M
mfbukowski
Guest
My point precisely. By direct revelation, the same way that Peter had direct revelation.
How do you know your pope is God’s representative on earth?
- Status
How do you know your pope is God’s representative on earth?
M
majick275
Guest
let’s look at this. Peter was called by Jesus himself in the flesh and personally taught by Jesus up to that point. Abraham was personally visited by angels and received significant miracles prior to making a covenant directly with God himself. Noah was directed by God himself and witnessed vast miracles. Of course i believe in revelation. God had the Bible produced for that reason. so that I could learn what he has revealed. Read Hebrews, especially the first chapter. what the prophets started jesus completed. there is no need for more public revelation. that is a tough sell even amongst LDS. how much canonized scripture has come forth since Brigham Young? personal revelation is important but I think LDS carry it too far. Jesus taught us correct principles and expects us to apply them when we think for ourselves. What value is revelation on the number of earrings to wear or if it’s okay to have facial hair. do you really expect revelation on what stocks to invest in? I’ll just repeat something Gordon B. Hinkley once said (paraphrasing for brevity) we don’t need a lot more revelation we need to focus on what we already have. Here is my point…the bible tells us what we need to know from a scriptural standpoint. the church that jesus established that wrote those words down and assembled them into a canon and then passed down the apostles teaching of what those scriptures mean provides us with the context to understand those revealed words. prayer and study can do the rest. the combined effect takes a lot more time but I can tell you that in my case it provides a much deeper and complete faith. I believe the catholic church IS the church that God created and nurtures to this day. I believe after much study and prayer that Joseph smith was a fraud.Do you know what is so very sad is that mankind has so little faith in God to recieve revelation that they may know as Peter knew as Abraham knew the things of God and then they mock those who claim they KNOW, Noah must of looked like a lost soul to the people of his time saying that he knew the rains were commingThe way I see it is that if the Holy Ghost bears witness to the things of God, that witness is stronger and of more force than actually physically being there or touching it.
Having said that, it was upon the ROCK of REVELATION that Jesus Christ built his Church and not on the back of a man. I am not saying that Peter was not the senior Apostle or that he was not given the keys of the kingdom, for that was his calling.
I
good. it needs to be clearly understood that this is NOT a place for mormons to gain converts or even “plant seeds” of conversion. this is a place to learn about the Catholic faith and in this particular forum to discuss other faiths within that context. it is obvious when people come her with no interest whatsoever in catholicism. it is just as obvious when the ruse of “i’m just correcting the errors and denouncing the lies” is used to obscure blatant missionary attempts.
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
It’s not that Catholics doubt the possibility of private revelation. We accept that God chooses to make private revelations to individuals and many saints were the recipients of such revelations. What we do not accept, is that private revelation can bind the Church and all her members to new doctrines. Everything that God needed to say to us He completed with His Son. On a very fundamental level, the LDS faith denies this truth.Do you know what is so very sad is that mankind has so little faith in God to recieve revelation that they may know as Peter knew as Abraham knew the things of God and then they mock those who claim they KNOW, Noah must of looked like a lost soul to the people of his time saying that he knew the rains were comming
Having said that, it was upon the ROCK of REVELATION that Jesus Christ built his Church and not on the back of a man. I am not saying that Peter was not the senior Apostle or that he was not given the keys of the kingdom, for that was his calling.
Peace,
-Robert
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
Do you believe that God directly reveals the validity of your prophets to every member of the Church?
Because he is the validly selected successor of Peter in the order of Apostolic succession, and not because I get a fuzzy warm feeling when I pray about him.
Peace,
-Robert
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
I have experienced a personal revelation that I believe came from the Holy Spirit. I do not speak of it often. And I do not use my personal experience to convince others that my faith is the true faith. That is because subjective personal experiences, even where sincerely believed to be divinely inspired, are not a proper basis for establishing the validity of a doctrine.
Peace,
-Robert
P.S. I do not think that you should talk down to Catholics on this point. Our Church history is filled with mystics and saints who have experienced private revelations that were much more dramatic than a “burning bosom.” For you to assume none at this forum have experienced a personal revelation is to reveal your own lack of understanding regarding the Catholic faith. Where we differ on revelation is whether or not ongoing revelation is “public” and therefore doctrinal in nature.
M
mfbukowski
Guest
I appreciate your point, and don’t doubt for a minute that Catholics can receive private revelations “as well” as mormons. If it were not true, we would have no Catholic converts.
One of the strongest of such revelations I received was when I was still at least in theory, Catholic. I guess I still am actually since you guys believe once a catholic, always.
I am simply addressing those who describe these personal revelations as “warm fuzzies” when such revelations typically are more like a “spiritual two-by four, upside the head” as a friend of mine describes them. These are real, life-altering experiences that direct one’s life path from one direction to another, much as Saul’s experience when he became Paul. There is one who will probably comment on this post who describes them as “heartburn”. His name rhymes with “posejunkie”.
I think clearly one who talks this way has never had such an experience.
“Knowing” something is true because you have researched it, and you believe the history and tradition is one thing, but direct experience is another.
It is like trying to argue with Lance Armstrong about riding a bike when all you have done is read a book about bicycles, and never even ridden one yourself.
Personal experiences do not decide the validity of doctrine for anyone but the one who has had the experience. I think Saul/Paul’s experience DID “validate Christian doctrine” for Paul. There is no question about it.
Paul did not become a christian because there was a tradition or history or anything else. It was direct experience. Subjective? Yes! But that experience changed the course of history and that experience changed the history of christianity.
Mary had a “subjective experience” at the annunciation.
Joseph had a “subjective experience” which confirmed Mary’s. He would not, and did not believe by “hearsay”.
Elizabeth knew that Mary was carrying the savior by “subjective experience” Her father knew that the savior had come by “subjective experience”.
Peter had a “subjective experience” that distinguished him from all the other apostles-- yet all had witnessed the savior’s miracles first hand. That “subjective experience” made the difference, and he was selected to be the head apostle, based on that “rock” of his revelation.
Moses, Abraham, and all the other prophets had “subjective experiences”
Stephen had a “subjective experience”
Was there someone else there who confirmed the existence of the “burning bush”?
Did moses accept the truth of God’s voice because of a tradition of people seeing burning bushes and God’s voice?
Did Paul accept his vision based on tradition?
These men had no choice but to acknowledge that it was of God.
Could these experiences have been of Satan?
How did these men know they were not?
And I will mention only a few of the the abundance of Catholic examples like Theresa of Avila, Bernadette, the Fatima children and zillions of others who have had “subjective experiences”.
Suffice it to say that we have abundant examples to show that “doctrine is confirmed” by “subjective experience”
For a Catholic to assert that it is not, is to deny your own history.
Peace to you too, my bro. Be true to those experiences
M
mfbukowski
Guest
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
Then why so many different LDS schisms. FLDS, RLDS, etc? How can you be sure you are all receiving the same revelations? And that sort of illustrates the point… personal revelation is no way to defend doctrine becuase for every “personal revelation” in your favor there is, I’m sure, a personal revelation to the cotrary. Since none of these revelations can be objectively proven as such, we must look elsewhere for support.
Peace,
-Robert
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
Fair enough. Make the distinction from your own personal experience. Just recognize that what you experience is not always what another experiences, nor is it established that because you believe the experience came from God that it necessarily came from God. It could just as easily come from an organic experience (like a seizure); or it could have come from some other source within the spiritual realm. This is not an attack on your sincerity. I’m just pointing out that doctrine based on declared revelations alone are not very substantial. There must be more.
I have no doubt of that, and do not question your sincerity.
mfbukowski said:
No doubt. The problem is establishing that what the visionary experiences is indeed “direct experience” and not e.g. seizure disorder, hallucination, schizophrenia, or other spiritual influences of a negative kind.
Not entirely accurate. Bicycle riding can be experienced on a physical and substantial level, and can be objectively observed and verified by third parties. Not so with revelation.
They should not decide the validity of doctrine for anyone - especially those who may be fooling themselves (or being fooled.) They can bolster one’s faith, but one should be cautious about revelation as the source for new doctrine.
mjbukowski:
Paul’s experience on the Damascus Road was not a revelation of novel doctrine. It was a dramatic call to conversion.
mjbukowski:
Yes, but that experience did not create new christian doctrine. It converted Paul to the christian faith taught directly by Christ to the Apostles.
mjbukowski:
Yes. She learned of the incarnation, and the role she was to play in the coming of the Messiah. She was not taught doctrine; nor is christianity based upon doctrines revealed solely to Mary at the Annunciation.
I think all of your examples are similar to those above. Revelation alone is simply not a proper basis for supporting a religious doctrine. It should come from Christ, through apostolic tradition, including the Scriptures. Anything outside of the teaching of Christ and His Apostles is simply unsupportable.
The problem is the substantiating a doctrine as being of God, based on nothing but personal revelation. It is even more troubling when these personal revelations contradict earlier revelations, and even contradict reason and common sense. My point is not that personal revelation cannot edify. My point is that it is simply not a proper basis for sustaining an argument for truth of doctrine.
Thanks for the kind words. I believe you are sincere. But I just can’t see how you support LDS doctrine based on nothing but unverifiable personal revelation.
Peace,
-Robert
R
RC_Matt
Guest
You’re saying that Jesus personally and physically appeared to you, as He did to Peter (and others, like Paul on the road to Damascus), spoke with you and asserted that Mormonism is true?
R
RC_Matt
Guest
He was there.
M
mfbukowski
Guest
What would you say if I told you He did?
Would it matter?
If it would not matter, why do you ask?
M
mfbukowski
Guest
Fair enough. Make the distinction from your own personal experience. Just recognize that what you experience is not always what another experiences, nor is it established that because you believe the experience came from God that it necessarily came from God. It could just as easily come from an organic experience (like a seizure); or it could have come from some other source within the spiritual realm. This is not an attack on your sincerity. I’m just pointing out that doctrine based on declared revelations alone are not very substantial. There must be more.
I have no doubt of that, and do not question your sincerity.
No doubt. The problem is establishing that what the visionary experiences is indeed “direct experience” and not e.g. seizure disorder, hallucination, schizophrenia, or other spiritual influences of a negative kind.
You did not address the instances in which “new doctrine” was established, (Moses , others – Mary and Joseph) and I would disagree that new doctrine is not established this way. Just think about it. The entire bible is “new doctrine” if you don’t have a bible, and was revealed to people, the prophets. Prophets can receive new doctrine by revelation. Would you dispute that? Where did the bible come from then?
If it was “only” a “conversion experience” like Paul’s, that is good enough for me.
Imagine a conversation between Paul and a buddhist from 2000 years ago where the buddhist or zoroastrian speaks the same arguments you have made. “Well buddhists and zoroastrians and worshippers of mithras also have revelations, and you can’t be sure it is true doctrine”
How would Paul answer those questions?
How did Paul know it was true, and not a halucination?
How do we know that Moses had not picked up a strange herb in the sandwich he carried to Sinai?
M
mfbukowski
Guest
I have answered that. So were the other apostles.
M
mfbukowski
Guest
Would you say that the incarnation was new doctrine?
I would submit to you that in fact most of Christianity is based on the incarnation, and Mary didn’t learn about it through the Magesterium.
The Magesterium would not know about it at all if it had not been for Mary’s “subjective experience”
And how does new doctrine “come from Christ” except by revelation?
Jesus appeared as a man, he did not glow in the dark, he had nothing by his authoritative teaching to convert people. How did he convert them? And don’t say the miracles, because many witnessed the miracles and were not convinced.
What is the convincing power that made the difference to some?
“Subjective experience”
There was not apostolic tradition for Mary or Moses or Paul or the others
And don’t tell me the writings of Paul do not contain “new doctrine”
R
RC_Matt
Guest
Of course it matters, it matters a great deal. You’ve stated that you have had direct revelation, in the same manner as did Peter, as to the veracity of Mormonism. If Jesus did indeed personally appear to you and verbally affirm that Mormonism is the true faith, that experience would be highly pertinent and you should share the details with us.
M
mfbukowski
Guest
No, it would not matter.
Why should I share such an experience with you? Joseph Smith testified of that same experience, and you do not believe him either.
How would you know that I was telling the truth, or not halucinating or whatever?
You would not know. You would be speculating.
It would not impove your understanding from where you are right now. And no amount of study could convince you conclusively.
Don’t you see my point?
You would only know if you yourself had the experience.
Why did Paul NOT doubt his own experience?
You have not answered any of these points because you cannot.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
It depends, which Christ are you talking about?
The Mormon Jesus
- The literal son of god and his goddess wife begotten in the pre-existence.
- The brother of all spirits born in heaven in the premortal existence.
- One of 3 gods in the godhead.
- The Trinity is three separate gods.
- First one to receive a spirit body.
- Atoned for sin on the cross and in the garden of Gethsemane.
- Not the literal son of god and his goddess wife.
- Not the brother of all spirits born in heaven in a premortal existence.
- Not one of 3 gods in the godhead.
- The Trinity is 3 persons in one God.
- Was always spirit from eternity.
- Atoned for sin on the cross alone.
M
mfbukowski
Guest
Distortions seeking to bury the question at hand. How did Paul know his vision was real?
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
The questions at hand have been overlooked and answered with another question by you. You haven’t answered any questions put forth. Sounds like promoting your beliefs is your primary concern.
We tell you we believe the Bible, you claim the Bible is errant. We tell you God granted us the gift of faith, you doubt us. You asked how we know Jesus was the Christ, yet one of your prophets claims Mormons don’t believe in the traditional Christ.
**“In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints ‘do not believe in the traditional Christ.’ ‘No, I don’t. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. He together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.’” (LDS Church News Week ending June 20, 1998, p.7 ) **
Do Mormons believe Jesus and Satan were brothers?
It really appears there are big differences in the Jesus we believe in and the one Mormons believe in.
The Mormon Jesus
- The literal son of god and his goddess wife begotten in the pre-existence.
- The brother of all spirits born in heaven in the premortal existence.
- One of 3 gods in the godhead.
- The Trinity is three separate gods.
- First one to receive a spirit body.
- Atoned for sin on the cross and in the garden of Gethsemane.
- Not the literal son of god and his goddess wife.
- Not the brother of all spirits born in heaven in a premortal existence.
- Not one of 3 gods in the godhead.
- The Trinity is 3 persons in one God.
- Was always spirit from eternity.
- Atoned for sin on the cross alone.
- Status