Mormon Claims

[evanfaust]

Just curious. While not wanting to get into them, do you actually have the details of how the apostacy happend? Yes, the history of the Bible is the history of God revealing his word. This revelation culminates in the one Word, Jesus Christ. No other Word needs to be spoken. That is why revelation ended with the apostles. Not that the Church was lacking in revelation due to some turning away from the truth, on the contrary, it possessed the fulness of revelation in Jesus Christ. There is simply nothing left to be revealed. Jesus is IT.

As one would expect in a living organization, dogmas are more specifically defined over the years, usually in response to some heresy, but this does not constitute “new revelation”, just a more explicit definition of what was already believed and held as Sacred Doctrine.

The details of the apostasy is the contamination of the sound principles and doctrine that Christ and the Apostles established. This contamination caused the spirit of God to withdraw. That is one of the reasons revelation stopped. You notice that after the death of the Apostles we don’t see more revelation.

There was revelation after Christ resurrection! The book of revelation for example was revealed aprox in 96 AD. If all revelation culminated with Christ, then why did the Apostles continue to receive revelations? If you carefully read the Old Testament, the substance of it was Christ. The simbolism in the OT was ALL about Christ. The whole Bible centralizes in Christ. Yes, the atonement and resurrection of Christ happened, but revelation did not stop there!

It continued after the Atonement e Resurrection of Christ. What passages of scripture can you quote to make your argument that after the atonement and resurrection of Christ there was no more need for revelation? Do you think God does not have any new information for us? Are you are saying that people in the past were more special and that people today do not need to be exposed to revelation? If all the history of Bible involves revelation…then why would it be different today? Why don’t we need prophets anymore? Have you considered that revelation is not necessarily new information, but repetition through the spirit of God to keep us alive spiritually? Have you also considered that the Bible we have today may not contain all that God has revelead to his Children? Have you considered that he may have reserved even greater blessing and greater revelations to our time just prior to his comming? The spirit of revelation keeps humans alive in Christ! It keeps us on our toes.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Without getting into the details of how the apostasy happened, I would say that the most obvious evidence of it is a “break” on continuous revelation, a “break” on new scriptures. If there was revelation and new scriptures after Christ and as long as the apostles were still alive…why suddenly all revelation and new scripture ceased? The history of the Bible is the history of God revealing his word and his will to his servants the Prophets and Apostles. What better indicator of apostasy would you require than this?There are other indicators, but I think this is the most evident.

Where in the bible is there a history of God walking the earth, living among us, revealing Himself in person? I don’t see it as a break in continuous revelation, I see Christ as the pinnacle of revelation. God Himself walking the planet revealing Himself “live in person” how can anything more be needed??? God is the one who broke the pattern of revealing his will to prophets by coming down Himself to speak to us. Your clamoring for new revelation strikes me as a pooh-poohing of the monumental event of God living among us, teaching us and, revealing Himself to us “face to face”. It also carries (from my POV) the implication that God, couldn’t or didn’t bother to, get His point across while he was here.

 

[Returning_Home]

I think in this case we do both have the same definition: public revelation is revelation given to leaders specifically for the edification of the church…and when written down is scripture. Public revelation is, in short, scripture and belongs in the canon.

If it doesn’t reach the level required to be in the canon, it’s not public revelation.

And what of the JOD that calls itself scripture but isn’t considered scripture now?

 

[Returning_Home]

The details of the apostasy is the contamination of the sound principles and doctrine that Christ and the Apostles established. This contamination caused the spirit of God to withdraw. That is one of the reasons revelation stopped. You notice that after the death of the Apostles we don’t see more revelation.

Since the LDS doesn’t really accept the Bible except where it thinks it can prove its own position, your point is moot.

There was revelation after Christ resurrection! The book of revelation for example was revealed aprox in 96 AD. If all revelation culminated with Christ, then why did the Apostles continue to receive revelations? If you carefully read the Old Testament, the substance of it was Christ. The simbolism in the OT was ALL about Christ. The whole Bible centralizes in Christ. Yes, the atonement and resurrection of Christ happened, but revelation did not stop there!

I agree in spirit, but since we have no accurate prophecies or revelations coming from any Mormon prophet, you don’t have a leg to stand on. We have the farce of the Civil War prophecy, we have the church playing the hokey pokey with polygamy, and we have two temples that were supposed to be built and never were (on plots of land that the church no longer owns).

So exactly how many false prophecies does it take to be considered a false prophet?

It continued after the Atonement e Resurrection of Christ. What passages of scripture can you quote to make your argument that after the atonement and resurrection of Christ there was no more need for revelation? Do you think God does not have any new information for us? Are you are saying that people in the past were more special and that people today do not need to be exposed to revelation? If all the history of Bible involves revelation…then why would it be different today? Why don’t we need prophets anymore? Have you considered that revelation is not necessarily new information, but repetition through the spirit of God to keep us alive spiritually? Have you also considered that the Bible we have today may not contain all that God has revelead to his Children? Have you considered that he may have reserved even greater blessing and greater revelations to our time just prior to his comming? The spirit of revelation keeps humans alive in Christ! It keeps us on our toes.

It’s kind of audacious to assume you know God well enough to know what he’s thinking about what he needs mankind to know, especially since the BOM adds almost nothing beyond the Bible. Not only that, but any Biblical ‘support’ for any LDS claims can be shown to be erroneously and creatively reintepreted or taken out of context.

 

[why_me]

Since the LDS doesn’t really accept the Bible except where it thinks it can prove its own position, your point is moot.

Not true. The lds believe in the bible and use the King james version. But as you well know, all faiths use the bible to prove their postions. In this, mormons are no different than anyone else.

But nice try in spreading a false claim.

 

[catholic-rcia]

You answered my questions with this post, thanks!

Very interesting. I almost wonder if we then accept the same things, but under different names. The instances of what you have called ‘public revelation’, we as Catholics would call the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit. And that is something that the Catholic Church most definitely does NOT think has stopped. In fact, that’s the crux of her claim against apostasy-- that from the time Jesus established His Church here on earth, it has been guided by and inspired by the Holy Spirit.

The difference is that we don’t think this guidance or inspirations given by the Holy Spirit constitute anything “new.” Rather, everything that is revealed by the Holy Spirit can be traced to its origin in Jesus Christ and His teachings. There is a verse, I can’t remember where right now (I think John’s Gospel-- chapter 13 or 14 maybe?), where Jesus says, “I have much more to say to you but you cannot bear it now” and that the Holy Spirit will teach these things. They are truths founded on Jesus Christ and can be traced to Him, but it is the Holy Spirit that enables us to better understand them.

So, while we hold there is no new public revelation of truth, there is a constant “renewal of the mind in the Spirit” that teaches us all truth as revealed in Jesus Christ.

Exactly
And truth does not lie nor change, because truth is of God. Its the what we call the deposit of faith. the Church protects the deposit of faith, it hands it on through the generations. When someone comes along as says no, there is more than just one God through a kind of revelation we can fall back on the deposit of faith and say no, there is only one God. By the Holy Spirit in the Church and in each of us this truth is confirmed. We have exaclty the same revelations as did the Apostles regarding whom Jesus is and what He has done for us. Its not complicated. No need to go all over the board on this. There is but one God, we are Gods Creation. The fall happened because we wanted to be gods in our own rite. Jesus brings us back around to this truth by way of His death and resurection. We die in Him by dying to ourselves, then we are raised in Him and through Him to eternal life.
In Christ
Rich

 

[catholic-rcia]

Not true. The lds believe in the bible and use the King james version. But as you well know, all faiths use the bible to prove their postions. In this, mormons are no different than anyone else.

But nice try in spreading a false claim.

The New Testement is the Catholic Churches Diary. It the Catholic Churches story regarding Jesus and Salvation through Him. Who best to tell you about it, about whom Jesus is. What He has done for us. Again it is the deposit of faith. It is not complicated.

Rich
www.utahmission.com

 

[dianaiad]

And what of the JOD that calls itself scripture but isn’t considered scripture now?

The JOD, being a collection of speeches, doesn’t call itself anything. The men who gave those speeches do not call it scripture, either, and Mormons never have considered it to be scripture.

See, here’s the thing: BECAUSE we have an open canon, we are extremely careful about what goes in it. In fact, a couple of the steps we take to ensure that scripture are, in fact, scripture are mentioned in the JoD–coincidentally in a speech by BY that antis love to use to ‘prove’ that we think that the JoD is scripture. BY said that his speeches were scripture IF…a: he had a chance to review and correct them, b: they were the product of revelation; that is, if he could say 'thus saith the Lord." Of course, those two qualifications eliminates the JoD from consideration as scripture, because none of the men whose speeches were included were able to review them before they were published, and “Thus saith the Lord” didn’t occur anywhere unless they were QUOTING scripture.

Then there is another qualification; scripture has to be confirmed as such by the Quorum of the Twelve apostles.

Tell me, Returning Home, where the JoD qualifies in any of those requirements?

Don’t get me wrong. I LOVE the JoD. I also enjoy “Jesus the Christ,” “The Articles of Faith,” and every conference talk ever given. They are all important, and a bunch of it is as true as scripture, but…not scripture.

It may be entertaining to set up a straw target to take shots at, my friend, but…it remains a straw target. The real belief system is…not where, or what, you seem to think it is.

 

[dianaiad]

Where in the bible is there a history of God walking the earth, living among us, revealing Himself in person? I don’t see it as a break in continuous revelation, I see Christ as the pinnacle of revelation. God Himself walking the planet revealing Himself “live in person” how can anything more be needed??? God is the one who broke the pattern of revealing his will to prophets by coming down Himself to speak to us. Your clamoring for new revelation strikes me as a pooh-poohing of the monumental event of God living among us, teaching us and, revealing Himself to us “face to face”. It also carries (from my POV) the implication that God, couldn’t or didn’t bother to, get His point across while he was here.

Question, Z; how do we know about Jesus Christ? It’s an obvious question, but the answer doesn’t seem to be all that obvious.

Or rather, it’s so ‘in your face’ that people simply walk right past it.

How do we know about Jesus?

 

[DominicSavio23]

Question, Z; how do we know about Jesus Christ? It’s an obvious question, but the answer doesn’t seem to be all that obvious.

Or rather, it’s so ‘in your face’ that people simply walk right past it.

How do we know about Jesus?

Something I posted before and didn’t get a reply to, but is a response to your question here:

The instances of what you have called ‘public revelation’, we as Catholics would call the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit. And that is something that the Catholic Church most definitely does NOT think has stopped. In fact, that’s the crux of her claim against apostasy-- that from the time Jesus established His Church here on earth, it has been guided by and inspired by the Holy Spirit.

The difference is that we don’t think this guidance or inspirations given by the Holy Spirit constitute anything “new.” Rather, everything that is revealed by the Holy Spirit can be traced to its origin in Jesus Christ and His teachings. There is a verse, I can’t remember where right now (I think John’s Gospel-- chapter 13 or 14 maybe?), where Jesus says, “I have much more to say to you but you cannot bear it now” and that the Holy Spirit will teach these things. They are truths founded on Jesus Christ and can be traced to Him, but it is the Holy Spirit that enables us to better understand them.

So, while we hold there is no new public revelation of truth, there is a constant “renewal of the mind in the Spirit” that teaches us all truth as revealed in Jesus Christ.

And the quote from the Catechism just to solidify:

“The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance of the course of the centuries.” CCC 66

 

[DominicSavio23]

Another question I was thinking about last night: How is it that the LDS accept the Bible as it is today when the Canon was not firmly established until the 300s AD-- quite a long time after the alleged apostasy? How do the LDS authenticate the books that are in the Bible now when the decisions for what made it into the Canon were made by the early Catholic Church?

 

[DominicSavio23]

The question of revelation and whether we need anything new really hits to the heart of what revelation is in its essence.

What exactly is revelation? Both sides keep talking about it, but neither of us have actually defined it. Here’s the definition I’m working with:

The communication of some truth by God to a rational creature through means which are beyond the ordinary course of nature.

Public Revelation is that which is concerned with the salvation of God’s people as whole.

Private Revelation is concerned with the salvation of a particular person(s) and can be accepted (although not binding on the faithful at large) if it does not contradict anything that has been revealed via Public Revelation.

There is no need for further Public Revelation precisely because Jesus Christ gave us (the people of God) everything we needed for salvation.

Like I said before, that doesn’t mean we can’t grow, as a Church, in understanding this Revelation-- who could exhaust the mystery and truth of Jesus Christ and the work of His salvation?

But it does mean that we don’t need anything new in way of public revelation to lead us to salvation. Jesus Christ has accomplished all of it.

 

[LongJourney]

Part of the problem is that the Book of Enoch, discovered in Ethiopia, was first available in English in a bad translation at the time Rigdon & Co. were writing the BoM. It was popular among Masons, and members of the team were involved with Masonry. They were quite enchanted with it, and integrated the angelically guided themes into the BoM. It has been an issue of embarrassment for the LDS church, since I believe Nibley thought the parallels were legitimate as ancient Biblical literature. It has since been identified as originating between 300 BC and 100 AD, too late for the BoM’s supposed origin.

I note that other gnostic apocrypha from Nag Hammadi are not a subject of interest to LDS scholars. ,

enoksbok.se/

 

[dianaiad]

The question of revelation and whether we need anything new really hits to the heart of what revelation is in its essence.

What exactly is revelation? Both sides keep talking about it, but neither of us have actually defined it. Here’s the definition I’m working with:

Public Revelation is that which is concerned with the salvation of God’s people as whole.

Private Revelation is concerned with the salvation of a particular person(s) and can be accepted (although not binding on the faithful at large) if it does not contradict anything that has been revealed via Public Revelation.

There is no need for further Public Revelation precisely because Jesus Christ gave us (the people of God) everything we needed for salvation.

Like I said before, that doesn’t mean we can’t grow, as a Church, in understanding this Revelation-- who could exhaust the mystery and truth of Jesus Christ and the work of His salvation?

But it does mean that we don’t need anything new in way of public revelation to lead us to salvation. Jesus Christ has accomplished all of it.

All of this begs the question I asked before. How do we know of Jesus? How do we have His words? How do we know what He taught, and thought?

The problem as I see it is that even as you describe Jesus as “God Incarnate,” you are overlooking what that actually MEANS; you are treating Him as if he were not God, but rather as a sort of culminating prophet.

But He IS God, and as such is the originator, not the reciever, of revelation.

Everytime He spoke, it was revelation. Every time He appeared to His apostles after His death and resurrection, it was revelation in the most classic sense. Paul recieved revelation FROM Him.

Therefore, revelation continued. Public revelation…that sort you describe as that which is concerned with the church as a whole. Apostles (who were prophets by definition BECAUSE they recieved revelation) kept recieving it FROM Him–and they wrote it down, and because what they wrote down was revelation from Christ, it was scripture. Revelation from God, written down, IS scripture.

Do you see the situation, now, from where I stand?

 

[catholic-rcia]

All of this begs the question I asked before. How do we know of Jesus? How do we have His words? How do we know what He taught, and thought?

The problem as I see it is that even as you describe Jesus as “God Incarnate,” you are overlooking what that actually MEANS; you are treating Him as if he were not God, but rather as a sort of culminating prophet.

**He is clearly the second person of the Most Holy Trinity, He is God as God is One in three persons. This is Christianity, all Christians accept this. **

But He IS God, and as such is the originator, not the receiver, of revelation.

Yes, if you mean the only God of all creation, the God of all that is. Yes he is the truth spoken, Jesus is His Word to us. Like the warmth of the Sun to us, the light of the Sun to us. It is from God and it is God. Jesus is our light, the light of the world.

Every time He spoke, it was revelation. Every time He appeared to His apostles after His death and resurrection, it was revelation in the most classic sense. Paul recieved revelation FROM Him.

Yes as we all can through His Holy Spirit, the third person of the Most Holy Trinity, One with the Father and the Son. Same being. All Christians accept this, it is all over the Scriptutes and revealed to me as well.

Therefore, revelation continued. Public revelation…that sort you describe as that which is concerned with the church as a whole. Apostles (who were prophets by definition BECAUSE they recieved revelation) kept recieving it FROM Him–and they wrote it down, and because what they wrote down was revelation from Christ, it was scripture. Revelation from God, written down, IS scripture.

**When Jesus died for your sins all was completed, no further revalations accept those that confirm to us, each soul one at a time what our Lord and God has done for us by laying down His life to save us. You can add nothing to this.that would help me on my journey to Christ, my Lord and My God. **

Do you see the situation, now, from where I stand?

**From where you stand what do you have to give us that we do not already have in Christ? For us, we are content to hand over are lives over to Jesus, to allow Him to take control over it. To try to do His will for others, not looking for any rewards in heaven, rather getting on with His work here on earth. To be as a puppet for Him, to allow Him to pull our strings. To go to confession when we fail in these things so once again we can be assured of His love in order to continue on in helping others to find the same (Jesus) . **

Again what do you have that will help us in this?
**To go deeper into the grace of God? **
**To place Him above all things? **
**To go deeper into humility? **
**To go further down into humility? **

The Mormon Church once offered me a ladder to a different kind of heaven with a different kind of god, a different kind of Jesus, a different kind of Holy Spirit. But I have attended the Last Supper; where I receive His body and His blood just as He commanded. I have sat where the Apostles have sat. Like them I choose the Cross as my portal home. I am content with being thrown on His back just like the lost sheep, I am the lost sheep

**I have found so much joy on this earth by way of His Church and His Sacraments of healing that I look foreword to heaven in ways untold. The Catholic faiths focus in on our nothingness, in this we can live in His greatness and it is so sweet. When God asks me in the end of my life here on earth why I think I deserve heaven I will look to the back of the cross from which I entered, point to it and say “Because I am with Him, I am with Jesus” **

**His spirit has guided me to these revelations; yes we as Catholics have revelations like this. **

**Again tell me how I can do better? **
**Do you have a tree in the middle of a garden you can point me to? **

 

[Stephen168]

How do the LDS authenticate the books that are in the Bible now when the decisions for what made it into the Canon were made by the early Catholic Church?

That is a great question for all non-Catholics. I wonder how the Mormon Church answers that question.

 

[SteveVH]

I keep bumping into the utter lack of reason for public revelation to have ceased.

Diana, if I am revealing what is hidden under a blanket by slowly pulling the blanket off of that which is to be revealed, once the blanket has been removed, what is left to be revealed? Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of all revelation, God made flesh. He was revealed to us through tthe various prophets and finally through the testimony of the apostles. Anything in addition to that is another gospel which we have been warned not to accept. Is Christ not sufficient? Can you at least understand our logic here? We have already found the pearl, why should we keep digging?

That is why I, at least, am completely disinterested in the BoM and other Mormon literature. What could it possibly add to Christ?

 

[dianaiad]

Diana, if I am revealing what is hidden under a blanket by slowly pulling the blanket off of that which is to be revealed, once the blanket has been removed, what is left to be revealed? Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of all revelation, God made flesh. He was revealed to us through tthe various prophets and finally through the testimony of the apostles. Anything in addition to that is another gospel which we have been warned not to accept. Is Christ not sufficient? Can you at least understand our logic here? We have already found the pearl, why should we keep digging?

That is why I, at least, am completely disinterested in the BoM and other Mormon literature. What could it possibly add to Christ?

What could the gospel of Luke possibly add, when we got everything in the gospel of Matthew?

What could Acts possibly add, when we have the gospels?

What could ANYTHING that Paul have written add, when we have the gospel of Matthew?

 

[DominicSavio23]

All of this begs the question I asked before. How do we know of Jesus? How do we have His words? How do we know what He taught, and thought?

The problem as I see it is that even as you describe Jesus as “God Incarnate,” you are overlooking what that actually MEANS; you are treating Him as if he were not God, but rather as a sort of culminating prophet.

But He IS God, and as such is the originator, not the reciever, of revelation.

Everytime He spoke, it was revelation. Every time He appeared to His apostles after His death and resurrection, it was revelation in the most classic sense. Paul recieved revelation FROM Him.

Therefore, revelation continued. Public revelation…that sort you describe as that which is concerned with the church as a whole. Apostles (who were prophets by definition BECAUSE they recieved revelation) kept recieving it FROM Him–and they wrote it down, and because what they wrote down was revelation from Christ, it was scripture. Revelation from God, written down, IS scripture.

Do you see the situation, now, from where I stand?

Yes, I understand what you’re saying.

Just to clarify: I absolutely see Jesus Christ as God-- He is the Word made flesh, the Incarnate God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. I may have not been very clear in my wording or explanation… Let me try again, addressing the concerns you have raised here.

Jesus Christ is both the receiver of revelation and the giver of Divine revelation. Although, to be precise, what I mean by “receiver of revelation” is not to say that He was just another prophet, like Moses. No, what I mean by that is simply what Jesus said in John 12:44-50

“Whoever believes in me believes not only in me but also in the one who sent me, and whoever sees me sees the one who sent me. I came into the world as light, so that everyone who believes in me might not remain in darkness. And if anyone hears my words and does not observe them, I do not condemn him, for I did not come to condemn the world but to save the world. Whoever rejects me and does not accept my words has something to judge him: the word that I spoke, it will condemn him on the last day, because I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and speak. And I know that his commandment is eternal life. So what I say, I say as the Father told me.”

Because He is the image of God, the Word made flesh, He receives everything He is from the Father. But, this really isn’t our main point right now-- all of this is more to do with the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, not specifically with Revelation.

You said,

Everytime He spoke, it was revelation. Every time He appeared to His apostles after His death and resurrection, it was revelation in the most classic sense. Paul recieved revelation FROM Him.

I absolutely agree here.

See, while it is correct to say that Jesus Christ gave revelation, it might be even more precise to say that Jesus Christ is Divine Revelation. He is the full revelation of God to His people. He is the revelation of salvation for God’s people. And this revelation is kept and passed down through the Scriptures and sacred Tradition-- the deposit of faith. These are the means by which are given the faith, how we are taught who Jesus Christ is.

There is no need for new public revelation beyond Jesus Christ because He is the fullest revelation-- He is the culmination because instead of revealing things about God, as previous prophets did, He actually revealed God Himself through His own being. THAT is the beauty of the Gospel-- that God, through Jesus Christ, was pleased to reveal Himself to His people and give them salvation. What more do we need than that?

What the Apostles wrote down, constituting Scripture, and what they passed down orally, constituting sacred Tradition, was Jesus Christ-- everything that He did and taught. That is, they wrote down the Words of God.

There is no need for further Scripture or public revelation beyond this because it is fulfilled in Jesus Christ. We need nothing more because Jesus Christ has given us everything we need for salvation in the gift of Himself. Anything new would inherently imply that there was something lacking in the revelation of Jesus.

 

[pinay]

That is a great question for all non-Catholics. I wonder how the Mormon Church answers that question.

Hello Stephen! Good day to you, sir.

We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.

The LDS Church does not claim that the writers of the Bible were apostates.