Is Mormonism Christian ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bill_Pick
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
dianaiad said:
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.
Click to expand...
It’s not WHO or WHEN God talked to, it’s WHAT did that person hear? Was it in line with all other Scripture and the Word of Christ? Well, then we’re diggin it. Otherwise, the guy is looked at thus—>:ehh:
I’m going to go pray the evil, idolatrous, rosary, asking God’s #1 Lady, Mary, to help me understand and be faithful to the words of Jesus Christ. God bless you all!
 
dianaiad said:
Thank you for posting that link. It was very interesting.

There is one question, however, that intrigues me, and I’ve never been able, quite, to get past it:

If ‘public revelation’ ceased with Christ, then how come we know anything about Him?

Indeed, everything we know about His divine nature is a direct result of the very sort of public revelation that Cardinal Z claims ceased.

In fact, Paul is absolute proof that it did not cease when Christ was crucified, or resurrected, or Ascended; he didn’t know Christ personally. He never met Him, except on that road to Damascus—and that, sir, is REVELATION with a capital R.E.V.E.L.A.T.I.O.N, as is everything Paul wrote down as scripture, by it’s very nature and definition.

In fact, the apostle Paul causes a few problems for those who claim that the bible says there would be no more revelation after Christ was crucified/resurrected/ascended.

So, come to think of it, do the apostles Luke, John, Matthew, Peter and Mark. Perhaps, especially, John the Beloved and Paul…
Click to expand...
👍

Rebecca J
And what of the book of Revelations – when was that written?

And every Council – were they inspired?

Didn’t they “correct” doctrine? Was the corrected doctrine more correct than the previous? Isn’t that called a “change?”

Look at Vatican II. It changed people’s lives and started the Traditional Catholic movement. That had better have been inspired by God or it was a huge mistake.

Birth control. New doctrine? Also better have been inspired or a big mistake

There were quite a few “adjustments” that must have been inspired too. Could the church have handled the Reformation better? Could it have handled the priest abuse scandal better? Was that response inspired or not? Certainly it did not go well for the church. Crusades? Heresies?

And there is no need for further revelation? Perfection was achieved with the New Testament? I submit that if you acknowledge that the church did one thing wrong in the last two thousand years, you are saying that revelation was necessary

We have no problem with acknowledging the receipt of revelation and mid-course corrections as needed. We both have human institutions. When humans make mistakes, God inspires us to do better. You either believe in revelation or you don’t. Public or Private is irrelevant. God leads his church or he doesn’t.

So were those perfect decisions inspired or not?
 
We have no problem with acknowledging the receipt of revelation and mid-course corrections as needed. We both have human institutions. When humans make mistakes, God inspires us to do better. You either believe in revelation or you don’t. Public or Private is irrelevant. God leads his church or he doesn’t.
Click to expand...
So were those perfect decisions inspired or not?
Click to expand...
Not purely inspired. Also based in reason (which you have plenty of, for a LDS)

Just like I define a prophet as an honest historian who criticizes modern society, using the principle that history repeats itself, always seeking God’s will in the process. Firmly based on reason, only minimally based on inspiration.
 
Bukowski, many birth control methods, not just abortion, function by creating a hostile environment for the implantation of the fetus ~ essentially creating the circumstances of an abortion via an alternative means.

“Thou shalt not kill” was already on the books, so extending that to include many forms of birth control is not “new doctrine”.
 
dianaiad said:
And your question about whether we have the revelation of modern prophets written down as scripture and that we carry around? The answer is…yep. We do. We do not believe that the canon is closed.
Click to expand...
Uhhhh…And neither do Catholics
So your point is…?
 
mfbukowski said:
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.
Click to expand...
What do you consider the keys given to the rest of the apostles?

John’s Revelation was written as an address to multiple geographic churches, as well as being intended for the Church for all time. You think that was just supposed to be private?

You think Paul wrote all his letters to all those churches when he should have been keeping his understanding/revelation private? That wasn’t supposed to be public?

Boy, I guess those two guys didn’t understand it should only have been coming from Peter. I guess Peter’s writings should have been all of the New Testament; the others were writing out of order?

Where is Peter ever addressed as “Prophet” or “President?” It sounds like that’s more of an official title than “Pope,” which is really an affectionate title for the Petrine office (which, since Peter was the first, needed no special title during his time holding that office).

And who was supposed to be Prophet after Peter? Or did the Apostles screw up so badly that they never passed on any authority, that it died with them (in which case I’m interested in evidence about that, as well).

Another thing I’m curious about–you refer to a static “quorum of 12” apostles. Is that 12 apostles +1 Prophet? Where was that in Scripture, when the 11 appointed a successor for Judas, and Peter was still included in their number? And weren’t there another 12 being set up in the Americas during that time, so that this rule of yours was broken (there being 24)?
 
dianaiad said:
Thank you for posting that link. It was very interesting.

There is one question, however, that intrigues me, and I’ve never been able, quite, to get past it:

If ‘public revelation’ ceased with Christ, then how come we know anything about Him?

Indeed, everything we know about His divine nature is a direct result of the very sort of public revelation that Cardinal Z claims ceased.

In fact, Paul is absolute proof that it did not cease when Christ was crucified, or resurrected, or Ascended; he didn’t know Christ personally. He never met Him, except on that road to Damascus—and that, sir, is REVELATION with a capital R.E.V.E.L.A.T.I.O.N, as is everything Paul wrote down as scripture, by it’s very nature and definition.

In fact, the apostle Paul causes a few problems for those who claim that the bible says there would be no more revelation after Christ was crucified/resurrected/ascended.

So, come to think of it, do the apostles Luke, John, Matthew, Peter and Mark. Perhaps, especially, John the Beloved and Paul…
Click to expand...
You know, I’ve been thinking about this one little more. I admit I think I missed your point a little.
My explanation for this one was that the work of spreading the Revelation <–capitalized that had happened with Christ coming to earth and the death and resurrection, was not done yet by the time Paul came, indeed. The Church hadn’t quite defined it’s own boundaries and what to do with all this. It hadn’t yet been digested. and put into understanding. When it became clear what His message was defined, then His work on that was done. We were left with “You do not know the time…” “It will come as a thief…” “Watch!” Always be ready, you don’t know when the Second Coming will be. What more Revelation do we need? Sure, we need guidance as a Church and as individuals and sometimes a smack on the head, but **why did he die on the cross at all? If we weren’t supposed to get the point then, when *are *we going to get it? ** He still graces us all here on earth with signs and little reminders that He’s still around and working, and to “HANG ON, BABY!” Our duty is to have faith, and not question that He is indeed coming back and has a purpose for us all. Breaking off, creating a new church, and telling others that they are completely wrong and in the dark, even suggesting that Satan is at the wheel, and coming up with one’s own story about what “really” went down, needs to be scrutinized carefully. Especially since it is apparent we were warned of this type of thing thousands of years ago. When a bunch of red flags pop up, what can one expect?
 
mfbukowski said:
The short answer:
The reasoning is not circular. You presume no continuing revelation and I presume it exists.
Click to expand...
Nope, that’s the difference in intellectual rigor between us and you. We have backed up why we believe what we believe. We have defined our terms and provided evidence. You have not backed up the premise upon which your argument is based, so it is circular. The typical Mormon approach I have seen relies on Smith’s words or works, which is circular because those “evidences” are invalid unless you assume the conclusion (continuing revelation as you define it).
It has to exist because otherwise you would not know that Jesus is the Christ. You cannot know it any other way.
Click to expand...
The problem is that you still have not defined your terms. “Revelation” can be used in many senses. You flit from one sense to another without consistency or coherence. You use one sense to back up one claim of yours, another sense to back up another, and then judge our arguments on different senses than we have been using them on. It doesn’t work that way, and that’s why we’re not getting much of anywhere in this discussion. You refuse to be consistent about what “revelation” means in each context that it is used in this discussion.

The sense that you refer to here is referred to by Catholics as the gift of faith, given by grace. Catholics talk a lot about it. I would rather talk about it in this term, because it is more precise and avoids the confusion of the 5+ different senses in which you are applying the term “revelation.” It removes that sense from your usage so that we can talk about it more precisely.
I have already discussed that what you call public revelation is private revelation made public.
Click to expand...
There is no need to distort or redefine our definition. You can either agree that our definition is one accurate definition or you can explain why it doesn’t apply.

By this explanation of yours, it sounds like you are just confused. You seem to claim that there is ONLY private revelation, but that some of that revelation is made public. Should it be made public? Is it ever wrong for it to be made public? Is it ever meant for it to be made public? Is it meant to apply to all Christians everywhere?

Our definition is limited to that last. “Public revelation” is that which is meant to apply to all Christians everywhere, and that all Christians really need to be aware of because they need to accept it and follow it. This revelation has in the past been made to single individuals, but it has also been expressed through multiple people. And it MUST be made public. That is a very important difference between it and private revelation.

We apply the term “private revelation” to that revelation which can apply to one individual or multiple people in a given time or place, but is not absolutely necessary for everyone to believe and to follow. It is not necessary for Salvation. It can guide individuals or whole regions, but need not be for everyone.

Those are important distinctions. You can either agree that revelation of those types exist or doesn’t exist, but don’t confuse matters by trying to distort our definitions.

By our definitions, we can readily agree that revelation continues in two of the senses that you have used it: the gift of faith, and private revelation. I can’t see how you can argue that these forms of revelation ceased prior to Joseph Smith.
 
seekdatruth said:
Shunning loved ones because they refuse to convert or choose another religion is ridiculous, but I see it all the time, and I dread the day when my in-laws finally convince my children that they belong with them and to turn their backs on me. I will be very sad.
Click to expand...
We don’t do this as a matter of policy. I am sorry if it has happened in your family. We are obviously a missionary oriented church and it doesn’t make sense to “shun” someone who hasn’t converted (yet). But we are also family oriented and there is no excuse for this kind of behavior.

Sometimes people feel excluded over marriage ceremonies which are conducted in the temple. I know my mother did not attend my sealing for this reason. She was not a member of our church.

But really this is no different than your requirements that one should be a Catholic to take communion.

I have known many mixed Mormon and “non-member” families which are very close and others which are not. It can happen in all kinds of “mixed” families for a lot of reasons – I have seen ethnic divisions in families as well where the Hispanics are not comfortable with the whites or the Armenians or the jews or whatever not comfortable with eachother. It is unfortunate but it happens. And ethnic divisions within families can even happen where all are part of the same religion.

Half of my family is from Utah, and man those people are weird. 😉
 
seekdatruth said:
It’s not WHO or WHEN God talked to, it’s WHAT did that person hear? Was it in line with all other Scripture and the Word of Christ? Well, then we’re diggin it. Otherwise, the guy is looked at thus—>:ehh:
I’m going to go pray the evil, idolatrous, rosary, asking God’s #1 Lady, Mary, to help me understand and be faithful to the words of Jesus Christ. God bless you all!
Click to expand...
I would agree with you. I no longer pray the rosary of course but I think there’s nothing wrong with it. I remember it being very meditative and calming, almost like chanting a mantra. In fact there seem to be many practices of Catholicsim that are like Buddhism or Hinduism, and this is one.
 
mfbukowski said:
I have no clue what you are talking about here.
But the bolded portion sure seems to conflict with this:

And this:
Click to expand...
Let me try again. Is God an infinite being? Was Jesus fully God? Was Jesus fully man? If the answer to these is “yes,” then the infinite God was Revealed to us fully in Jesus Christ. How could there possibly be more revelation than that?

There are two more parallel logical evidences.

Did Jesus Save us with his death and resurrection, once and for all, at a distinct point in time? Is Jesus the fulfillment of the prophecies of the OT, the whole purpose of Salvation History since the Fall of Adam? If these are true, and our Salvation is complete in Christ, then all we need for Salvation has been done and revealed.

Did Jesus make the Church his Body, one flesh through marriage (as the Church is the Bride of Christ)? Did Jesus send the Holy Spirit to guide his Church into all Truth? If so, then the Church is not merely a human organization! It is Divine. It was Divinely Instituted, and it IS a manifestation of both Christ and the Holy Spirit. If Christ and the Holy Spirit are also God, then all of God exists in the Church. If all of God exists in the Church, then God has chosen to fully Reveal Himself to us in the Church. Thus, by creating the Church at the point in time of Christ’s life on earth, God at that distinct point in time of the Institution of the Church that He filled Christ’s Body with the Spirit thus Revealed Himself completely. It is finished.

All of the three above references apply to what we define as public revelation.

All that is left is for us to come to understand what He has revealed. In this, He still guides us through the Spirit, and may even give particular guidance for the times and places that we live in. These things are a different sort of revelation than public revelation. They are private revelation for the purpose of guidance, preserving from error, granting faith, etc. These are other “senses” of the term “revelation,” the senses that I referred to in your other quotes that you think are contradictory.

Thus there is revelation that continues, but public revelation is complete and can and will never be changed or contradicted. This is therefore in complete agreement with my other arguments: public revelation is complete, but other forms of revelation continue.

Your confusion of the different senses of revelation is what causes your confusion here. You speak of revelation for the purpose of guidance—that continues. Revelation for the purpose of preserving from error continues. Revelation in the form of inspiring faith continues. Public revelation intended for all for the purpose of Salvation has been completed, and will never be changed, added to, or contradicted.
 
mfbukowski said:
We don’t do this as a matter of policy. I am sorry if it has happened in your family. We are obviously a missionary oriented church and it doesn’t make sense to “shun” someone who hasn’t converted (yet). But we are also family oriented and there is no excuse for this kind of behavior.

Sometimes people feel excluded over marriage ceremonies which are conducted in the temple. I know my mother did not attend my sealing for this reason. She was not a member of our church.

But really this is no different than your requirements that one should be a Catholic to take communion.

I have known many mixed Mormon and “non-member” families which are very close and others which are not. It can happen in all kinds of “mixed” families for a lot of reasons – I have seen ethnic divisions in families as well where the Hispanics are not comfortable with the whites or the Armenians or the jews or whatever not comfortable with eachother. It is unfortunate but it happens. And ethnic divisions within families can even happen where all are part of the same religion.

Half of my family is from Utah, and man those people are weird. 😉
Click to expand...
Bukowski, every Mormon that has posted to this forum on the subject of shunning says the same thing. There may not be an official policy about it, but it occurs. I’ve seen it too. I haven’t seen it applied to potential converts (such as members of families where there are members and non-members) but I have definitely seen it applied to members who have left the church for whatever reason.

I’m not talking about excommunicated members, I’m talking about those who just stop participating for whatever reason they choose to do so. Those people find out very quickly that all their Mormon “friends” were only their friends as long as they were going to church. Sure, they might be pleasant if they run into eachother out in public ~ it’s not necessarily a total shunning ~ but they are definitely put into a different category. Everyone seems to be aware of this, whether or not it is “policy”. There have been posters to this forum who converted to Catholicism but who still attend Sacrament meeting to maintain the social and business connections, well aware of the consequences should they fail to do that.
 
mfbukowski said:
We don’t do this as a matter of policy. I am sorry if it has happened in your family. We are obviously a missionary oriented church and it doesn’t make sense to “shun” someone who hasn’t converted (yet). But we are also family oriented and there is no excuse for this kind of behavior.

Sometimes people feel excluded over marriage ceremonies which are conducted in the temple. I know my mother did not attend my sealing for this reason. She was not a member of our church.

But really this is no different than your requirements that one should be a Catholic to take communion.

I have known many mixed Mormon and “non-member” families which are very close and others which are not. It can happen in all kinds of “mixed” families for a lot of reasons – I have seen ethnic divisions in families as well where the Hispanics are not comfortable with the whites or the Armenians or the jews or whatever not comfortable with eachother. It is unfortunate but it happens. And ethnic divisions within families can even happen where all are part of the same religion.

Half of my family is from Utah, and man those people are weird. 😉
Click to expand...
You need three things to be successful in this town:
  1. Be a Mormon
  2. Be family
  3. Have been here all your life
  4. and 3) do not matter in the case 1) is incorrect
    3)'s can get by if they have inherited lots of money, which would have to have been a miracle if 1) didn’t apply, but then most likely 3)'s have moved on to another town if they had enough money to. 🙂
    It’s not just family, it’s the Mormon neighbor down the street will not let her kids near mine because we are not LDS. It’s LDS built this town, so anyone else gets to a position of power, is under suspicion of wrongdoing, cause it just aint natural here.
 
MelanieAnne said:
Bukowski, every Mormon that has posted to this forum on the subject of shunning says the same thing. There may not be an official policy about it, but it occurs. I’ve seen it too. I haven’t seen it applied to potential converts (such as members of families where there are members and non-members) but I have definitely seen it applied.
Of course, you don’t get shunned until they realize you’re one of those dirty Catholics who was born and raised and has reverted! They are sweet as sugar when they think they might still have a chance. My in-laws realized early on after I got here that having friends and family around has never been priority enough for me to abandon what I believe in. I’m a stubborn cuss for another thing.

There have been posters to this forum who converted to Catholicism but who still attend Sacrament meeting to maintain the social and business connections, well aware of the consequences should they fail to do that.Yes, I know those too, and some who just don’t go to any other church but go to the LDS for the connections and to stay where family is.
Click to expand...
Yes
 
Let me just say before I get canned from this forum that I mean no disrespect for the Pope. I was trying to comment that revelations(small “r”) happen all the time, but it’s not so easy to get them into public recognition BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. Also, I take comfort in the way in which silly claims like that imaginary one I half-made up, are not taken seriously by the Magesterium.
Plus, I just love a good laugh!
😃
 
mfbukowski said:
Come on dude, you’re burning me out here.
Obviously he doesn’t mention the magesterium which did not exist in his time. Neither did the pope.
Click to expand...
I just explained to you that the Magisterium is the Apostles, just another world; the Pope is the Petrine office, just another word. Any time the Apostles are defining a teaching, that is the Magisterium defining a teaching. Any time Peter is referenced, that is our first Pope acting. Come on yourself, definitions have an = sign between them. Your statement here is meaningless, unless you want to say that the Apostles and Peter did not exist.
You talk about tradition but are too lazy to look up the quote from some other thread.
Click to expand...
What? I’m lazy for referencing a Scripture verse, but not listing the text? How about you’re lazy for not looking it up? Here it is, with some context:
2 Thessalonians 2:14-17 “To this end he has (also) called you through our gospel to possess the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.15Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.16May our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God our Father, who has loved us and given us everlasting encouragement and good hope through his grace,17 encourage your hearts and strengthen them in every good deed and word.”
Well that goes two ways. I wrote most of the replies to a long thread about the gates of hell prophecy. Go look it up. It’s not the current one.
Click to expand...
The bottom line is that the gates of hell prophecy is about the gates of hell being opened up by the keys of work for the dead that Peter the church and Jesus had.
Click to expand...
That’s for another thread, and has been done ad nauseum.
Click to expand...
Since you don’t want to get into the “gates of hell” here, I’ll leave that be, except to suggest that you try to be a bit more precise. The portion I’ve bolded from your quote is incoherent to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top