Is Mormonism Christian ?

[Arandur]

Read Hobbes, Hume or anybody since. Post Kant. Lewis is not a philosopher. Chesterton is not a philosopher. Most parish priests I know are Catholic. I am talking about someone who makes his living as a philosopher has published in philosophical journals and is acknowledged by the philosophical community as one of their peers. Find one who isn’t catholic. Good luck. What is your philosophical background that you would even know? You don’t argue like one.

I’m part of the group here defining terms and I don’t argue like a philosopher? I am really getting tired of talking with you mfb. You’re so off base and undisciplined it’s really rather ridiculous to try to keep this discussion going.

As for philosophers, you expect me to find an atheistic philosopher who agrees with an argument for the existence of God? Come now, you’re just being ridiculous and belligerent.

If you really think it’s been “disproven,” why don’t you tell me the argument against it yourself, or at least post a link. Sheesh, and you imply I’m the less philosophical and the more lazy of us. Get over yourself.

 

[seekdatruth]

Are you saying that for Catholics the canon is not closed???

Rebecca J here we go again!!! Help!!!

OK, the canon is the law of the Catholic Church, while not changed easily, changes for clarity can be made. It still does not change Scripture or our understanding of the message of Christ dying on the cross and his explanation during his time her eon earth of what he expects of us. To accept saints and revelation does not change canon. Does not need to, He gave us what He apparently thought was enough instruction and told us to go on and do it. Why would he basically say, “Here you go, here’s your instructions, now go on, you’re big kids now, I’ll see you later, but I promise I’ll be back. Oh, and don’t talk to strangers, they try to trick you into believing they’re me and say these type of things…” Then 1800 years later he shows up and says, “You know, most all I taught you before…scratch that…I was just kidding, oh and God’s story too, here you go, I gave this to your ancestors who floated over here. It’s the real deal. I can’t believe you bought all that for 1800 years! LOL!”

 

[MelanieAnne]

Arandur, I can relate. For the most part (I can’t think of an exception but I’m leaving room for there being one just in case!) trying to get some precision from a Mormon is like trying to nail jello to a wall. I submit that it is a function of their disordered, incoherent theology that borrows from here and there, deconstructing and reconstructing with a veritable hodge podge of a result.

 

[seekdatruth]

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.

Huh?

 

[Arandur]

I think we are closer than you think.

Let me change a few words.

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

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.
5. 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.

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

Catholics lack this authority

Oh really? If you accept that example of apostolic succession, just where did the Catholic Church lose it? Where did yours come from, and of necessity, how could it have been broken?

 

[seekdatruth]

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!

Replace “Magesterium” with “Pope and the Church”. I just learned a new definition too.

 

[Arandur]

You are wrong.
We pray as Jesus himself taught us. “Our father who art in heaven”…
Jesus is not a subordinate of heavenly father. He is his son. The bible says that "in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word WAS GOD. " Did you know that we believe the bible? Jesus was YAWEH of the OT and is the creator of the universe. Hard to do that if you are not God!

Go to mormonapologetics.org. The Mormons there have had a lot of contentious discussions about the “subordination” issue, and about Joseph Smiths version of the Bible which corrupts the meaning of the passage that you quoted by making it far more convoluted and saying that Christ is NOT the Word, and the Word is NOT God. I know the LDS church doesn’t use the JST as its primary version, but Smith did write that stuff, so why don’t you believe it?

we find it ironic that you all have co-opted our word.

Ridiculous. The word and the faith were around a lot longer than your church was. You cannot claim “co-opting” of “your” word.

Nor from Catholics. Show me evidence of what you say. My evidence is Aranur vs Rebecca on revelation.

As I have shown, we have been entirely consistent. It is your confusion about the senses of the word “revelation” that causes you to misunderstand. You still refuse to define the word, so in my last post I defined the 5 senses in which I see you using the word. I did the work for you, so I hope you’re happy.

Context of entire body of scripture.
As above, I agree with all this. Word for word, with the understanding I am refering to a different church!

Then I assume we are at an agreement of sorts over that argument. You will no longer question what I mean about interpreting in context, about free choice and not doing things “apart from the Church.” Good.

 

[Arandur]

I
OK but first I want you to understand that YOU don’t know the answers here, and you asked me, and some of this is speculative non- doctrine, and some of it is actual doctrine, and I will tell you which is which.

The Catholic answer to the question in quotes has been around for a long time. The primary purpose of our creation:

Old catechisms asked, “Why did God make you?” The answer: “God made me to know him, to love him, and to serve him in this world and to be happy with him forever in the next.” Here, in just 26 words, is the whole reason for our existence. Jesus answered the question even more briefly: “I came so that [you] might have life and have it more abundantly” (John 10:10).

God’s plan for you is simple. Your loving Father wants to give you all good things—especially eternal life. Jesus died on the cross to save us all from sin and the eternal separation from God that sin causes (CCC 599–623). When he saves us, he makes us part of his Body, which is the Church (1 Cor. 12:27–30). We thus become united with him and with Christians everywhere (on earth, in heaven, in purgatory).

You can find that here: catholic.com/library/Pillar.asp

The other answers are similarly easily found, if you’re not too lazy to look or start a separate topic to explore.

 

[Arandur]

The Bible proceeds from the Catholic Church established by Christ. It’s context is part of the deposit of faith given by Jesus to the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. That is the context of the Bible. The other documents you listed are spurious.

And, interestingly, as mfb uses true Scripture (OT and NT) to give “answers” to the questions he posed, he just proves that it was the Catholic Church that originally gave those answers.

 

[Arandur]

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?

If you haven’t seen the answer already, it is that you are confusing the different senses of the word “revelation.” We come to know about Christ through the gift of faith, a response to Truth already revealed and continuously taught. Once something has been revealed, it can be taught forever after that, right? Responding to it in faith is all that is necessary.

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.

Again, the confusion of the various meanings (also known as “senses” or “definitions,” like the multiple definitions in a dictionary). This is a different type of revelation. You will never understand if you try to lump all the various senses you mean into one term, because you make the term incoherent by doing so. Be precise, like we are being.

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…

No problems at all, once you understand what revelation is in its various senses.

 

[mfbukowski]

What do you consider the keys given to the rest of the apostles?

All apostles are “prophets seers and revelators”. Were it not so, John could not have written the book of Revelation/Apocalypse

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?

Wow this just goes to show how easy it is to misunderstand in this environment. No it was to be and is, canonized scripture.

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?

Doesn’t much matter at this time. It’s canonized scripture now. Perhaps it was private, but so valuable for instructive purposes it was rightly canonized

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?

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.

Peter wakes up and stretches “Well I think I’ll work on the New Testament today”. I don’t think so! Come on, man!

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).

Same place he is addressed as “pope”

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

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?

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).

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.

Another thing I’m curious about–you refer to a static “quorum of 12” apostles. Is that 12 apostles +1 Prophet?

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.

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)?

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.

The leaders in the Americas were called “disciples” but it doesn’t much matter since it was not a worldwide church then. There was no communication obviously between them.

unedited with footnotes which no longer link- excuse the spelling no time to clean it up- Acts 1:

16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David aspake before concerning bJudas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.

17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry…

20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be adesolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bbishoprick let another take.
21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one abe ordained to be a bwitness with us of his cresurrection.
23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
24 And they aprayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which bknowest the hearts of all men, shew cwhether of these two thou hast dchosen,
25 That he may take part of this ministry and aapostleship, from which Judas by transgression bfell, that he might go to his own place.
26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon aMatthias; and he was numbered with the eleven 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.

 

[Arandur]

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

Variously from 70AD to 110AD is the period in question, IIRC. What’s your point?

And every Council – were they inspired?

In their teaching action, preserved from error, yes.

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

How the heck do you get “correct” or “change?” They explained and defined truth. They did not and could not “change” it, and it needed no “correction.” Individual heresies needed to be responded to, to show them that they were in error, false teachings.

Does your church presume to “correct” or “change” God’s truth? My, what a terrible idea that would be.

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

Changes not in truth, but in discipline, in practice, in the form of our customs. Birth control was not new at all; ever since pharmakeia (a word applied to birth control around the time of Jesus) was referred to in the Bible the Church has held this position. Absolutely nothing new there. The Church has gone into more detail in explaining why as its understanding has increased and as it has had to correct errors.

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?

The Church could indeed have handled many things in history better. As you admit, this is true for the LDS church, too.

As I have said and hopefully clarified for you finally in those last posts, revelation in the form of guidance has never ceased. We are supposed to always listen to the Spirit and follow that guidance, but as sinful men rarely do so perfectly. As you admit, this is true for the LDS church.

We have no problem with acknowledging the receipt of revelation and mid-course corrections as needed.

Revelation as guidance, yes, it is ongoing, never ceased.

We both have human institutions.

Ours is Divine and human, just as Christ himself, and because it IS Christ himself.

You either believe in revelation or you don’t. Public or Private is irrelevant. God leads his church or he doesn’t.

Until you understand the multiple senses in which you use “revelation,” this is like talking to a brick wall. Language is limited, but if you don’t even understand the language, well, there’s no point in communicating.

Yes, we agree, God leads His Church. Never ceased doing so.

 

[mfbukowski]

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).
.

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

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.

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)

Should do it. Short and to the point.

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

 

[Arandur]

Are you saying that for Catholics the canon is not closed???

Rebecca J here we go again!!! Help!!!

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”.

 

[mfbukowski]

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.

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 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

 

[Arandur]

Arandur, I can relate. For the most part (I can’t think of an exception but I’m leaving room for there being one just in case!) trying to get some precision from a Mormon is like trying to nail jello to a wall. I submit that it is a function of their disordered, incoherent theology that borrows from here and there, deconstructing and reconstructing with a veritable hodge podge of a result.

I agree. I have made a bunch of observations about their origins, and it is interesting to note that they reference as support for themselves the writings of many other Protestant leaders, often of the revivalist movements around the time of Joseph Smith. And yet they claim that these did not influence JS, despite claiming that they point to them as evidences of the church. Note similarities at the time with the Seventh Day Adventist movement that began almost concurrently; references to Alexander Campbell; the View of the Hebrews (which was another author’s story about Hebrew tribes that came to and settled the America’s, which occurred just prior to Smith and which supposedly Smith was not influenced by) and the many, many gnostic influences in their beliefs. The gnostic influences probably come in primarily through the Masons–I know a very involved Mason and have had many discussions with him; they consider JS a “brother” and indeed, there are almost more similarities between Masonry and Smithianism than between Smithianism and other Christian sects. Then you have Smith himself changing things throughout his life and preaching, revising, pulling in more and more ideas and giving them his own spin.

I know this may be offensive to you, mfb and Diana, but this is a non-Smithian view. Smith can be explained pretty well and consistently from the influences of the time.

 

[Arandur]

Huh?

“world” was a typo–it was supposed to be “word.”

The Magisterium is the teaching aspect of the apostolic office. Thus the original Apostles were the Magisterium. Peter was the first Pope, but the term “pope” was an affectionate term that was not applied until later. The office that Peter and his successors hold, though, has always been since Peter was appointed to it.

 

[mfbukowski]

I agree. I have made a bunch of observations about their origins, and it is interesting to note that they reference as support for themselves the writings of many other Protestant leaders, often of the revivalist movements around the time of Joseph Smith. And yet they claim that these did not influence JS, despite claiming that they point to them as evidences of the church. Note similarities at the time with the Seventh Day Adventist movement that began almost concurrently; references to Alexander Campbell; the View of the Hebrews (which was another author’s story about Hebrew tribes that came to and settled the America’s, which occurred just prior to Smith and which supposedly Smith was not influenced by) and the many, many gnostic influences in their beliefs. The gnostic influences probably come in primarily through the Masons–I know a very involved Mason and have had many discussions with him; they consider JS a “brother” and indeed, there are almost more similarities between Masonry and Smithianism than between Smithianism and other Christian sects. Then you have Smith himself changing things throughout his life and preaching, revising, pulling in more and more ideas and giving them his own spin.

I know this may be offensive to you, mfb and Diana, but this is a non-Smithian view. Smith can be explained pretty well and consistently from the influences of the time.

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.

 

[mfbukowski]

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

Agreed or not?

 

[mfbukowski]

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?