitions have been posted. I still am not entirely sure what you’re using, since you’ve applied several different senses of the world.

In the sense that you seem to primarily be using “revelation,” as inerrant guidance of the Spirit, then yes, the Church exercises that form of revelation.

It’s Spirit-led and confirmed guidance that the Church exercises and experiences. Thus God still speaks to and through His Church.

What is different is that our God keeps no secrets, but has revealed Himself to us fully through Christ and the Holy Spirit. The glorious truth is that He has already come down to our level and holds nothing back. He still guides and leads, as well, through the Church.

How can that reality somehow not satisfy you? It is far greater than the idea that God is secretive and distant, that He occasionally tosses scraps of truth to some specific man, scraps that we need but that He’s been holding back. No, the Smithian sects show their gnostic origins with this idea of secret knowledge, and this model of revelation denies the intended universality of Christ’s Church and his saving act. It makes little of Christ’s sacrifice to say that he did not finish his work, but that more needs to be revealed yet for us to have salvation.

If that doesn’t sound like what you believe, please clarify, and please define “revelation” and its types and purposes. If you believe that all that is needed for Salvation has been revealed, then I wonder what we’re arguing about.

Continued from above:

I believe JW’s also believe in continuing public revelation but that is irrelevant. If we are the only ones, it is because we are the only true church. I didn’t know that we got to vote on christian doctrine.

Third, I have you the logical arguments from the reality of the Incarnation and the Divine Institution of the Church as Christ’s Body, ensouled with the Holy Spirit, that means that God has revealed Himself to us fully, and that we have all the guide we need unto Salvation.

I have no clue what you are talking about here.
But the bolded portion sure seems to conflict with this:

In the sense that you seem to primarily be using “revelation,” as inerrant guidance of the Spirit, then yes, the Church exercises that form of revelation.

And this:

You want God’s continued guidance in the Church, recognize that it is necessary? Well, the Catholic Church recognizes that as well, and contains that gift.

And as far as the pope is concerned, I never said that infallibility is “arrogant” and I don’t know where you got that idea.

I wish you and RebeccaJ would talk and get the story straight here.

Actually let Rebecca translate for you. She speaks Mormon. If you agree with her post on the subject I will believe that you two both believe the same thing, but right now it appears that half the time you are diametrically opposed. Half the time because you seem to contradict yourself and I don’t know what half to respond to.

 

[mfbukowski]

Thanks for the explanation. I didn’t know about the tradition.

The first part (which I quoted here) seems to be responding directly to what I said about there being some requirement for descent from Joseph Smith. If there is any such requirement or predestination, would you mind illuminating?

I have experience with CoC and Restorationists who seem to place more stock in the whole descendants of Joseph Smith thing, and I’m wondering what the differences are.

I have wondered about any requirement for relation because I don’t see much precedent in it in Salvation History.

No requirement for descent from Joseph.