Is Mormonism Christian ?

[mfbukowski]

Please tell me precisely what revelation is. In your own words, define it for me.

You might want to include how it feels, who receives it, how it is received. Is it always lingusitic, like words suddenly appearing from no where in your mind?

What precisely is revelation?

What was the process by which scripture was “received”?

It appears in the Book of Revelations that John saw pictures and symbols. Is it always that way?

Do you believe that Matthew Mark Luke and John who are mentioned in the gospels actually wrote those books?

How were books selected to be canonized? Was that process itself inspired? How, and who actually did it?

 

[look3467]

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

There you go again, limiting.

Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

General invitation?

Peace>>>AJ

 

[mfbukowski]

You have never defined the term, and from my observations, you are using at least 5 definitions, not 2. Who’s lazy?

1. Revelation to a person to confirm that God’s Word is true–otherwise known by Catholics as the “gift of faith.” Has never ceased.
2. Revelation as guidance to the people of the Church about what to do–otherwise known to Catholics as “guidance.” Has never ceased since the institution of the Church.
3. Revelation as right teaching–otherwise known to Catholics as the “charism of infallibility.” Has never ceased since the institution of the Church.
4. Revelation as private, for one or more persons but not necessary to all–otherwise known by Catholics as “private revelation.” Has never ceased.

How do you know this revelation is true and not an illusion? What is the experience like? Could I be inspired? Why yes and why no?

1. Revelation as intended for all, necessary for Salvation–otherwise known by Catholics as “public revelation.” Was completed in Christ, can never be added to without nullifying Christ’s once-and-for-all saving act, can never be changed, can never die out, can never be contradicted. Now we just seek to understand and imply it all, and God has given 1-4 as means to help us do so.

How did Christ do this since he never wrote a book? Who wrote the books we regard as inspired and how did they do it? Who decided that those books were true revelation and not others? How did they do that?

Were the ECF’s inspired?

 

[Arandur]

All apostles are “prophets seers and revelators”. Were it not so, John could not have written the book of Revelation/Apocalypse…
All were prophets seers and revelators as today. They werent sitting down to “write the new testament”. They wrote letters which were later canonized for their instructive value.

Ah, so now we see that others than your supposed office of “Prophet” can prophesy. So why did you question the children at Fatima and say that it was the Prophet who should have received that, not them?

Same place he is addressed as “pope”

You ignored the difference between the terms, unless you are saying that “Prophet” is not an office but rather an affectionate title.

Peter was the lead apostle from the start. That is evident from the gospels and the book of Acts.

Oh, we Catholics certainly agree.

Incidentally your story of how leadership among the bishops evolved into leadership of the Bishop of Rome is one of those changes in doctrine that would require an open canon of scripture, which you deny. Where does it say in scripture that the Bishop of Rome is supposed to be “pope” or the head of the church?

My “story?” Where?
I denied open canon? Where?
As I clearly said, it is the successor of Peter that is effectively head of the Church on earth, first among equals, the final arbiter of any question before the apostles. That Peter’s successors ended up in Rome and settled there was not necessary, but probably happened as a sign to show that the Church was a sword thrust at the center of the world, meant to conquer the world for Christ, and to encompass (universally, catholic-ally) the whole world.

Apostles were chosen to fill in the gaps as they died off. That is also evident from Acts. It is not clear about succession historically since by the time the last apostles died, the church was already in apostasy. I personally feel that John was the last living apostle and that is why he was chosen to write Revelations, because he was the last with authority.

Peter and Paul were very busy appointing successors.
Apostasy complete by the time of the last Apostle, eh? But you just said that they were filling the gaps as they died off…
And where is your proof, or even evidence, that we have not already refuted?
And how could that happen, given Christ’s various parables and promises?
And how cheap, then, was the Apostles’ teaching?
To say that Smith and his unsupported mythology was somehow more successful than the mission work of the first Apostles and the only ones to actually live with Jesus before and after his death and resurrection is frankly absolutely ridiculous.

It’s not static. Of course it gets filled in as they die. Technically there are 15 men who are ordained as prophets seers and revelators. There is the quorum of the 12 who function as a quorum and then there is the first presidency which consist of 3 presidents, of whom the prophet is one. But really all are ordained as prophets.

Oh really? And where do we see that in Scripture or the early Church?

I am not sure what you want here. Do you want a reference to the scripture where Judas successor is named? Can’t you look that one up? Acts 1: 11 - it was Mathias.

I know the passage; I referred to it when I referred to appointing a successor. I was pointing out your numerical contradiction to your supposed limitation of 12 apostles.

…
Note the prayer for revelation and the fact that they filled the seat. Of couse this happened as other vacancies formed.

Why did they do this if the apostleship was not an office? Apostles are called to be special witnesses of the resurrection of Christ.

Note verse 21 and 22. This is the main difference between the original 12 Apostles and the ongoing apostolic office. The criteria in 21 and 22 can no longer be filled, because none have “went in and out among us, beginning with the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.”

 

[look3467]

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

I am a believer! Like you, and the rest of you are believers.
So happens that we are of differing views, yet believe in the same God.

Peace>>>AJ

 

[mfbukowski]

You have never defined the term, and from my observations, you are using at least 5 definitions, not 2. Who’s lazy?

1. Revelation to a person to confirm that God’s Word is true–otherwise known by Catholics as the “gift of faith.” Has never ceased.

 

[Arandur]

I am sorry that my intellectual rigor does not live up to your lofty standards. Now you got my attention.

All I ask is that you be precise with your arguments, and not claim ridiculously that somehow you’re being more precise than me. I’ve defined terms and given textual and logical evidence. Do the same.

Please restate your argument and show me how mine is circular. With your great intellectual rigor I am sure you can do this in a few words instead of lengthy ambiguous posts. You seem to have a habit of refering vaguely to past posts without evidence.

I’m the one with ambiguous posts? Really, you’ve got to be kidding me.

Which argument do you want me to restate? The one refuting the common Mormon argument that the “great apostasy” occurred because “continuing revelation” ended?

Show me precisely the circularity of the argument. Please back it with references if you require them. Show me where my conclusion is included in my premises. That should not be hard to do or should not be lengthy. Perhaps the format:
Premise: xxxxxx
Conclusion: yyxyyy
This is circular because: (x is included in your premise and is part of the conclusion)

If the above argument is what you want me to talk about, it requires you stating yours. I can do it for you if you like.

Premise1: Continuing revelation is needed for the Church to exist.
Premise2: Continuing revelation ceased.
Therefore Premise3: An apostasy occurred that ended the Church.
Therefore Conclusion: A restoration was necessary to restore continuing revelation and thus the church.

Here are the problems:

1. You need to define your terms, “revelation,” “Church,” and Apostasy.
   I’ve gone through “revelation” already, clearly, in numbered outline. By Church I presume you mean “priesthood authority” and since you would define that as being required for all the sacraments, and since baptism is a necessary sacrament for membership in the church and salvation, the Church essentially died. By “apostasy” I presume you mean total, in that falsehood crept in so that priesthood authority was lost.
2. Premise 1 is incorrect and invalidates your conclusion if you assume that the 5th sense of “revelation” defined in post #457, “public revelation” is still necessary.
3. Premise 2 is incorrect and invalidates your conclusion if you think that senses 1-4 of revelation ended.
4. Premise 3 is incorrect if you think this is even possible, and is not supported by your evidences (that heresies occurred).
5. The Conclusion is circular because it contains “continuing revelation” as your defining point of restoration of the church. It is also circular because we see the argument repeat itself in this way:
   Your definition of “continuing revelation” comes from information from your so-called “restoration.” Your definition, then, comes from your conclusion; thus your premises are based on your conclusion; thus the circularity of the argument.

Incidentally, not backing up a premise does not make an argument circular. But since you have intellectual rigor, you know that. So I am not sure what you mean

Effectively assuming your conclusion is circular.

 

[Arandur]

“Revelation” is a message from God, to a human being. It is a communcation through feelings, rationality and impressions.

Agreed or not?

This is the mode of communication. It says nothing of the different purposes and is thus not useful to the discussion. Further, it is not limited to a single human being. It can also come from physical or just visual apparition.

 

[Arandur]

You seem to disagree with RebeccaJ
I don’t want to waste time. Post me a reference to a definitive catholic position on this-- perhaps you have-- and I will respond to the definitive position.

I did in the post just previous (#466), and Rebecca did in the post on Private and Public Revelation.

I frankly do not understand your language. It seems quite ambiguous.

Are councils spirit led and part of public or private revelation or none at all? You have not answered my questions so I still don’t understand your language. The format you use above where you ask yourself a question and then draw your own conclusion illuminates nothing. You are having a conversation with yourself and no one else
Is anyone else here having any trouble understanding me? No one else has said they’ve had a problem. Please, be honest.

Councils are Spirit led, as we have said many times.

What questions have I not answered?

 

[Arandur]

The problem is that you use language ambiguously and do not define your terms. “Salvation” is one. You want to get into logic, get ready. You want to deconstruct, get ready.

I did not know until now that you questioned what Salvation was.
Off the cuff, it is that Christ atoned for our sins so that we could have eternal life with God and join Him in full communion as His children, as we were meant to be, ultimately with glorified bodies.

Seriously, does anyone else think I’m being ambiguous? Am I the one not defining terms?

I have not yet seen a single definition from you (with the possible exception of “revelation” and “scripture” that you started after you made this accusation), mfb, that I can recall, whereas I have defined things several times. If you persist in your ridiculous attacks while being far more guilty of what you charge, I’ll just let you wallow in such foolishness and not waste my time with you.

 

[Arandur]

Scriptures were words “given” to human beings which were inspired by God. The experience of receiving revelation can of itself be feelings which can be difficult to express.

Agreed or not?

How do you mean “given?” They were not dictated. Scripture is Divinely Inspired in that the authors, who may not have even realized they were writing Scripture, wrote without error of God’s Truth. This was often done with non-literal, figurative language. Scripture must have been accepted by the Church through the guidance of the Spirit in order to be acknowledged as free from error. The members of the Church, then, must depend on the Church’s charism of infallibility to even recognize Scripture as proper, inerrant Scripture.

 

[mfbukowski]

In one sense it is, in another not. In the sense that you are using it, that of infallible teachings of the truth, it is not closed. In fact, as the Council of Trent (which I don’t believe ever said that the Council was closed) includes the discussion of why the deuterocanonical books are to be included in with the rest of Scripture, a non-exclusive argument.

Perhaps this will help (borrowed from another explanation and reference given on another thread): private revelations … as the CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church) paragraph 67 says it is “to help live more fully by it in a certain period of time of history.”

Here it is in context
Quote:
**67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. **It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.
Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations”.

GIVE ME A BREAK.

FORGET IT DUDE. THIS WHOLE TIME YOU HAVE BEEN TELLING ME THE CANON IS CLOSED NOW YOU PULL THIS AMBIGUOUS S…TUFF ON ME!

My whole point is that “public revelations are private revelations made public” and then you have the gall to tell me that I lack intellectual rigor and then you turn around and post
THIS???

Forget it. You guys just plain talk in circles.

You have continuing revelation and don’t want to admit it.
Period.

You throw in mumbo jumbo about “deposit of faith” and “sensus fidelium” and that is supposed to make you consistent.

Forget it. It’s a waste of time

You couldn’t speak plainly if your life depended on it. The mumbo jumbo is all in your blood, Actually the hocus pocus and Rebecca knows what I mean by that from other threads.

 

[Arandur]

Please tell me precisely what revelation is. In your own words, define it for me.

I did. Over and over again. Why didn’t you read it? I explained the 5 senses of revelation being used in this discussion in post #457.

You might want to include how it feels, who receives it, how it is received. Is it always lingusitic, like words suddenly appearing from no where in your mind?

What precisely is revelation?

What was the process by which scripture was “received”?

It appears in the Book of Revelations that John saw pictures and symbols. Is it always that way?

Do you believe that Matthew Mark Luke and John who are mentioned in the gospels actually wrote those books?

How were books selected to be canonized? Was that process itself inspired? How, and who actually did it?

How is any of that revelation to our discussion of “continuing revelation” and what revelation is important to the Church?

 

[look3467]

Doctrinal differences we will always have!

It is the means by which we are motivated to search out truths.

When it is all said and done, we shall find out now, or there, that all of it didn’t really matter that much because we each are responsible for our own behavior.

It is much like a father with six children.
The children grew up having differing views on how to worship their father.
Some never do, others frequently and yet some desire that the others do as they do to show their father that they love him.

When all the time they were all loved by the father regardless of their attitude to wards him.

What the father really cares about more than himself being worshiped, is that they love one another, as he loves them.

They have nothing to fear from him, for he knows them and are all safe from alienation because in his wisdom and understanding, he loves.

Peace>>>AJ

 

[Arandur]

GIVE ME A BREAK.

FORGET IT DUDE. THIS WHOLE TIME YOU HAVE BEEN TELLING ME THE CANON IS CLOSED NOW YOU PULL THIS AMBIGUOUS S…TUFF ON ME!

I never said canon was closed. You made that assumption, apparently. Likely because you get the senses of revelation confused, and you sometimes equate revelation with Scripture and sometimes not.

You have admitted that not all revelation is written down in Scripture, or meant to be so. So what’s the problem here? I just referred to the fact that some revelation is included in Scripture, some is not. We should be in agreement there.

My whole point is that “public revelations are private revelations made public” and then you have the gall to tell me that I lack intellectual rigor and then you turn around and post
THIS???

I explained to you why this is a misunderstanding of what we call “private” and “public” revelation.

You have continuing revelation and don’t want to admit it.
Period.

As I’ve been saying, all revelation but public revelation has never ceased; public revelation is complete.

You throw in mumbo jumbo about “deposit of faith” and “sensus fidelium” and that is supposed to make you consistent.

I quoted the Catechism. I’m sorry if you do not understand it.

You couldn’t speak plainly if your life depended on it. The mumbo jumbo is all in your blood, Actually the hocus pocus and Rebecca knows what I mean by that from other threads.

Does anyone else think I haven’t spoken plainly? I’m sorry you have difficulty understanding me, mfb. Apparently there are concepts you just really struggle with, likely because of your background and Mormon obfuscation.

67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith.

I’m assuming you bolded this because you think it’s new. We have been saying this all along. How you missed it I can’t imagine.

Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations”.

This, which I bolded, is the Catechism description of that public revelation necessary for salvation that was complete in Christ. If your church believes that it is incomeplete and we need more, then it falls into that category of non-Christian religions and recent sects.

 

[mfbukowski]

How do you mean “given?” They were not dictated. Scripture is Divinely Inspired in that the authors, who may not have even realized they were writing Scripture, wrote without error of God’s Truth. This was often done with non-literal, figurative language. Scripture must have been accepted by the Church through the guidance of the Spirit in order to be acknowledged as free from error. The members of the Church, then, must depend on the Church’s charism of infallibility to even recognize Scripture as proper, inerrant Scripture.

I depend on no one to tell me my religion is true.

How can you possibly do that? Pass out the cool aid.

Is that like the Cloak of Invisibility? Want to look at that charism a little bit? No fergetaboutit.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Then why did He talk to Paul?

Paul never knew Jesus in life. He never saw Jesus resurrected. He did not see Him ascend. In that he was no different from you or me; all he had to go on was the testimony of those who did know Him, and…

revelation.

Yet because he received that revelation (and many others, obviously) his words and his letters are scripture.

One of the scriptures most quoted to me is from Hebrews; Paul wrote, in Hebrews 1:1-2:
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

This is used as a proof text that there would be no more prophets after Christ. Yet, if one interprets them in THAT way, Paul is utterly condemning—himself.

This particular scripture supports exactly what I am saying. God in the past spoke through the prophets. Now, He has spoken through the Son. The Apostles recorded what they received from the Son.

Paul is not condemning himself, he is speaking of the Son, and about the Son. He is telling us exactly what the Catholic Church teaches it and why it is a truth.

I’m not really sure why you are having trouble understanding this, or, trying to make it mean something else.

 

[Arandur]

So you are saying that faith is the same thing as revelation? I disagree. We have to have faith to walk across the room that our legs will not give out etc-- it is a principle of action. Revelation is a message received from God

No, YOU said “faith is revelation” when you were saying that we could not become Christians or know Christ or respond to the truth without personal revelation. I just told you that we Catholics call that the response of faith; we don’t call it revelation. This is one of the things you were calling revelation earlier.

Can others receive this guidance? If not, how do others find the true church. Can this guidance be mistaken? How do we know it is true?

Why does this matter to the conversation? Do you accept this definition or not?

Anyone can be guided by God, obviously. An individual’s or group’s interpretation of God’s guidance can be quite faulty. We do the best we can. The Church does not always follow God’s guidance properly in the actions it takes. However, the Church, since it IS Christ, has the gift of infallibility to ensure just that in matters of faith/doctrine and morals it transmits the information without error (not necessarily in the most understandable way, but without error). There are special conditions under which this gift is exercised, and that is how we can know that it is inerrant.

No clue what this means. You mean the ability to teach correctly? Or the ability to be taught and hear the lesson correctly? And how is it infallible? Individuals can be infallible?

I explained some of this in my last paragraph, as there is some overlap. Yes, the ability to teach correctly. “Right teaching” was an ECF term. No, not the ability to hear the lesson correctly. It is infallible under certain conditions—in short, the Spirit works through the apostolic office most definitively in councils that are ratified by the successor of Peter, which must be in agreement with all prior defined doctrine, Scripture, and Tradition (which is sort of what the “sensis fidelium” is, the “Sense of the Faithful,” acting as a ratification by the members of the Church). Individuals are not infallible. It is by the exercise of a certain office under certain conditions that a pronouncement can be assured to have been protected from error by the Spirit.

This appears to be a CATEGORY of revelation not a TYPE of revelation. Numbers 1-3 above I think are also private revelation aren’t they? Or does everyone get to be infallible for the whole church? I think you are confusing categories with types of revelations.

It is a “sense” of revelation, i.e. one of the ways in which the word is used. 1-3 could in a way be considered to be a subset of this, yes. No, no one just gets to “be” infallible.

What precisely do you mean by “salvation”? Going to heaven? Beatific vision? If revelation is necessary for salvation, does that mean that Christ’s saving act is dependent on the communication of that Act?

“Salvation”—answered just recently. Communication of the act? No, but the truth that was revealed to us about that Act and how we were to live cannot be changed.

So if no one wrote the gospels, his death would have no meaning? What does the act of his atonement have to do with the revealing of the act? Sounds confused.

If no one wrote the Gospels, we’d still have the Church to communicate the Truth. Communicating it is not strictly necessary, but it is vastly helpful. Why do you spend so much time on missionary work if you don’t think people benefit from “revealing the act?” Those who have never heard can still come to know God, for He still communicates to them in their life, through Creation, and through human relationship.

The act can never be changed I agree, but certainly the way the act is “revealed” is changed in every human heart. And the words expressing the act can be changed. There are multiple translations of the words. So precisely what does that mean that the revelation can never be changed?

You can’t contradict the truth as it has already been revealed. Truth does not change. We can understand it better, and yes, we can communicated it in different ways. But it can’t be changed. You can’t change doctrine, only explain it further or define it.

How does further information about the act of the atonement nullify it? I would think it would enrich it. I would love to understand all I can about the atonement. The more the better as far as I am concerned

What do you mean by “further information?” If this “further information,” for instance, claims that Christ’s saving act was really complete at the Garden of Gethsemane, as I have heard two Mormons argue, then it is contradicting the truth that the whole Passion was necessary, as was the Resurrection.

 

[Arandur]

I depend on no one to tell me my religion is true.

I would hope you depend on God.

How can you possibly do that? Pass out the cool aid.

Do what? Follow what God says? If He’s passing out the Kool-Aid, yes, I want some.

It did take investigation and faith for me to believe that God exists, that He is trustworthy, that the Bible was true, that the Church was true. Once I accepted these things, I had the benefit of knowing that God guides His Church and protects it from error in core matters. Thus because I believe that God is reliable, I believe that the teachings He gives me are reliable. For it is He that gives them, really; the Church is just the instrument.

Is that like the Cloak of Invisibility? Want to look at that charism a little bit? No fergetaboutit.

I don’t know what you’re talking about. Some anti-Catholic nonsense, no doubt.

 

[Arandur]

This particular scripture supports exactly what I am saying. God in the past spoke through the prophets. Now, He has spoken through the Son. The Apostles recorded what they received from the Son.

Paul is not condemning himself, he is speaking of the Son, and about the Son. He is telling us exactly what the Catholic Church teaches it and why it is a truth.

I’m not really sure why you are having trouble understanding this, or, trying to make it mean something else.

If I may say it in another way, Paul is just teaching and explaining what Christ taught. Just as any of us may teach anything said in the Scriptures. If we teach such things, are we giving new revelation? Of course not. We are just teaching what has already been revealed. So it was with Paul, teaching what Christ revealed.