Question for Exmormorns!!!

[gryskull]

A question was posed to me by a mormon and I have ideas as to how to answer her but I want to get more insights

Question: “If Linus was really to succeed Peter why was the revelations channeled to John the Apostle and not Linus? Was Linus to be the head of the Church or John?”

Have you ever had to overcome this hurdle before you converted? Thanks!!!

 

[majick275]

That’s because, in spite of scriptural evidence to the contrary, LDS believe in one “prophet” being head of the church. The Catholic church teaches that the spiritual gift of prophecy is given to multiple people just as the Bible says. We also believe that more than prophet at a time existed in many situations in the old testament. Linus wasn’t called as a prophet. He was called to be the bishop of Rome. Hebrews tells us that because of Jesus we no longer needed to have the church led by a prophet. Popes aren’t prophets, they don’t need to be.

 

[gryskull]

majick275:

That’s because, in spite of scriptural evidence to the contrary, LDS believe in one “prophet” being head of the church. The Catholic church teaches that the spiritual gift of prophecy is given to multiple people just as the Bible says. We also believe that more than prophet at a time existed in many situations in the old testament. Linus wasn’t called as a prophet. He was called to be the bishop of Rome. Hebrews tells us that because of Jesus we no longer needed to have the church led by a prophet. Popes aren’t prophets, they don’t need to be.

Majick,

Thanks for the answer. But it still doesn’t answer the question why the revelation to John and not to Linus who was supposedly the leader of the Church. Remember, this question was asked by a mormon and coming from her perspective I don’t think it clarifies why John and not Linus or maybe I’m just missing your point? Any clarifications?

 

[Chris-WA]

gryskull:

Majick,

Thanks for the answer. But it still doesn’t answer the question why the revelation to John and not to Linus who was supposedly the leader of the Church. Remember, this question was asked by a mormon and coming from her perspective I don’t think it clarifies why John and not Linus or maybe I’m just missing your point? Any clarifications?

The answer lies in a faulty assumption by your Mormon friend. She is assuming that God communicates public revelation only to the current leader of the church. The bible shows us that this is not so. In the Old Testament, a prophet was often someone outside the current religious authority who was called to reveal God’s will in order to put the religious leaders back on track.

In the New Testament, we have examples of people such as Paul and James receiving and communicating public revelation even though they were not the leader of the church.

So to summarize, God chooses to reveal to whomever He wishes for whatever reason, and doesn’t restrict that to the current leader of the church, as is the case with St. John in the Book of Revelation.

 

[majick275]

God doesn’t always give revelations to the “head of the church”. John was an Apostle with a calling to minister the needs of certain peoples. In that respect, the Apostles are of a “special” calling to reveal what Jesus taught them. As to his specific ministry, the book of Revelations, while beneficial to all, was written to specific churches listed in the beginning of the book. One could say that those were likely in John’s “area of responsibility”.

LDS, like many people think of Revelations as strictly futuristic. Catholics, having the benefit of sacred tradition know that, while it does contain SOME future prophecy, much of it refers to events that were happening right then. (The horrid Roman persecutions of Christians.) The eschatological portions borrow heavily from Ezekiel, Zechariah and Daniel. (as one would expect “true” apocalyptic writings to do.) thus it is debatable just how much of the book is truly “new” revelation and how much is exegesis by an Apostle.

The exact time it was written is somewhat hard to pin down as well. It is THOUGHT to have been written during Domitian’s reign 81-96 AD. It may be that it was written before Linus assumed the see of Peter.

In any case you can’t just accept the LDS argument that God only gives revelations to the head of his church. The biblical examples of this are numerous.

 

[gryskull]

majick275:

God doesn’t always give revelations to the “head of the church”. John was an Apostle with a calling to minister the needs of certain peoples. In that respect, the Apostles are of a “special” calling to reveal what Jesus taught them. As to his specific ministry, the book of Revelations, while beneficial to all, was written to specific churches listed in the beginning of the book. One could say that those were likely in John’s “area of responsibility”.

LDS, like many people think of Revelations as strictly futuristic. Catholics, having the benefit of sacred tradition know that, while it does contain SOME future prophecy, much of it refers to events that were happening right then. (The horrid Roman persecutions of Christians.) The eschatological portions borrow heavily from Ezekiel, Zechariah and Daniel. (as one would expect “true” apocalyptic writings to do.) thus it is debatable just how much of the book is truly “new” revelation and how much is exegesis by an Apostle.

The exact time it was written is somewhat hard to pin down as well. It is THOUGHT to have been written during Domitian’s reign 81-96 AD. It may be that it was written before Linus assumed the see of Peter.

In any case you can’t just accept the LDS argument that God only gives revelations to the head of his church. The biblical examples of this are numerous.

Thank you guys for all your responses. Can you give me some passages that I can use that shows God giving revelation to other people and not the head of the church. I can only think of the revelation of his resurrection when he reveals this through an angel to Mary Magdalene. This will definitely help me in my response to her.

 

[imroc]

Remember that the devil has only one door by which to enter–the will. PADRE PIO

Preach the Gospel Always and When necessary use words. ST. FRANCIS OF ASSISI

I’m sorry to go off the topic, but I really love your signatures statements!

God is one and so is the Church he established here on earth. It’s definitely masked under a name that creates hurdles for most people, because in peoples minds it suggests a type of denominational name rather than an adjective. That Church is known as the catholic Church.

God Bless!

 

[Chris-WA]

gryskull:

Thank you guys for all your responses. Can you give me some passages that I can use that shows God giving revelation to other people and not the head of the church. I can only think of the revelation of his resurrection when he reveals this through an angel to Mary Magdalene. This will definitely help me in my response to her.

How about almost the entire New Testament? Remember, all of scripture is revelation, and most of the New Testament was not written by Peter.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

As for an example of “revelations” comeing to different people. How about the conversion of St Paul? He didnt supplant the other Apostles by any means. What about all those different prophets in the OT, like 15 or something.

majick275:

That’s because, in spite of scriptural evidence to the contrary, LDS believe in one “prophet” being head of the church. The Catholic church teaches that the spiritual gift of prophecy is given to multiple people just as the Bible says. We also believe that more than prophet at a time existed in many situations in the old testament. Linus wasn’t called as a prophet. He was called to be the bishop of Rome. Hebrews tells us that because of Jesus we no longer needed to have the church led by a prophet. Popes aren’t prophets, they don’t need to be.

One question that comes to mind is what is the precident of a single man being told to write an entire book of prophecy? In the case of Smith and the BoM isnt that quite a bit of revelation for one man and one time?
I would think the OT precident of multiple prophets contributing to the OT instead of one man writing the whole thing.

 

[Tmaque]

gryskull:

A question was posed to me by a mormon and I have ideas as to how to answer her but I want to get more insights

Question: “If Linus was really to succeed Peter why was the revelations channeled to John the Apostle and not Linus? Was Linus to be the head of the Church or John?”

Have you ever had to overcome this hurdle before you converted? Thanks!!!

I would simply ask her why Paul was given revelation when Jesus clearly gave the keys of the kingdom to Peter. Historians agree that Paul’s writings were the earliest. Obviously, being the leader of the Church did not mean revelation was suddenly an exclusive right of that leader. I would also ask her to show you where in scripture the requirement exists. It doesn’t. It’s an LDS development instituted by Joseph Smith to eliminate competing revelations.

 

[Tmaque]

I’ve noticed that LDS revelation pretty much ended with Joseph Smith. Since then, the only “revelation” received has been revelation ending doctrines and/or practices required by Joseph Smith’s revelations.(Priesthood for men of African descent and polygamy for example) God fixing his boo-boos can hardly be called revelation at all. Un-revelation would be more accurate.

You might also explain to your friend that, it’s obvious that New Testament revelation is not of the Islamic and LDS sort, where God dictates his message THROUGH the prophet. As if the prophet is simply an instrument used to convey a message and has no (name removed by moderator)ut of any kind. Rather, God revealed his word through the New Testament writers through mutual cooperation. They wrote the words from their own minds while God prevented them from writing error. Just an obvious, but often overlooked difference between New Testament revelation(true) and LDS/Islamic(false) revelation.

 

[amgid]

Matthew 15:

13 But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.

14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
amgid

 

[amgid]

Matthew 15:

13 But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.

14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
amgid

 

[majick275]

That certaily describes Joseph Smith Jr. He certainly wasn’t a true seer and thus was spiritually “blind”. God certainly rooted hime up. It’s only a matter of time, as more LDS false prophecies fail the test of truth, before they will be as forgotten as the Shakers.

 

[Paul_G]

Tmaque:

I’ve noticed that LDS revelation pretty much ended with Joseph Smith. Since then, the only “revelation” received has been revelation ending doctrines and/or practices required by Joseph Smith’s revelations.(Priesthood for men of African descent and polygamy for example) God fixing his boo-boos can hardly be called revelation at all. Un-revelation would be more accurate.

You might also explain to your friend that, it’s obvious that New Testament revelation is not of the Islamic and LDS sort, where God dictates his message THROUGH the prophet. As if the prophet is simply an instrument used to convey a message and has no (name removed by moderator)ut of any kind. Rather, God revealed his word through the New Testament writers through mutual cooperation. They wrote the words from their own minds while God prevented them from writing error. Just an obvious, but often overlooked difference between New Testament revelation(true) and LDS/Islamic(false) revelation.

That is an interesting thought which I haven’t heard before. Could you please show some authorative support for this idea of “mutual cooperation”? Thanks…Paul

 

[Tmaque]

Paul G:

That is an interesting thought which I haven’t heard before. Could you please show some authorative support for this idea of “mutual cooperation”? Thanks…Paul

Paul,

What do you mean by authoritative? I’m sure you don’t believe the Catechism to be authoritative. However, this is the millenia old Catholic & Orthodox understanding. You’ve probably never heard of it because many protestants don’t believe in it due to their “Bible alone” theology, which might make one think that the Bible just plopped out of the sky whole.

A nice explanation from among many, can be found here, from newadvent.org:

The influence of the Holy Ghost had to extend also to all the executive faculties of the sacred writer – to his memory, his imagination, and even to the hand with which he formed the letters. Whether this influence proceed immediatley from the action of the Inspirer or be a simple assistance, and, again, whether this assistance be positive or merely negative, in any case everyone admits that its object is to remove all error from the inspired text. Those who hold that even the words are inspired believe that it also forms an integral part of the grace of inspiration itself. However that may be, there is no denying that the inspiration extends, in one way or aother, and as far as needful, to all those who have really cooperated in the composition of the sacred test, especially to the secretaries, if the inspired person had any. Seen in this light, the hagiographer no longer appears a passive and inert instrument, abased as it were, by an exterior impulsion; on the contrary, his faculties are elevated to the service of a superior power, whihc, although distinct, is none the less intimately present and interior. Without losing anything of his personal life, or of his liberty, or even of his spontaneity (since it may happen that he is not conscious of the power which leads him on), man becomes thus the interpreter of God. Such, then is the most comprehensive notion of Divine inspiration. St. Thomas (II-II, Q., cixxi) reduces it to the grace of prophecy, in the broad sense of the word.