Mormon Prophets, Seers, and Revelators

[catholic-rcia]

It was guaranteed by Christ when He breathed on the Apostles and they received the Holy Spirit, he promised them that His Holy Spirit would guide His bride to all truth. That He would be with us always throughout the ages. He gave us the Sacrament of Confession because we are not pure, we are sinners in transition.
**Because of the Holy Spirit, **because of Confession of sins, because of the blood and body of Christ the Church has remained pure in the sense that Christ purifies it.
Because of Christ, the Church has remained faithful in proclaiming the One true Gospel, the One true Jesus, the One true Holy Spirit and the One true Father…the one true God.
When you come to understand that your life is because of Christ you come to understand who died for you on the Cross. The leaders choose to follow Jesus because they knew that He is their only way out of sin that it is in a relationship with Him that we are freed from it. Never forced, always a choice to submit our lives over to Him.
The Holy Spirit can work with these people. His promise is kept because men and women are willing to die to themselves in order to serve Him.
Confession of sins plays a huge role in our freedom in Christ. In the continuation of His Church, His very body, His bride. He would **never **leave His bride.

When you know Jesus you understand what dying to self means, you become a servant in Christ not looking for any kind of glory or gain other than doing His will. You immerse yourself into Him and allow Him to live in you and it is Him who makes us who we are now and who we are to become. Adopted sons and daughters.
Even an atheist can follow the teachings of Christ but without Christ (Holy Trinity) a good leaf on a tree still dies. He is the fountain of life.
Stop bearing false witness against the very Church Jesus built. Stop trying to bring a diifferent gospel . As doing this is a mortal sin and there our consequences, yet the light of confession can change everything. .

This is authentic Christianity, very real.

 

[ParkerD]

Catholic-RCIA,

I am supposing that you would like a response from me.

First, I might as well point out that the article you read about President Monson’s talk in LDS General Conference about gratitude, which he entitled “The Divine Gift of Gratitude” and can be read in its entirety right here:

lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-1298-27,00.html

centered on the gratitude we should have for the Savior, first and foremost. (It would have taken only four keystrokes to find the entire talk on audio rather than make an error in judgment about it using a brief newspaper account.)

Secondly, Christ never promised that the Holy Spirit would stay with anyone if they didn’t carefully keep the commandments with their whole heart, nor did He ever speak of Himself as the “Trinity”, nor of a “sacrament of confession” to priests.

The idea that the Savior guaranteed that the Holy Spirit would continuously be with any and every leader who succeeded the apostles (especially when that succession process was speculative on the part of the men deciding who the leader(s) should be) is not only not found in the New Testament, but is contrary to the entire body of teachings about how a person keeps the Holy Spirit guiding them in their life. That was one of Paul’s major teachings, over and over again–how to discern and keep the Spirit in one’s life. He didn’t differentiate between the leaders and the members needing to do that.

We all certainly ought to seek the Spirit in our lives, and to build repentance into our lives through confessing our sins to God and forsaking them, and allowing Christ to change us so that we become a “new creature” and grow toward becoming like Him as He asked us to do.

 

[catholic-rcia]

Catholic-RCIA,

I am supposing that you would like a response from me.

First, I might as well point out that the article you read about President Monson’s talk in LDS General Conference about gratitude, which he entitled “The Divine Gift of Gratitude” and can be read in its entirety right here:

lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-1298-27,00.html

centered on the gratitude we should have for the Savior, first and foremost. (It would have taken only four keystrokes to find the entire talk on audio rather than make an error in judgment about it using a brief newspaper account.)

Secondly, Christ never promised that the Holy Spirit would stay with anyone if they didn’t carefully keep the commandments with their whole heart, nor did He ever speak of Himself as the “Trinity”, nor of a “sacrament of confession” to priests.

The idea that the Savior guaranteed that the Holy Spirit would continuously be with any and every leader who succeeded the apostles (especially when that succession process was speculative on the part of the men deciding who the leader(s) should be) is not only not found in the New Testament, but is contrary to the entire body of teachings about how a person keeps the Holy Spirit guiding them in their life. That was one of Paul’s major teachings, over and over again–how to discern and keep the Spirit in one’s life. He didn’t differentiate between the leaders and the members needing to do that.

We all certainly ought to seek the Spirit in our lives, and to build repentance into our lives through confessing our sins to God and forsaking them, and allowing Christ to change us so that we become a “new creature” and grow toward becoming like Him as He asked us to do.

 

[catholic-rcia]

Catholic-RCIA,

I am supposing that you would like a response from me.

First, I might as well point out that the article you read about President Monson’s talk in LDS General Conference about gratitude, which he entitled “The Divine Gift of Gratitude” and can be read in its entirety right here:

lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-1298-27,00.html

centered on the gratitude we should have for the Savior, first and foremost. (It would have taken only four keystrokes to find the entire talk on audio rather than make an error in judgment about it using a brief newspaper account.)

Secondly, Christ never promised that the Holy Spirit would stay with anyone if they didn’t carefully keep the commandments with their whole heart, nor did He ever speak of Himself as the “Trinity”, nor of a “sacrament of confession” to priests.

The idea that the Savior guaranteed that the Holy Spirit would continuously be with any and every leader who succeeded the apostles (especially when that succession process was speculative on the part of the men deciding who the leader(s) should be) is not only not found in the New Testament, but is contrary to the entire body of teachings about how a person keeps the Holy Spirit guiding them in their life. That was one of Paul’s major teachings, over and over again–how to discern and keep the Spirit in one’s life. He didn’t differentiate between the leaders and the members needing to do that.

We all certainly ought to seek the Spirit in our lives, and to build repentance into our lives through confessing our sins to God and forsaking them, and allowing Christ to change us so that we become a “new creature” and grow toward becoming like Him as He asked us to do.

The whole reason Jesus was tried and convicted according to the world was because He said he was God. Not a God…God. But this confused the Jews because they believed in one God. Just as you are confused.

Trinity is revealed to those whom the Father wishes to reveal this to. Once revealed it is very understandable yet not fully understood.

In your first paragraph you pretty musb

It’s all right here Parker in what you write. Pretty much all against the core of Christianity. You clearly show that you are trying to bring a different kind of gospel with your words. When its not truth is can be confusing like when you mention Confession for instance. I started a thread on confession awhile back and the Mormons here said “oh, we have that, we go to our Bishop” When giving tours of our Church here in Logan Utah I often hear the same from other Mormons” Others with an open heart see something much different. I speak of it as a place of joy and freedom from sin. I let them know that our Priest go to confession as well all the way to the Pope our servant.

You know you don’t have what we have in the Holy Sacrament and yes the scriptures speak volumes on it. We go to Christ when we confess and you already know that, you have been here long enough so why would you still say we go to our Priest to confess our sins to him? This is what you meant right? Otherwise what did you mean? Do you see this type of confusion? It goes around and around doesn’t it? If keeping the Ten Commandments in our own rite is what is required than we would find the true Church in Jerusalem, I would be a Jew.
Don’t get me wrong I love them, they brought the Gospel to me.

There is a gigantic difference between following the law and following Christ. As Catholics we know we can not follow them accept in following Christ. This is why we have confession to Him through a Priest…to Jesus alone.

It is Jesus who gives us this healing Sacrament. You pretty much shoved Christianity aside in your thoughts and words here in what you have written. It’s mocking in a gentle way. Yet mocking Christianity in a gigantic way as well.

Why are you here Parker? The only reason I can think of is to take un learned Catholics away from Christ’s true Church. If you went on a Mission I am sure you found Catholics who listened to your different Gospel. What about the Catholics who understand their faith?

 

[catholic-rcia]

Your mission here is not to learn about the Catholic faith in a good light. You are hear to learn how to better bring to them a different gospel. It’s a game right, your trying to break the code right? You seem like a good person, calm, collected, yet After all you have learned you still persist. Don’t bring up the going to Priest to be forgiven anymore, you know what the truth is about Confession, start today in being honest about it. It is what has kept the Church pure and on tract. The Church is purification for sinners.
Cleansed and Blanketed in the blood of Christ. Confession turning sinners into real Saints. All because of Jesus and what He can transform because He as Thomas and Peter proclaimed is our Lord and our God. Who else can transform us but our Creator, the one who made us? Can we do this? Don’t think so. I give it all up to Jesus. This is what is missing in Monsons speech. Very clear. The one who did a report on it showed some true colors.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Aspirant Jews, yet, even that is comical, in a sad sort of way. Jesus is God, and until a person understands this, with their heart as well as with their head, they have no understanding.

 

[SteveVH]

Hi, again, SteveVH (sorry for interrupting other conversations by responding, but I guess that is the nature of this kind of forum),

I certainly agree that the Founder of the church is Jesus Christ.

But wasn’t He also the Founder of the “Jewish” religion–the one that began with the law of Moses–since I have recently been assured that Catholics believe Jesus is Jehovah?

Why didn’t He “make her holy” if He was also the Founder of the Jewish religion? Why didn’t He “dwell within her”? (By the way, the Old Testament speaks specifically as though the house of Israel will indeed feel “orphaned”. And of course, since the Savior’s atoning grace is offered for all mankind, no one need feel orphaned once they understand that concept of His atoning grace.)

Now we’re getting somewhere. That is an excellent question and is at the heart of the matter. God, from the beginning, invited man into his family. He began by making a covenant with Adam and Eve. They broke the covenant. He made successive covenants with Noah, Abraham, Moses and David. The Jews were unfaithful through each of these. It would take the Son of God Himself to overcome man’s unfaithfulness and sinfulness.
God promised the Messiah. It was Jesus for which the Jews had been waiting. It was Jesus of which the Prophets spoke. All of salvation history points to Jesus and has its source and end in Jesus. Because man was unfaithful, it would take the Son of Man to make it right. This is accomplished in the New Covenant in Christ. His covenant is with his Church, the People of God. But it is different this time. The Church is Christ Himself, he is the head, we are the body. That is why it cannot fail. If it fails, then God fails.

So, let’s see–I agree that Christ has overcome the powers of death, but how do you arrive at the conclusion that “He has already defeated hell” (other than in the sense that He suffered the pains of hell and can thus rescue all those who claim His mercy)? What about the future conditions prophesied by John during the end times? There is yet to be a casting down to hell.

Let me put it this way. We are dealing with eternity. The Church on earth is referred to as the Church militant. We are in the midst of a battle. Those awaiting purification are referred to as the Church suffering. They will attain heaven but must first be purified. The Church in heaven is referred to as the Church triumphant. It is already victorious. We know how the story ends.

There has already been a casting down to hell. That is the dwelling place of Lucifer and his followers, whether angels or men. There will be a final casting down after the last judgment.

continued…

 

[SteveVH]

So if you’re saying that the Jewish religion when it was revealed to Moses wasn’t “God’s own church”, then I disagree. If you’re saying you don’t believe the prophecy that indeed the beast who “opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven; And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.” (Revelation 13:6,7) and that beast was to be given power “over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations” , then your disbelief in that prophecy places you in a position of not understanding that John was given a vision of the history of the world and of the “church”, and though Christ ultimately does indeed prevail, this is not the case at every moment in time. The beast was seen as being given “power” temporarily–a predominant power “over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.” Yet that beast is ultimately defeated, thus bringing full fruition to the prophecy of Christ that the “gates of hell shall not prevail.”

All I will say here Parker is that I tend to navigate the dangerous waters of Revelation with a sure guide. We are talking about a vision here, not a novel. Many things that some suppose to be future events are actually events that have already occurred.

Those are logical conclusions, but have no precedence nor basis from the Bible.

You may be right, but this would also apply to your conclusions. Not everything is spelled out completely for any of us on this issue.

I guess we think differently about what the word “prevail” means. I think it means “triumph”. I think it is a conclusive term of finality.

“It’s not over until it’s over.” (Does that ring a bell?) “Never prevail” means quite a different meaning than “shall not prevail” if one thinks of ultimate triumph as compared with “the opposition will temporarily have power.”

I also believe that the term prevail tends toward finality. That is why the Church that Christ founded will not fail. The word does not mean some temporary failure. So, the Church, founded on Peter would have to fail permanently if the term prevail indicates finality.

The church wasn’t given those keys. Peter was given those keys, as the chief apostle. Not one Biblical verse says he gave them to anyone else. (I do think Matthew 18 shows that those keys were given to the other apostles–but no verse ever says those keys were given to any bishop or to the bishops in general.)

The keys were given to Peter, upon whom the Church was founded. That means the Church has the keys. Do you believe that Christ gave the keys to Peter for his personal use? Of course it was for the Church.

Doesn’t Isaiah 61:1-3 have meaning for you in terms of a “spirit prison” from which Christ provides rescue? (It’s fine by me to not call that “spirit prison” “hell”.)

Yes it does have meaning for me. It is evidence that another place exists other than heaven or hell. I don’t think we have any disagreement here.

OK–if you mean the ultimate casting down to hell that is done after the final judgment. But before that final judgment, there is precedent in Peter’s epistles that Jesus provides teaching and rescue for spirits in spirit prison.

Again, no disagreement here. Prior to Christ’s sacrifice this place was called Hades. It was the place for those awaiting the opening of the doors to the kingdom of heaven, not those already dwelling in hell. There is a place, subsequent to Christ’s atonement, for those of us who will need purification before entering heaven. It is called purgatory.

I’ll have to come back later to address the rest of your responses as I have to prepare music for Mass this evening.

God bless.

 

[ParkerD]

All I will say here Parker is that I tend to navigate the dangerous waters of Revelation with a sure guide. We are talking about a vision here, not a novel. Many things that some suppose to be future events are actually events that have already occurred.

SteveVH,
The book of Revelation need not be viewed as “dangerous waters”. The Holy Ghost is a “sure guide” and the prophecies in the book of Revelation can be understood.

The wisdom of men is neither a “sure guide” nor an advisable approach to understanding the book of Revelation. The vision was given for a purpose, and was written to go forth among mankind for a purpose. It shows how the “gates of hell shall not prevail”, and shows with finality that God had a plan from the beginning that included allowing the dragon and the beast to have “power” on earth, but that in spite of that, Christ does indeed triumph and there is no question or uncertainty about it.

You may be right, but this would also apply to your conclusions. Not everything is spelled out completely for any of us on this issue.

OK.

I also believe that the term prevail tends toward finality. That is why the Church that Christ founded will not fail. The word does not mean some temporary failure. So, the Church, founded on Peter would have to fail permanently if the term prevail indicates finality.

“Church” means “congregation of believers”. Christ suffered for all of His congregation of believers. He gathers them to Him from throughout the history of the world, and His church is founded on Him–not on Peter. When a believer in Him comes unto Him with full purpose of heart, then that adds a soul to His congregation of believers–then He can begin to guide them and change their hearts and heal them.

The keys were given to Peter, upon whom the Church was founded. That means the Church has the keys. Do you believe that Christ gave the keys to Peter for his personal use? Of course it was for the Church.

I very strongly disagree. Christ gave the keys to Peter to bind on earth and in heaven since the ordinances of salvation needed to be “recorded in heaven” and if necessary, “loosed in heaven” or in other words a name be blotted out of the book of Life recorded in heaven.

Christ was Him “upon Whom the church was founded”, just as in the Old Testament when the congregation of believers was to have been founded upon the Rock of salvation, or in a single word, the Rock.

Yes it does have meaning for me. It is evidence that another place exists other than heaven or hell. I don’t think we have any disagreement here.

OK.

Again, no disagreement here. Prior to Christ’s sacrifice this place was called Hades. It was the place for those awaiting the opening of the doors to the kingdom of heaven, not those already dwelling in hell. There is a place, subsequent to Christ’s atonement, for those of us who will need purification before entering heaven. It is called purgatory.

OK.

I’ll have to come back later to address the rest of your responses as I have to prepare music for Mass this evening.

Wonderful–glad you have that opportunity, and enjoy music.
God bless, likewise.

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,
The book of Revelation need not be viewed as “dangerous waters”. The Holy Ghost is a “sure guide” and the prophecies in the book of Revelation can be understood.

The wisdom of men is neither a “sure guide” nor an advisable approach to understanding the book of Revelation. The vision was given for a purpose, and was written to go forth among mankind for a purpose. It shows how the “gates of hell shall not prevail”, and shows with finality that God had a plan from the beginning that included allowing the dragon and the beast to have “power” on earth, but that in spite of that, Christ does indeed triumph and there is no question or uncertainty about it.

Well, I don’t depend upon the wisdom of man as a “sure guide”. I depend on the Holy Spirit working through the Magisterium of the Church. Now, since we both believe that we are being led by the Holy Spirit, yet we disagree as to the truth being spoken in the Book of Revelation (and most of the rest of Scripture as well), we know that at least one of us is not being led by the Holy Spirit on the basis that truth cannot conflict with truth. Would you not agree with this statement? And if this is true, then how does one reconcile this dilemma? The “burning in the heart” angle holds no water with me for the simple reason that I “feel” the truth within me as clearly as do you. Going a step further, so did the Muslims who flew the planes into the Twin Towers, in fact, so much so that they were willing to give their lives. The point is, internal feelings are not a “sure guide” to the truth. They are influenced by our own desires and other voices who are battling for our souls.

“Church” means “congregation of believers”. Christ suffered for all of His congregation of believers. He gathers them to Him from throughout the history of the world, and His church is founded on Him–not on Peter. When a believer in Him comes unto Him with full purpose of heart, then that adds a soul to His congregation of believers–then He can begin to guide them and change their hearts and heal them.

Christ built his Church upon a foundation. He is the builder. Christ is the wise man who built his house upon rock. Peter is the rock; the foundation.

"…you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it." (Mt 16:18)

Pauls letter to the Ephesians helps clarify:

"So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the holy ones and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets (Eph 2:19,20)

I very strongly disagree. Christ gave the keys to Peter to bind on earth and in heaven since the ordinances of salvation needed to be “recorded in heaven” and if necessary, “loosed in heaven” or in other words a name be blotted out of the book of Life recorded in heaven.

Christ gave His own authority to the Apostles and their successors. The power of binding and loosing is the power to forgive sins (or not). This does not mean that any man can forgive sins, but it is Christ who forgives sins through his priests. I have no idea what you mean by the “ordinances of salvation”. No one’s name needs to be blotted out from the book of Life. It is not as though God would include one’s name in the book of Life only to be blotted out later if they didn’t perform. He has known from the beginning who’s name is to be included and there will be no changes.

 

[ParkerD]

Well, I don’t depend upon the wisdom of man as a “sure guide”. I depend on the Holy Spirit working through the Magisterium of the Church.

SteveVH,
That was exactly what I meant by the “wisdom of men.” They had lost the guidance of the Holy Spirit by the time those became the writings, so it is a case of them being able to take you any direction they had wanted to take their listeners and readers.

Now, since we both believe that we are being led by the Holy Spirit

I understood you to say "working through the Magisterium of the church (which is a far different thing than reading the Bible, prayerfully on your own with no other book or writings to tell you what those passages meant–just you getting inspiration from God directly)

yet we disagree as to the truth being spoken in the Book of Revelation (and most of the rest of Scripture as well), we know that at least one of us is not being led by the Holy Spirit on the basis that truth cannot conflict with truth. Would you not agree with this statement?

I would agree that since you remarked that you rely on the “Magisterium of the church”, in which case God would have a hard time getting His own voice heard in your heart, since He will not speak to a mind where the mind is already made up because that would preclude allowing freedom of will and choice).

And if this is true, then how does one reconcile this dilemma?

By not bringing an agenda to the reading experience of reading the book of Revelation, and seeking direct inspiration from heaven with no “Magisterium” involved and no fear of “dangerous waters”, particularly if the deep-down fear is that God might actually bring some new knowledge to your heart and you don’t want new knowledge.

The “burning in the heart” angle holds no water with me for the simple reason that I “feel” the truth within me as clearly as do you. Going a step further, so did the Muslims who flew the planes into the Twin Towers, in fact, so much so that they were willing to give their lives. The point is, internal feelings are not a “sure guide” to the truth. They are influenced by our own desires and other voices who are battling for our souls.

It is certainly true that there are other spirits than the Holy Spirit, and thus “other voices”. I have learned to distinguish the difference. Charity (love for all mankind) is one of the basic, absolutely necessary components of distinguishing that difference. If you think the Muslims could have thought they had the “Spirit” to do what they did, yet have understood the teachings of the Bible on getting and keeping the Spirit, then that shows me you may want to do more reading in the Bible about the entire subject. They had been taught a fear-based set of falsehoods that were easily discernible as falsehoods, even within their own religious tradition, as many Muslims have pointed out. But even more-so would that be true if they had been familiar with the Bible and believed it in its entirety.

Relying on the “Magisterium” is a far different thing than relying directly on the Bible and prayer, plus faith, hope, and charity.

Christ built his Church upon a foundation. He is the builder.

Christ is the builder, but He is also the foundation. It surprises me that anyone could miss that Peter taught and emphasized this himself, yet Catholics disregard Peter’s teaching on the subject as though Peter himself didn’t know what he was writing about in his first epistle, and as though Peter wasn’t quoting the Old Testament and quoting Christ knowing exactly what Christ meant.

Christ is the wise man who built his house upon rock. Peter is the rock; the foundation.

I guess you and Peter can talk about his teachings when you see him and he can explain that the Magisterium didn’t understand him either.

"…you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it." (Mt 16:18)

Yes, I certainly am familiar with that verse.

Pauls letter to the Ephesians helps clarify:

"So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the holy ones and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets (Eph 2:19,20)

Yes, but you are aware that you left off “Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;” which means that in order for the foundation to be a firm foundation, the corner stone must be firmly placed there, and if there are no apostles and no prophets in the church then the “foundation” is no longer doing its job, even if the believers believe in Christ since the apostles and prophets were spoken of as being an important part of the foundation. Apostles bear special witness of Christ, and prophets teach by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Christ gave His own authority to the Apostles and their successors.

“Their successors” is what was said by the supposed successors, not by Christ nor by the apostles. Of course the successors are going to legitimize their authority by saying that is the way it was supposed to be, and by saying they had the “Holy Spirit”.

 

[ParkerD]

The power of binding and loosing is the power to forgive sins (or not). This does not mean that any man can forgive sins, but it is Christ who forgives sins through his priests.

 

[zaffiroborant]

“Their successors” is what was said by the supposed successors, not by Christ nor by the apostles. Of course the successors are going to legitimize their authority by saying that is the way it was supposed to be, and by saying they had the “Holy Spirit”.

Just like your prophet legitimizes his authority by saying this is the way it was supposed to be and saying he has the Holy Spirit and is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.

An aside in the full post I quoted you made two statements I find lacking in charity.

 

[ParkerD]

Just like your prophet legitimizes his authority by saying this is the way it was supposed to be and saying he has the Holy Spirit and is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.

An aside in the full post I quoted you made two statements I find lacking in charity.

Zaffiroborant,

The verse in Ephesians that SteveVH cited showed the plan that the apostles, including Paul, were aware of and taught.

If a person wanted to, they could “walk away” from any authority person altogether and say, “they’re just legitimizing their authority anyway.” This could have been done and most certainly was done with every prophet in the Bible, knowing human nature. But God called prophets, anyway, even knowing that more people would reject them than would accept them.

As far as your last sentence, I agree with it and was not particularly feeling either spiritually prompted or filled with charity (mostly just tired) when I wrote the response to SteveVH. It gets old re-hashing these topics over and over, especially when some inapplicable example is used such as occurred in the example Steve brought up.

So, sorry. Point well taken. I do feel charitable some of the time on this forum, and those particular moments have been when I was being taught by the Spirit as I was writing, which I appreciated at those moments. During those moments, I was inspired with the “big picture” better as far as comprehending the loving, embracing plan of Father in Heaven and the Savior for all mankind, and with how the Bible teaches and reaches people at the place they are and lifts them.

Peace to all, sincerely hoped.

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,
That was exactly what I meant by the “wisdom of men.” They had lost the guidance of the Holy Spirit by the time those became the writings, so it is a case of them being able to take you any direction they had wanted to take their listeners and readers.

When making statements like this it is probably better to begin with a comment like “we believe”, or “in my opinion”. You state it as if it were irrefutable fact. This is the classic case of approaching truth with a preconceived notion on which all further consideration is based. In my opinion it is a false premise and unconvincing. My acceptance that the Magisterium of the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit is based upon the promises of Christ to his Church, not the claim of some man.

I understood you to say "working through the Magisterium of the church (which is a far different thing than reading the Bible, prayerfully on your own with no other book or writings to tell you what those passages meant–just you getting inspiration from God directly.

I would agree that since you remarked that you rely on the “Magisterium of the church”, in which case God would have a hard time getting His own voice heard in your heart, since He will not speak to a mind where the mind is already made up because that would preclude allowing freedom of will and choice).

Parker, thank you for your gentle and charitable advice for my spiritual well being. I suppose that you are unaware that I read the Bible each and every day, all by myself, without any one’s help. I only wish it had pictures so that I could understand it more better. I was really under the wrong impression. I had no idea that you had come up with your theology all on your own. Very impressive.

By not bringing an agenda to the reading experience of reading the book of Revelation, and seeking direct inspiration from heaven with no “Magisterium” involved and no fear of “dangerous waters”, particularly if the deep-down fear is that God might actually bring some new knowledge to your heart and you don’t want new knowledge.

Again, such sage advice. You hit it on the head this time. How did you know that I have a deep-down fear that God might actually bring some new knowledge to my heart? I’m very comfortable in my ignorance thank you.

It is certainly true that there are other spirits than the Holy Spirit, and thus “other voices”. I have learned to distinguish the difference. Charity (love for all mankind) is one of the basic, absolutely necessary components of distinguishing that difference. If you think the Muslims could have thought they had the “Spirit” to do what they did, yet have understood the teachings of the Bible on getting and keeping the Spirit, then that shows me you may want to do more reading in the Bible about the entire subject. They had been taught a fear-based set of falsehoods that were easily discernible as falsehoods, even within their own religious tradition, as many Muslims have pointed out. But even more-so would that be true if they had been familiar with the Bible and believed it in its entirety.

Relying on the “Magisterium” is a far different thing than relying directly on the Bible and prayer, plus faith, hope, and charity.

So, please help me here. One who agrees with you has received the Spirit and those that don’t have not. Do I understand you correctly? I was also unaware that any Mormon relied “directly on the Bible”. Are you saying that it is sufficient, that we need no other Gospel? Today is just full of surprises.

Realizing the angle from which you are approaching this conversation, I think it best that we end it now before things get out of hand. Maybe we can try later on another topic.

God bless.

Steve

 

[catholic-rcia]

Originally Posted by ParkerD forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
"I understood you to say “working through the Magisterium of the church (which is a far different thing than reading the Bible, prayerfully on your own with no other book or writings to tell you what those passages meant–just you getting inspiration from God directly.”

***I can’t help but notice an entirely different tone here in you Parker. Its like black and white from your other post. I mean this in love for you, not to anger you. Take Parker and find a Blessed Sacrament Chapel and go in and pray. Its exactly what you need today. You will find peace I can assure you, you will walk out Parker like never before. these are words spoken from the Holy Spriti I know, spoken directly as to cut through all the tape, spoken out of love for you I am 100% sure. ***

Let me comment here on your last posting.

Doing this on your own without the Holy Spirit in you can lead you into great heresy unless you have the background and experience to read it. The Catholic Church has this. The Bible is the Church’s diary. The Judeo Christians diary.

If an alien came down to earth and listened to a baseball game without knowing our culture he may report back to his superiors that humans gun down each other while running to what is called a home plate. If on the other hand they spoke to those who know baseball best they would come to the proper interpretation of what gunning down really means. They world think to themselves “ah that makes sense”

For instance you could read genesis and not understand what the “in Image of God” means thus coming to believe that God is like us with flesh and bones. You would report back to your superiors that God is like us, that He has flesh and bones.

If on the other hand they spoke to those who know Christianity best they would come to the proper interpretation of what the image of God really means They world think to themselves “ah… that makes sense”

Reading the Bible without the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the same spirit that has guided the Catholic Church for 2000 years as given by Christ is dangerous. If the way you read the Bible was correct we would not have thousands of different sects who interpret it differently. This is common sense what Steve is putting forth, is it not?

God bless you and lots of prayers. I will be in the Blessed Sacarament Chapel shortly and you will be in my prayers.

In Christ
Truly your friend
Rich
www.utahmission.com

 

[SteveVH]

Originally Posted by ParkerD forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
"I understood you to say “working through the Magisterium of the church (which is a far different thing than reading the Bible, prayerfully on your own with no other book or writings to tell you what those passages meant–just you getting inspiration from God directly.”

Doing this on your own without the Holy Spirit in you can lead you into great heresy unless you have the background and experience to read it. The Catholic Church has this. The Bible is the Church’s diary. The judeo Christians diary.

If an alien came down to earth and listened to a baseball game without knowing our culture he may report back to his superiors that humans gun down each other while running to what is called a home plate. If on the other hand they spoke to those who know baseball best they would come to the proper interpretation of what gunning down really means. They world think to themselves “ah that makes sense”

For instance you could read genesis and not understand what the “in Image of God” means thus coming to believe that God is like us with flesh and bones. You would report back to your superiors that God is like us, that He has flesh and bones.

If on the other hand they spoke to those who know Christianity best they would come to the proper interpretation of what the image of God really means They world think to themselves “ah… that makes sense”

Reading the Bible without the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the same spirit that has guided the Catholic Church for 2000 years as given by Christ is dangerous. If the way you read the Bible was correct we would not have thousands of different sects who interpret it differently. This is common sense what Steve is putting forth, is it not?

 

[SteveVH]

For instance you could read genesis and not understand what the “in Image of God” means thus coming to believe that God is like us with flesh and bones. You would report back to your superiors that God is like us, that He has flesh and bones.

You do realize that this is exactly what the Mormon faith teaches. What surprises me is that this knowledge, according to what Parker has said, comes directly to him through his reading of the Bible, and Mormon teaching, apparently, has no influence on his thought process. He has his own direct line to God. While most Mormons wish to separate themselves from the rest of Protestantism, they apparently believe in the Protestant notion of private interpretation of the Scriptures and anyone not agreeing with their interpretation, obviously, does not have the Spirit. It’s pretty simple really, and very convenient.

 

[ParkerD]

…
So, please help me here.
(1) One who agrees with you has received the Spirit and those that don’t have not. Do I understand you correctly?

(2) I was also unaware that any Mormon relied “directly on the Bible”. Are you saying that it is sufficient, that we need no other Gospel? Today is just full of surprises.

Realizing the angle from which you are approaching this conversation, I think it best that we end it now before things get out of hand. Maybe we can try later on another topic.

God bless.

Steve

SteveVH,
This is just to let you know that I read your post and can answer the two questions you posed here, and certainly agree that we ought to “end it now” in terms of this conversation.

(1) No, certainly not. The Spirit may bring different insights to one person than another, based on that person’s own background and where they are in their life, plus what God needs them to do as a “next step,” whether it be to help others along their own path or to take a step in their life that is an incremental change.

(2) No, but it is a great beginning. Add sincere prayer and thorough study of the Bible (letting the words speak for themselves, and using the Douay-Rheims translation if not the KJV), plus “doing His will” and thus coming to “know the doctrine, whether it be of God”, and adding a sincere willingness to be corrected (through inspiration, repentance, and changed behavior) and to be full of love for all mankind, then those key ingredients will lead most assuredly to where God wants that person to be in their life, and will continue to lead to further changes and further guidance.

But as far as relying “directly on the Bible,” I am totally comfortable doing that for doctrinal clarity, so long as those above components are also in place. I really mean that.

Peace and blessings to you.

 

[catholic-rcia]

Let me also bail out here if that means anything to anyone. No need to reply. private message is fine…

It is my honest opinion Parker that you have not received the Holy Spirit in you. As a Mormon you would have to feel the same about me who was baptized into the 2000 year old Catholic Apostolic faith, not Mormon. So I am sure we would both agree.

Let me lay out my beliefs as to see the type of Holy Spirit in me.

I have come to the revelation that God is One, that God is an eternal God with no beginning and no end. That Jesus is God, the eternal Son with no beginning and no end. That the Holy Spirit is God, the love between the eternal Father and the eternal Son and that this love is eternal, eternally God, that the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Holy Trinity. All three make up the Godhead. One God.

• That I was created, that I am creature unlike God yet given the opportunity to share in what Jesus the eternal Son has always had with the father. This is where “Image” comes in “Love” That without the Holy Spirit in me I would not be able to understand these Christian truths like I do now. To know my proper place in creation.
• I believe my baptism to be valid because I do understand these Christian truths. They have been revealed to me, now baptized these truths live inside me and guide me.

I believe the Holy Spirit led me to Christ’s Church because I did not want to go, I did anyway. I learned about it through the RCIA in Logan Utah and have been blessed to have won this kind of lottery. I believe that I have found the treasure buried in a field, but have not yet after 12 years gone to sell everything in order to buy this filed. But I have been working at it, working on my relationship with God, in Christ through the Holy Spirit in me. I believe in the Most Holy Eucharist, the fountain of Life in Christ’s blood, I believe in the forgiveness of my sins and find this most apparent within the confines of the Sacrament of Confession. This is where I find my life, this is where I find Jesus in a most unique way.

I am not the only one to have come to these revelations, this would include all Christians …over 1 Billion of them. During my own RCIA journey I was with 7 others who had the same. It’s like “This is exactly how I thought it would be, I have thought about that before” revelations about who Jesus is, about Mary, Confession, Eucharist, and Communion of Saints. Then you read the bible with eyes open and you begin to see it all come together like dot to dot. No confusion. After all the dots are connected you see Jesus for the first time in a whole new light and you realize the it was God your Creator, the Eternal Son that died for you Parker. And through Him you find your life because of Him and in Him