Rebecca question about revelation

  • Thread starter Thread starter falisrm
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
right… Thats why you have all of these doctrines wrong.

Real presence
origional sin
trinity
praying to saints
baptism for the remission of sin
gift of the holy ghost
priesthood

and about a million principles like
no divorce
no contraceptives
annulment
celebacy and so forth

but thats a different discussion.
 
falisrm said:
right… Thats why you have all of these doctrines wrong.

Real presence
origional sin
trinity
praying to saints
baptism for the remission of sin
gift of the holy ghost
priesthood

and about a million principles like
no divorce
no contraceptives
annulment
celebacy and so forth

but thats a different discussion.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

You’re right. All of those are different, separate discussions. You asked for an explanation of the concept of revelation in the Catholic Church, and you received comprehensive answers from people who were very patient with you. Would it hurt you to at least say “thank you” before you launch into attack mode?
 
right, thanks everyone for your patience. i was wondering about that. everyone was still imputing information even though we went over it like 5 times over and over it again.

But just to let you guys know we have the same beliefs that you have about revelation.
 
Sacred Tradition comprises what the Apostles and their immediate followers taught. Sacred Scripture is a part of Sacred Tradition.

St. Paul admonishes Titus:

But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine (Titus 2:1)

and in 2 Timothy:13 says when teaching:

Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

Titus and Timothy were instructed by St. Paul, not only what to teach, but HOW to teach it. Sacred Tradition includes these instructions, that have been passed down, from one person to the next and shared within all the churches (churches here, meaning the churches that were established by the Apostles and who were in communication with each other in the earliest times).

In Mormon terms, how you practice a doctrine is a part of your sacred tradition, I don’t know that Mormonism has a term for this…I don’t think you’ve been around long enough to develop the method or a description of what that method is. Further, I don’t see that your church places an importance of keeping to a deposit of faith.

But keeping to this idea, that how you practice a doctrine is a part of your sacred tradition, you can read early journals of LDS leaders and see how they practiced certain doctrines. If Mormonism were around in 1000 years, this would be more than useful to the leaders of that time, they would refer to these writings in times of conflict (of doctrinal interpretation) to determine if they were teaching what has always been sound doctrine, and the right form and words, essentially, ensuring that right belief is being imparted to the faithful and inquirers of your faith.

For the Catholic Church, this process is considered a Sacred duty, as it is a part of the process that ensures we are teaching and learning, correctly, the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In times of doctrinal conflict, such as the Arian heresy, it ensures that we do not stray into heresies, and helps us to recognize heresies when they do arise.
 
falisrm said:
No, we are saying the exact same thing you are saying. The leaders receive inspiration according to their position.
We receive personal inspiration for ourselves or our families according to the holy ghost.

This is the biggest round a bout i have ever seen in my life. BDawg, do you have any comments about this?
Click to expand...
Hi falisrm,

There are differences. For instance, once a doctrine is officially “defined” in the RCC, it isn’t supposed to be contradicted later. In the LDS Church, we see all human interpretations of direct revelation as subject to flaws, and so a further revelation might make us reconstruct the puzzle pieces we had collected previously. So our view of continuing revelation is more like a postmodern idea of how science is done, while the Catholic view of doctrinal development is more “linear.”

I think maybe you’re trying a little too hard to find fault with our Catholic pals, though. Just try to be a little flexible and figure out how they use a few terms differently than us, and it will become clearer.
 
right, i thought of that already and your right. One thing i would like to point out though is LDS revelation doesn’t contradic itself either. It might have a revelation to ban the priesthood to blacks and then change it in the end. It doesn’t change the doctrine of the priesthood at all. Its just a change in law or principle, not doctrine.

I think i brought that up though in another thread that got deleted.

At least i have a foundation now of what catholics believe about revelation and i think it helps a lot.
 
falisrm said:
Right, so thats exactly what we believe also. There’s really nothing new too it. Just a way to expound on the doctrines or revelations already given. So there is little difference to what catholics believe and mormons believe about revelation.
Click to expand...
Hi falisrm,

I don’t think you are correct on this. For instance, Joseph Smith said, “And not only this, but those things which never have been revealed from the foundation of the world, but have been kept hid from the wise and prudent, shall be revealed unto babes and sucklings in this, the dispensation of the fulness of times” (D&C 128:18)

There really are differences between our views of revelation. They are just more subtle than you were at first making them out to be.
 
yes, your right. but if i was going to bring that point up then it would create a whole new thread. We do believe in new revelation but it also jives with the gospel Jesus Christ established according to the new covenant so there’s no real discussion there.

Plus, the concept of how revelation is received is the same way as we were discussing.
 
FCEGM said:
You haven’t addressed the revelation regarding the priesthood and blacks and how that isn’t a contradiction with earlier LDS prophets.
Click to expand...
Hi FCEGM,

We don’t believe that everything a prophet thinks or says is “infallible.” They are humans, and have opinions. In this case, Joseph Smith ordained some blacks to the priesthood, and Brigham Young changed that policy, but nobody can point to any specific revelation that said there should be a change in policy. Some of us think, therefore, that BY was just acting on his best understanding, which was largely gleaned from his Protestant background. (If you look at the racist things BY said, it is clear they are straight out of the dominant American Protestant culture of the time.) Spencer Kimball and the rest of our apostles had a specific revelation to change the policy back to the original, however. Why did God allow the ban to exist? I have no idea.

Before you scoff at this, however, I want to point out that Catholics have similar issues to deal with. For instance, I have often tried to find out whether some Papal Bull or other was considered an “infallible” statement, and it seemed like I had to be a canon lawyer to figure it out! For instance, the bull ad Extirpanda, given by Innocent IV in 1252, authorized torture to squeeze confessions from accused heretics. My Catholic friends tell me that this was not an “infallible” statement, because it wasn’t a general pronouncement on the morality of torture, but rather a response to a specific set of circumstances. Search for “ad Extirpanda” on Wikipedia or Google to get some background and read the bull.
 
Hi Rebecca et al.,

To me, something is either “revealed,” or “hidden.” If nobody understands it, the thing is still “hidden”–obviously. Claiming that all your doctrinal developments were already implicitly there in the “Deposit of Faith,” while chastising people like the LDS for claiming to receive new revelations, seems like a total cop-out to me. Buck up and face the facts, I say. 🙂

Anyway, check out this post I just made on another thread for an illustration of how drastic I believe some of the “developments” have been. Plenty of historical sources there to back up my claims, too.
 
BDawg said:
Hi Rebecca et al.,

To me, something is either “revealed,” or “hidden.” If nobody understands it, the thing is still “hidden”–obviously. Claiming that all your doctrinal developments were already implicitly there in the “Deposit of Faith,” while chastising people like the LDS for claiming to receive new revelations, seems like a total cop-out to me. Buck up and face the facts, I say. 🙂

Anyway, check out this post I just made on another thread for an illustration of how drastic I believe some of the “developments” have been. Plenty of historical sources there to back up my claims, too.
Click to expand...
BDawg, we’ve been down that conversation, what more do you want to say? Or, just reposting for the benefit of falisrm?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top