D
dianaiad
Guest
The question of course, is…when did all those doctrines happen? Really?
- Status
D
dianaiad
Guest
Perhaps you are attempting an analogy that I am far too…something…to get. Would you care to explain?
T
TheosisM
Guest
Yes, I figured that Hebrews 1:1-2 was the verse that you were thinking of.
What Paul says in the above verse does not conflict with the belief in no more public revelation. It is irrelevant to us that Paul never met Jesus in life (for the purpose of this discussion). I’m trying to understand your interpretation of this passage though. Paul is making a distinction, saying that in the past, God spoke in parts through the prophets, and that in these last days, He has spoken through His Son. Are you saying that your interpretation of this passage is that revelation in the past was given by the Father, and is now given by the Son?
I don’t believe I gave a substantial interpretation of Hebrews 1:1-2, so I’m not sure how you understand my interpretation to be a paradox. All I said was what the passage itself says, namely, that in the past, God spoke in parts through the prophets, and that in the last days, He has spoken/speaks to us through His Son. This implies some sort of change in the way that God speaks to us, as well as prophets speaking in “parts”.
Your definition of prophet is interesting. I would like to look at the last LDS prophet (Gordon B. Hinckley) and the current one (Thomas Monson). What scriptures have they written? What public revelation (are we using the Catholic definition of this phrase?) did they receive that was canonized as LDS scripture? From my understanding (please correct me if I’m wrong), canonized scripture is found in the 4 Standard Works, so any revelations received would be recorded there, right?
Perhaps there is no scriptural basis for the belief that public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. But is that a problem? I don’t think so. If we understand what the phrase “public revelation” is actually referring to (i.e. the Deposit of Faith, the set of teachings required for belief), then it makes perfect sense to believe that this core of the Faith was given once and for all, anciently, and that there weren’t any more revelations to be had, since the Faith was complete. Instead, our understanding of said Deposit expands, through the Divine inspiration of authorized leaders. This is also why the words of the prophets and prophetesses post-Apostolic age have not been added to the Bible, though they are highly respected, because we do not believe that anything else required for the salvation of all needs to be revealed, since it already has been.
And I think it’s also important to note the Catholic understanding of the words we are using, namely “public revelation”, since I think many Mormons may understand it as simply “revelation”. For Catholics, there is revelation, which is divided into public and private revelation. Public revelation is required for belief, forming the Deposit of the Faith, the complete set of doctrine/salvation history, finding its written expression in the Bible. Private revelation still comes from God and other Heavenly persons, but is not required for belief, since it is not required for salvation, though it may certainly help us on that path. I am required to believe that Jesus is Divine, I am not required to believe that Mary gave messages at Fatima, for example.
T
TheosisM
Guest
I agree.
I think we need to remember to attempt to place the Great Apostasy in the context of Christian history. This loss of priesthood authority occurred after doctrinal corruption. Now, there have always been many battles between the Church and heresy, well documented in history, from the very beginnings of the Church (the Gnostics being a big one). It is very interesting to me that, in such diverse locations as I mentioned before, we cannot read about the loss of many of the unique Mormon (and/or Protestant as well) beliefs, which were replaced with the corrupt beliefs, such as the Real Presence, infant baptism, no eternal marriage, reverence of Mary, etc. The Church contested various heresies, and many left because of this (Oriental Orthodox first, though they have now clarified their position in question, for example), but the Great Apostasy seemed to have happened quietly.
So, to establish a Great Apostasy, one not only has to look at scripture, but also history, and see when these true doctrines were lost and replaced with corrupt ones. One also has to account for the diverse locations that said corrupt doctrines are found, especially when they are found in groups that are not in communion with each other today (Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Catholic), and were spread out in the aforementioned locations.
T
TheosisM
Guest
I think he’s referring to the post where Rinnie said that she believes in the power of the Holy Spirit to protect the Church, to which you responded by asking why we don’t have any scripture. It’s hard to understand how you went from the Holy Spirit protecting the Church to why we don’t have additional scripture…
S
soren1
Guest
This is an excellent point to which I would like to make an addition. Salvation is not achieved through doctrine per se, it is achieved through covenant fidelity, which of course entails acceptance of doctrine. The reason that no new revelation is needed is not just that Christ provided us with all the information we need, but that he provided us with the final covenant of God. In the phrase “New Covenant,” the Greek word for “new”, kaine, has the connotation of definitiveness. This is most plain in the Epistle to the Hebrews, whose opening verses you have correctly understood in this thread. If you go on to read that letter and think “definitive” every time you see the word “new,” you will notice that the logic of the epistle gets instantaneously clearer.
Because Christ’s blood provides definitive salvation, a covenant in his blood is a definitive covenant, and the revelation of that covenant is definitive revelation. This is true by definition. And while that does not prove in itself that there *will *be no other scriptures, it does show that there can be no *necessity *in further scriptures coming into existence. This means that to demand new scriptures as evidence of the true Church is unwarranted, and so there is no grounds to conclude that a church is false due to the absence of such revelation.
To dimensions of Revelation are worth considering as well: breadth and depth. Because Holy Scripture is spoken by the Holy Spirit it is infinitely profound, and endless well. While the Church gets no new text, it does develop through the Spirit’s guidance and ever deepening gaze into that well of truth. Consequently, the can be no question of God running out of things to say or of the heavens closing. Rather, the heavens are pouring forth deeper insights into the infinity of divine expression seen in the body of Jesus.
A
Answersplease
Guest
A
Answersplease
Guest
A
Answersplease
Guest
A
Answersplease
Guest
A
Answersplease
Guest
A
Answersplease
Guest
X
Xavierlives
Guest
Wait a minute? A Mormon can’t sit down to bacon and eggs with a cup of joe?
(Other than that, why are we reposting old posts?)
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
D
dianaiad
Guest
We could get into quite a philosophical and long winded discussion about that one. However, Mormons believe that the God of the OT, Jehovah, WAS Jesus Christ–since He is the One Who created all things (I’m certain that the verses supporting this have popped into your head already). However, the folks to whom Paul spoke would need to be apprised of that…that there WAS a ‘new’ player in the game…but that is a very different discussion.
The thing is, those verses are in direct opposition to the uses they are being put, if they are presented to prove that there was to be no more revelation. In fact, they are absolute proof OF that further revelation–else Paul couldn’t be an apostle, and he couldn’t speak for, or teach of, Christ; much less write scripture, if there was to be no more revelation. Consider; the only reason we put any credence in what he says is because he WAS a prophet. He recieved revelation from Christ Himself, and in turn, tells us about it. That is the very epitome of being a prophet. For that matter, if the interpretation you place on those verses is true, then we have to throw the entire NT out since, of course, Christ didn’t write any of it.
The fact that you used it as a prooftext against further revelation is a pretty good indication of how you interpret it, Theosis.
OK…
The Family, A Proclamation to the world" would count.
You might want to give poor Pres. Monson a little more time, though.
continued on next post…
D
dianaiad
Guest
continued from previous post…
If not, why include them?
If so–who said that that is all there is?
The difference between us is what that means. You think it stopped because, well, it did. If it did, it was supposed to. We believe that it stopped because everybody stopped listening–that there is nothing in the scriptures, or anything else, to indicate that this sort of public revelation SHOULD stop.
Ah…yes. Especially when the question under discussion is that of a great apostasy.Can you understand why that would be?
As for that, one COULD argue that everything required for salvation was given to us in any one of the gospels. So–why add Acts, the letters and Revelation? Is there anything in any one of those that is absolutely required for our salvations–that is not touched on in the gospels or the words of Jesus Himself?
If not, why include them?
If so–who said that that is all there is?
I think that the LDS and Catholic idea of revelation march together very well, in one way: it is that very 'Public revelation" that is at issue; the Catholic version of it. We all believe that private revelation–that which we are entitled to as mothers, fathers, followers of Christ, and people who live by faith and by the promptings of the Spirit–that never stopped. Nor would any Mormon claim that it did. What DID stop was that very public revelation that you claim found ‘its written expression in the bible.’ We both agree on this. This is the revelation which is given to a spiritual leader, directly FROM God, that the rest of us are supposed to pay attention to. The words of Paul, of Peter, of Matthew…that sort of revelation. Mormons and Catholics (and pretty much every other Christian) agree that when the apostles died, this stopped.
The difference between us is what that means. You think it stopped because, well, it did. If it did, it was supposed to. We believe that it stopped because everybody stopped listening–that there is nothing in the scriptures, or anything else, to indicate that this sort of public revelation SHOULD stop.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Having the Holy Spirit protect individuals is one thing…but if He was protecting the church as an entity, it would have continued the way it began…and it most certainly did not do that. Scripture is the word of God written by a man with the authority to do that, who has recieved direct revelation FROM God. That’s what makes him a prophet in the first place. Now the very early church had those men; their words are canonized in the bible.
I do not understand how, if the Holy Spirit were protecting the church, the bible isn’t huge. It should contain the words of MANY prophets, all through history. Perhaps not every church leader would actually write scripture–his role would be more ‘shepherd’ than teacher and proclaimer–but certainly SOME would.
And nobody has. Or, if they have recieved revelation, it was dismissed and ignored. And THAT, m’friend, is why we believe in a great apostasy. perhaps such revelation was going on, but nobody paid attention any more.
D
dianaiad
Guest
I absolutely agree with you. Everybody should be made aware of that book.
First, so that everybody can know that the “Pearl of Great Price” does not contain any references to Catholicism AT all; never mind anything that could possibly be construed as ‘anti-Catholic’ or bigotted.
…and second…
Because it’s a neat book. At the back of it are the Thirteen Articles of Faith, which are quite a good list of our basic beliefs.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Actually, nobody can stop another from ‘getting into heaven.’ Kathleen’s presentation of our beliefs is not accurate.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Actually, a Mormon can do anything he wants to. A “GOOD” Mormon, however, would sit down to bacon and eggs with a cup of Pero.
- Status