Mormon Claims

[Returning_Home]

This touches on something I have thought about a lot. While I can believe that those who are brought up in the Mormon faith do not know about the different “language” that is out there beyond the Mormon world, I cannot believe that the Mormon hierarchy does not know about it, and I fault them for their obvious deceit in failing to correct the distinctions.

Well, I guess I need not reiterate my point because you understand it perfectly. Excellent!

What books or sources have you read or used to come to your conclusions?

 

[MelanieAnne]

Well, I guess I need not reiterate my point because you understand it perfectly. Excellent!

What books or sources have you read or used to come to your conclusions?

No books. Personal experience. Lots of it. Going back 40+ years. And lots of Mormon friends and acquaintances, going back just as long.

 

[catholic-rcia]

What is so awesome about the Catholic faith, about Christ Church is that it was not founded on the fall of another Church; it was founded by Jesus because we are all fallen.

I have my own Apostasies to work out and Jesus has placed me in a home where I am loved as I spend a lifetime working them out. Another thing that is great is I am not alone in this. Of course there are apostasies in the Catholic Church, and there has been ever since Jesus chose humans to pass the word about Him on to others. As you walk past our Baptismal font we have two confessionals. Right there and they are so easy to spot. Its refreshing to see them but a lot better to be in one.

Holy Communion is so much more special after one has confessed his or her sins and then heard your sins have been absolved go in the peace of Christ.

But never, never has there been a total apostasy of Jesus’s church. It is His body!

I can attest to that. Because I am a sinner and I have found the love of Christ in the Catholic Church. I do understand why Jesus would wash the feet of the Apostles, why He chose the lowest place rather than what would appear to be the highest. The Mormon claim about the great apostacy is crazy in itself. Its truly scary to think one would place them selves in that court of judgement. Its a very dangerouse claim to make.

Rich
www.utahmission.com

 

[dianaiad]

This touches on something I have thought about a lot. While I can believe that those who are brought up in the Mormon faith do not know about the different “language” that is out there beyond the Mormon world, I cannot believe that the Mormon hierarchy does not know about it, and I fault them for their obvious deceit in failing to correct the distinctions.

This begs a very big question: who gets to determine the definitions? Words mean what the people who use them think they mean, and very few, if any, words mean the same thing to two people. For instance…define ‘people.’

Have fun with that.

The problem comes with this idea you seem to have that YOU get the final word on the definition of something, and that anyone who has a different view of it is, necessarily, decieved or deliberately deceitful.

I solve the problem by going to a dictionary, figuring that the dictionary generally gives the definition the MOST people agree upon. If yours is different, then it is your responsibility to let us know what you mean. Insisting that, when we use a word, that we are being deceitful, or are ‘really’ claiming to believe something we do not if our definition doesn’t march with yours is a particularly biased way to go…especially if your definition has elements that are not in the dictionary. A wonderful example of this is “Christian.”

Nobody can argue that Mormons do not fit the dictionary definition of “Christian.” It is only when different Christians add things to the definition that the problems come in…and then y’all expect us to agree that YOU are correct in defining the word. Why in the name of all that his holy should we do that? We don’t believe you are as correct in your beliefs ABOUT Christ as we are–can you give me one logical reason why we should tamely accept your definition of a word that excludes us?

Isn’t that a little like asking Catholics to accept Islam’s version of the catechism? C’mon.

The best way to do this is to be kind to one another; realize that (for instance) ‘excommunication’ to a Catholic doesn’t mean quite the same thing as it does to a Mormon, but that once both know what the OTHER means, a meaningful conversation can ensue anyway.

A snooty dismissal of all definitions of concepts other than one’s own won’t get you anywhere at all. It especially won’t get you listened to.

 

[Returning_Home]

This begs a very big question: who gets to determine the definitions? Words mean what the people who use them think they mean, and very few, if any, words mean the same thing to two people. For instance…define ‘people.’

You’re playing word games now, but you’re right on one point: since Mormons have taken one term and put another meaning to it, what’s to say that the LDS interpretation is false? Oh, I dunno, how about facts?

Since apostacy means “renouncing of a belief or faith, abandoing of principles” according to my dictionary, I’d normally go with that. Even Gospel Principles defines it similarly: "turning away from or leaving the teachings of the gospel so for the sake of argument, I’ll use your own definition, okay?

Since we now know what it means, why do we find absolutely no evidence of it anywhere in history? It’s hard ice skating uphill, isn’t it?

This tact is indicative of Mormon apologists being very mercurial; you try to pin them down on any one particular point and they’ll try to undermine even the accepted definition of the terms you’re using.

The problem comes with this idea you seem to have that YOU get the final word on the definition of something, and that anyone who has a different view of it is, necessarily, decieved or deliberately deceitful.

Incorrect; I let God have the final word. He gave me common sense and I use it to the best of my ability.

I solve the problem by going to a dictionary, figuring that the dictionary generally gives the definition the MOST people agree upon. If yours is different, then it is your responsibility to let us know what you mean. Insisting that, when we use a word, that we are being deceitful, or are ‘really’ claiming to believe something we do not if our definition doesn’t march with yours is a particularly biased way to go…especially if your definition has elements that are not in the dictionary. A wonderful example of this is “Christian.”

If we’re using the same dictionary, it makes sense that we wouldn’t have anything to disagree on, right? Yes, but we’re not talking about dictionaries, are we? No, we’re talking about an organization that defines things to support its own case, which, therefore, has nothing to do with what most people agree on.

Nobody can argue that Mormons do not fit the dictionary definition of “Christian.” It is only when different Christians add things to the definition that the problems come in…and then y’all expect us to agree that YOU are correct in defining the word. Why in the name of all that his holy should we do that? We don’t believe you are as correct in your beliefs ABOUT Christ as we are–can you give me one logical reason why we should tamely accept your definition of a word that excludes us?

You follow a jesus (little j) that makes mistakes, one created by Joseph Smith. I follow the one found in the Bible. Since you’re told the Bible is missing many ‘plain and precious things,’ you have a reason not to accept its word at face value, separating Christians from Mormons.

But thank you, yes, Mormons are not Christains. Most LDS won’t admit that.

Isn’t that a little like asking Catholics to accept Islam’s version of the catechism? C’mon.

I really couldn’t care less about Islam and it has no place in the discussion at the moment.

A snooty dismissal of all definitions of concepts other than one’s own won’t get you anywhere at all. It especially won’t get you listened to.

I’m not snooty at all. The missionaries wanted me to read the BOM and I did. They justs didn’t get the answer they wanted from me. I read your texts, subscribe to your apologist sites, and watch your television programs. If anything, I’ve giving you an enormous opportunity to prove yourselves right and you still fail each and every time.

 

[evanfaust]

You provided two individual examples of apostacy, neither of which amounts to the global apostacy that was supposed to be cured by Joseph Smith and then you try to escape by not wanted to cover the same ground. The problem is that those other who have covered the topic before us haven’t been able to show that the alleged apostacy occurred either.

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.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

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.

I don’t see how that proves an apostasy occurred at all.

We still define new dogmas over the years, so divine revelation hasn’t ended. We just stopped adding new books to the Bible after the death of St. John the Apostle.

 

[SteveVH]

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.

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.

I take some issue with Marc Anthony’s statement that:

"We still define new dogmas over the years, so divine revelation hasn’t ended. We just stopped adding new books to the Bible after the death of St. John the Apostle."

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.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I take some issue with Marc Anthony’s statement that:

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.

You’re probably right, I’m no theologian. I’m sure I merely misunderstood the concept. Your definition actually makes more sense.

 

[SteveVH]

You’re probably right, I’m no theologian. I’m sure I merely misunderstood the concept. Your definition actually makes more sense.

No problem. I think we’re talking about the same thing. One exception that I can think of would be the Marian doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. While it could be said that this belief was “hidden” but nevertheless present in the Church’s Tradition, it may qualify as “new” revelation. Maybe someone else could help here. It certainly “seemed” new to most people when it was proclaimed as dogma.

 

[catholic-rcia]

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.

I have heard so many times on this forum “we already went over that in this post #112”
Jesus died on the cross because we are all sinners , and only He could atone for our sins right? Why in the world would you want to ad anything to what He has already done? He is the fulfillment of the Scriptures. What He left His Church was the Holy Spirit to help us come to the epiphany one at a time of what He has done for us. The Apostles got it, Catholics get it.

We rehash it because new souls come to the Table where their eyes are opened just like the rest of us. That Jesus is our Lord and God and He took the punishment upon Himself that we deserve. The Mass has always been the place where the one death and resurrection of Christ is brought into the here and now for each soul. The Mass is the very reason the LDS such as your selves even know His name. I have the Holy Spirit in me from my Baptism into the death of Christ in order to be lifted to life in Christ to guide me to Christ.

Nothing needs restoring here. Nothing is broken. Do you know how much pride and ego it takes to even mention a restoration of what Christ has built? If you could only see the path you are on I believe you would get off. You would have to.
yet It does involve picking up a Cross.

I gave a Beautiful wood carved Cross that read “I AM with you always” to two LDS Missionaries who came to tour our Church. It had all of the scriptures about the Cross branded on to the back. One of them would not take it as I handed it to him as a gift. The older one took it but had to have it placed on a tour paper we gave them when they first came in. He would not make direct contact with it. In all sincereity Vampires come to mind. That is really a connection I can’t help but think about. I know the LDS are not vampires because my grandmother was LDS. She was the first one who taught me to pray. She never bit me once! Althoug she did use a wooden ruler from time time. And it was not on my nuckles.

I am asking you to read this as a friend in Christ
utahmission.com/pages/Shame%20of%20the%20Cross.html

Here are those scriptures that were on the cross
http://utahmission.com/pages/Cross_scripture.html
Here is the Cross
http://chooseyourcross.com/Comfort_Cross.html

The proud cannot bring themselves to hold out empty hands to God, they insist on offering virtues, good works, self denials, anything in order not to have nothing. They want to be beautiful for him from their own resources, whereas we are beautiful only because God looks on us and makes us beautiful. God cannot give himself to us unless our hands are empty to receive him. The deepest reason why so few of us are saints is because we will not let God love us. To be loved means a naked, defenceless surrender to all God is. It means a glad acceptance of our nothingness, a look fixed only on the God who gives, taking no account of the nothing to whom the gift is made. To lose ourselves like this is the most radical of despoliations because the last shred of self-importance is discarded. The very words and acts of humility can be a barricade of well-nigh infinite subtlety. Jesus came to us precisely to break down the bars, something we could never have done of ourselves. Yet we cannot live the life of Jesus unless we consent to leave our own pitiful lives, and this is what pride finds unendurable. Striving for ‘perfection’ is the most disastrous of the mistakes good people fall into. It feeds the very vice it intends to destroy. Most fervent souls are prepared to give God any mortal thing, work themselves to death, anything except the one thing he wants, total trust: anything but surrender into his loving hands. ‘You must become as little children’, whose one virtue is that they know they are unimportant.”
(above taken from Guidelines for Mystical Prayer pages 83-84 by Ruth Burrows, published and copyright 1976 by Sheed and Ward and used by permission of the publishers.)
In Christ
Rich

 

[dianaiad]

You’re playing word games now, but you’re right on one point: since Mormons have taken one term and put another meaning to it, what’s to say that the LDS interpretation is false? Oh, I dunno, how about facts?

Since apostacy means “renouncing of a belief or faith, abandoing of principles” according to my dictionary, I’d normally go with that. Even Gospel Principles defines it similarly: "turning away from or leaving the teachings of the gospel so for the sake of argument, I’ll use your own definition, okay?

Since we now know what it means, why do we find absolutely no evidence of it anywhere in history? It’s hard ice skating uphill, isn’t it?

This is a classic case of 'the winner writes the history" sir. Of course you do not see evidence of it; if you did, you wouldn’t BE Catholic. I, however, see such evidence. The clincher for me comes down to three very important things that I personally can’t get around: first, that there is nowhere ANYwhere in the NT where Christ (or anybody else, for that matter) says that public revelation was to cease, or when it was to cease. Second, public revelation did continue after the death, resurrection and assencion of Jesus Christ, and in fact is how we know ABOUT Him. Third, everybody agrees that public revelation stopped after the last apostle died. The difference between is is that you think it was supposed to and is, therefore, a good thing. I, on the other hand, think that it was the product of the apostasy that was predicted, and was not a good thing.

So you might not like the evidence, or think that it IS evidence, but for me, 'tis enough, 'twill serve." as evidence for the apostasy. I keep bumping into the utter lack of reason for public revelation to have ceased.

This tact is indicative of Mormon apologists being very mercurial; you try to pin them down on any one particular point and they’ll try to undermine even the accepted definition of the terms you’re using.

Perhaps you should wait until I mangle a definition before you start attacking me for it? Just a thought.

Incorrect; I let God have the final word. He gave me common sense and I use it to the best of my ability.

If we’re using the same dictionary, it makes sense that we wouldn’t have anything to disagree on, right? Yes, but we’re not talking about dictionaries, are we? No, we’re talking about an organization that defines things to support its own case, which, therefore, has nothing to do with what most people agree on.

We are talking about English words. The definition of.

You follow a jesus (little j) that makes mistakes

We follow a Jesus (Capital J, by the way) that 'makes mistakes?" Exactly what ‘mistake’ do you think we believe He made?

, one created by Joseph Smith. I follow the one found in the Bible. Since you’re told the Bible is missing many ‘plain and precious things,’ you have a reason not to accept its word at face value, separating Christians from Mormons.

But thank you, yes, Mormons are not Christains. Most LDS won’t admit that.

That’s because we ARE Christians. Sorry. We aren’t Orthodox Christians, or orthodox Christians. We are not classic trinitarians, or modalists, or Calvinist, or quite a few other ‘ists…’ out there. We are, however, Christian because we believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ as we believe them to be, and we claim the name.

We may not be correct in everything we believe about Him (though I believe we are closer than anybody else. If I didn’t think that, I wouldn’t BE a Mormon…) but that isn’t a requirement.

I really couldn’t care less about Islam and it has no place in the discussion at the moment.

Only as an analogy…and in that sense it does. Or you could use a different example…would you accept a Mormon’s description of the catechism as more authoritative than your own?

I’m not snooty at all.

You also aren’t MelanieAnn, and didn’t make the comment I characterized as ‘snooty.’

The missionaries wanted me to read the BOM and I did. They justs didn’t get the answer they wanted from me. I read your texts, subscribe to your apologist sites, and watch your television programs. If anything, I’ve giving you an enormous opportunity to prove yourselves right and you still fail each and every time.

My friend, someone who is as well read and educated in LDS doctrine and thought as you claim to be would make fewer factual errors about our history and beliefs. For instance, you claim that the Book of Mormon says that the Catholic church was ‘founded by Satan.’ It most certainly does not. You also claimed that we teach that Jesus did not come to ‘save us from our sins,’ and that “Jesus was the polygamous product of an incestuous union with God and Mary.”

…and that last statement is about clever a use of equivocation I’ve seen in a very , very long time. After all, Who do YOU think Jesus Christ is, when He is described as the “Only Begotten Son of God?”

Diana

 

[dianaiad]

I don’t see how that proves an apostasy occurred at all.

We still define new dogmas over the years, so divine revelation hasn’t ended. We just stopped adding new books to the Bible after the death of St. John the Apostle.

Marc, are you claiming that public revelation continued? If you are, you are the first Catholic I’ve run across who does.

 

[DominicSavio23]

This is a classic case of 'the winner writes the history" sir. Of course you do not see evidence of it; if you did, you wouldn’t BE Catholic. I, however, see such evidence. The clincher for me comes down to three very important things that I personally can’t get around: first, that there is nowhere ANYwhere in the NT where Christ (or anybody else, for that matter) says that public revelation was to cease, or when it was to cease. Second, public revelation did continue after the death, resurrection and assencion of Jesus Christ, and in fact is how we know ABOUT Him. Third, everybody agrees that public revelation stopped after the last apostle died. The difference between is is that you think it was supposed to and is, therefore, a good thing. I, on the other hand, think that it was the product of the apostasy that was predicted, and was not a good thing.

So you might not like the evidence, or think that it IS evidence, but for me, 'tis enough, 'twill serve." as evidence for the apostasy. I keep bumping into the utter lack of reason for public revelation to have ceased.
Diana

Hi Diana,

I found this is to be a very intriguing statement and very helpful in understanding the LDS views on the apostasy.

I am curious, if you don’t mind offering an explanation, what is the purpose of continued public revelation? What does it accomplish?

It would seem to me that the entirety of salvation history leads up to Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh, in whom there is the fullness of revelation-- it is Jesus who perfectly shows us the Father and opens up the way of salvation. He is “the way, the truth, and the life.” I don’t mean this in a rude way, because I am truly interested in your answer, but what more do we need from God in way of revelation than His most perfect revelation in His Son, Jesus Christ?

 

[dianaiad]

I have heard so many times on this forum “we already went over that in this post #112”
Jesus died on the cross because we are all sinners , and only He could atone for our sins right? Why in the world would you want to ad anything to what He has already done? He is the fulfillment of the Scriptures. What He left His Church was the Holy Spirit to help us come to the epiphany one at a time of what He has done for us. The Apostles got it, Catholics get it.

…and we know about it because public revelation continued after Christ’s life, death and resurrection.

This is the thing that I see…that in all honesty astounds me when others miss it; I am told that there was no need for public revelation after Christ—but of course there was. If there wasn’t any, we wouldn’t know anything ABOUT Him.

The real shift was…now Jesus Christ is the origin of that revelation, not the reciever of it. When He walked along the banks with His apostles after His resurrection, that WAS revelation; He was giving it, His apostles were recieving it.

When Paul was knocked off his…donkey…on that famous road to Damascus, Jesus was again the origin of revelation, and Paul was RECIEVING it. All of His apostles, as they wrote their gospels and letters, were recieving public revelation, and Jesus the Christ was the Giver OF it.

…and there is absolutely no place anywhere in any scriptures that says this was supposed to stop, and that nobody needed His guidance any more. How many times have I been told that the Catholic church is ‘true’ because Jesus said that the ‘gates of hell’ would not prevail against her, and that admitting an apostasy would be making a liar of Him?

Well, from where I stand, the Catholic claim that public revelation ceased at the death of the last apostle is a tacit declaration that He DID just that–either that, or more likely everybody simply stopped paying attention…and THAT, my friend, is the heart and soul of what apostasy actually is.

You see, this argument that is given…that Christ would not leave the church to fend for itself…is ignoring the basic fact of apostasy; it was not about God leaving the church. It was about the church leaving God.

At least…publically. I will be the first to acknowledge that individuals listened, and listened well. People have been keeping close and spiritual relationships with Him for millenia. That is not, unfortunately, the same thing as keeping the church as a whole on the doctrinal rails, is it?

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

what do Mormons believe the phrase “public revelation” as used by Catholics is referring to?

 

[DominicSavio23]

…and we know about it because public revelation continued after Christ’s life, death and resurrection.

This is the thing that I see…that in all honesty astounds me when others miss it; I am told that there was no need for public revelation after Christ—but of course there was. If there wasn’t any, we wouldn’t know anything ABOUT Him.

The real shift was…now Jesus Christ is the origin of that revelation, not the reciever of it. When He walked along the banks with His apostles after His resurrection, that WAS revelation; He was giving it, His apostles were recieving it.

When Paul was knocked off his…donkey…on that famous road to Damascus, Jesus was again the origin of revelation, and Paul was RECIEVING it. All of His apostles, as they wrote their gospels and letters, were recieving public revelation, and Jesus the Christ was the Giver OF it.

…and there is absolutely no place anywhere in any scriptures that says this was supposed to stop, and that nobody needed His guidance any more. How many times have I been told that the Catholic church is ‘true’ because Jesus said that the ‘gates of hell’ would not prevail against her, and that admitting an apostasy would be making a liar of Him?

Well, from where I stand, the Catholic claim that public revelation ceased at the death of the last apostle is a tacit declaration that He DID just that–either that, or more likely everybody simply stopped paying attention…and THAT, my friend, is the heart and soul of what apostasy actually is.

You see, this argument that is given…that Christ would not leave the church to fend for itself…is ignoring the basic fact of apostasy; it was not about God leaving the church. It was about the church leaving God.

At least…publically. I will be the first to acknowledge that individuals listened, and listened well. People have been keeping close and spiritual relationships with Him for millenia. That is not, unfortunately, the same thing as keeping the church as a whole on the doctrinal rails, is it?

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.

 

[dianaiad]

Hi Diana,

I found this is to be a very intriguing statement and very helpful in understanding the LDS views on the apostasy.

I am curious, if you don’t mind offering an explanation, what is the purpose of continued public revelation? What does it accomplish?

What did it accomplish when the original Twelve apostles (plus Paul…and his presence in the NT is rather important to my point) wrote as they did? That’s not a flippant question, by the way. It goes to the very heart of the matter.

It would seem to me that the entirety of salvation history leads up to Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh, in whom there is the fullness of revelation-- it is Jesus who perfectly shows us the Father and opens up the way of salvation. He is “the way, the truth, and the life.” I don’t mean this in a rude way, because I am truly interested in your answer, but what more do we need from God in way of revelation than His most perfect revelation in His Son, Jesus Christ?

Knowing about it.

It would have done us little good if Jesus had appeared, taught, and disappeared again without anybody listening and writing down what He had to say, would it? How DO we know what He said and did?

Why, His apostles told us. How do we know about the events that occurred after His death on the cross?

His apostles wrote it down. How did THEY know what happened then? Jesus told them, and showed them…and that was revelation. How did Paul know that Jesus was the Christ, and that he should turn his own life upside down? Jesus told him…and that was revelation.

How did any of those men know how to deal with the problems they had in the church during that time? They had revelation, and they wrote it down, and we have it today.

The letters that these men wrote were specific to the events they were addressing; for the church members at the time, to deal with the questions that came up. We still have questions that require answers–some of which wouldn’t have occurred to any of the early Christians at all, since the possibilities involved weren’t. Possibilities, that is.

Cloning.
Transplants.
embryonic stem cell research.
in vitro fertilyzation and other fertility treatments.

…and those are questions in one area that I’m very certain nobody in the first century AD had the tiniest glimmer of asking.

(shrug)

The upshot of this is: if it were not for continuing public revelation after Christ lived, died and was reserrected, we wouldn’t know thing one about Him. Therefore, public revelation was necessary. There is nothing anywhere that tells us it was supposed to end. So…what happened?

 

[dianaiad]

what do Mormons believe the phrase “public revelation” as used by Catholics is referring to?

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.

 

[DominicSavio23]

A quote from the Catechism to help clarify my last post:

“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

This ‘continual grasping’ is the working of the Holy Spirit and is always a truth revealed in Jesus Christ and handed down, even if in an obscured and not-fully-understood manner, through Sacred Scripture and/or Sacred Tradition.