sacred in Mormonism

[twopekinguys]

My apologies brevity is difficult for me as I like to make a complete point that can't be misunderstood.  However, I guess if it is too long that is about as bad.  I'll do better in this response to you.

Not my point concerning an ever changing society and world requiring the church to conform to its standards. That should be readily apparent to you as the LDS are known for their hard moral stance and objections to social customs of drinking etc. Instead I reference that societies ever changing face would provide further needed insight as to how to resist the influences and deceptions that might lead members astray.

Additionally, this link here is an example of where societies focus presented need for corrective and directional insight from our prophet and thus the Proclamation on the Family was given to all the world. The concept of Family Home Evening was instituted as a precursor to the decline of family values and is another example of God’s will revealed to a living prophet prior to the decline in recognition of its pending rise.

The Blacks issue is so very clear if you do your research. It was always known that when the Sons of Adam had their chance to receive and grow in the priesthood that then the blacks would be welcomed back into the Priesthood. From Joseph Smith on down this statements were made and as acts of prophecy they note the change would be. There were issues with people pronouncing mistaken perceptions of when this would be as in Bruce R. McConkie saying it would not be in his lifetime, but as he stated himself that he made a mistake and that is why the Lord has a living prophet - we follow the prophet. So-not a change but instead prophecy fulfilled.

Polygamy and God doesn’t change can be summed up by grasping the principle found in Mathew 19:7-8 or Mark 10:3-9. The essence being that while as you state God does not change, he nonetheless does make allowances to adjust for the weaknesses of men until they can finally learn to do the right thing. God never intended for there to be divorce he decries, denounces, condemns it completely. However it exists nonetheless and was changed by Moses at Gods command to permit this deviation from the former law. This is but an example but you could research priesthood authority, The Mosaic law itself and many other principles that all change and strictly the result of a prophet receiving revelation. In fact there have always been alterations in the law throughout the Old and New Testament as the result of a Prophet receiving revelation to adjust from a current practice to a new one for what ever reason. I’m trying to be brief so will not do my usual of illustrating with further example. Nonetheless it is this practice and observation from scripture that sustains the sacred nature and requirement of revelation from a LDS point of view.

Hard stance on moral issues? Your definition of hard stance and mine must be completely different. Last I knew, there were no reprecussions for a mormon getting an abortion. If a mormon makes an innocent pin up calendar, he get’s ex’d. Abortion, no problem. I think you need to reexamine this.

Polygamy? Smith practiced it secretly for 5 years. He got caught, then all of a sudden it was a revelation. Sorry, not buying it.

Blacks and the priesthood. Kind of funny how that all switched when no athletic teams would play BYU because of its racist polices. Presto Chango, we have a revelation.

Even today’s mormon leaders are saying they don’t know why it happened the way it did, but somehow you do?

Further, about polygamy. (bolding mine)

More recently, President Gordon B. Hinckley has reiterated that plural marriage is “against the law of God. Even in countries where civil or religious law allows [the practice of a man having more than one wife], the Church teaches that marriage must be monogamous and does not accept into its membership those practicing plural marriage” (“What Are People Asking about Us?” Ensign, Nov. 1998, 72).

So, was JS directly sinning against God?

Sorry, all of this fluidity is causing mormonism to sink. It just seems to be the flavor of the day where doctrine is concerned.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Thank you for the link - it was a tough read but enlightening nonetheless. Still it pretty well validates the point I am making and that Catholics consider the Heavens closed for the types of revelation that would be used to guide the church after the fashion of which I am making in my comparison. Where we would differ in our understandings between what is revelation and what is not revelation is probably related to the Catholic concept of public revelation - from your link:

Thanks for actually reading it. But as usual, you are applying what you want to see not what is there.

Christ’s Church is guided by the Holy Spirit. Period. You seem to be against the ways and means that God has chosen to guide His Church. I can’t say that an argument of, “you don’t do it like I want you to do it”, is much of an argument.

]The Christian dispensation, therefore, as the new and definitive covenant, will never pass away and we now await no further new public revelation before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ(see 1 Tim. 6:14 and Tit. 2:13).

Public revelation is the special revelation which God began with His direct communication with His inspired prophets and which ended with the death of the last Apostle (Saint John the Evangelist, around 100 AD). This public revelation is also known as the deposit of faith.

A bit more research examines what is currently considered public revelation and more clearly defines what types of revelation are included in the term:

1. Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort.

Please clarify if I am wrong, however it appears there are two components that rise to the standard of revelation and these include Sacred Scripture defined a is one of the several names denoting the inspired writings which make up the Old and New Testament.

Sacred Tradition or Divine Tradition, however reclaims the writings of the Apostalic Fathers and defines their origins back to Jesus Christ. It is not Public revelation but takes on sacred eminence by its origins as the exact traditions taught by Jesus Christ to his apostles and from these apostles to the early Apostolic Fathers.

The deposit of faith which Jesus Christ entrusted to the Church is made up of two parts: Holy Scripture, and Divine Tradition, this latter being composed of the truths passed down by word of mouth, and not written down till after the death of Christ’s Apostles and disciples, principally by the Fathers of the Church.

Sacred Tradition is the deposit of faith. It includes, most notably, the Liturgy, but encompasses everything that has been taught and handed on, and, the witnesses to the Gospel. This would include the lives and deaths (martyrs) of saints, art, parish records, etc.

Finally, for further emphasis of the current status of ongoing revelation since the time of Christ we can refer to this observation:

Divine Revelation was completed at the death of the last of the Apostles.

No, divine revelation has not ended.

Since that time no new revelation has been made for the instruction of the whole of mankind. Whenever the Church decides a point of faith, it does so according to Scripture or Tradition. It simply finds out what has been revealed from the beginning. catholicbook.com/AgredaCD/MyCatholicFaith/mcfc007.htm

You diminish two things, which I suppose is occurring from your lack of understanding the high importance that is placed on them. First is: Jesus Christ is God’s Perfect Revelation. Everything is found in Him. I’m not trying to denigrate your beliefs, but I have yet to find a discussion with anyone who is LDS that can comprehend the importance of the Revelation of Jesus Christ to Christians (not just Catholics). We hold no belief that Jesus left something out, or forgot to convey something we should know, or hid anything from us. We believe, and trust completely, that the fullness of Revelation is found in Him. So I will ask you what I have asked several Mormons posting to this forum: **What do you believe Jesus left out?
**

The second thing you diminish is the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding the Church that Jesus established on the Apostles. I don’t know the “remedy” for this, as I believe it is a psychological barrier to communication and understanding. I can only pray that the Holy Spirit guide you to Truth, Who is Jesus Christ.

And finally, there most certainly is new instruction, but this instruction will never change doctrine. What it does is guide the faithful in their current time and circumstance, as you know, these change.

An example would be in vitro fertilization. You may note, there is no guidance on this in Scripture. The Church has certainly given guidance.

Additionally, as to the current capacity of the Pope to declare doctrinal changes this falls under the definitions of Papal Infallibility:

Infallibility does not mean that the pope is inspired. Papal infallibility does not involve any special revelation from God. A pope learns about his faith in the same way that anyone else does–he studies.

This is an erroneous conclusion.

First, studying one’s faith is not an exercise that is separate from the guidance of the Holy Spirit. And second, the Holy Spirit guides Christ’s Church through us, the Body of Christ. Us=all the baptized. Within the Body of Christ exist those who have been ordained to the Holy Priesthood. Gifts of the Holy Spirit are given to our clergy, which are many, but the one that is relevant to your understanding is the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in leading Christ’s Church.

The Pope is further gifted, as a servant of God, with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in leading our Bishops.

That you don’t believe and understand this, does not mean that we (Catholics) do not.

If you’re up for some more reading, I recommend Lumen Gentium.

Infallibility cannot be used to change existing doctrines or proclaim new ones.

It can only be used to confirm or clarify what has always been taught. The teachings of Christ cannot change. As the Scripture says, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever” (Hebrews 13:8).

So this puts everything in perspective so that we can make the comparisons, I was attempting to make in my post.

You haven’t supported your position. You’ve only stated what we believe, and applied your understanding to it, which is incomplete. Most notably you insist on leaving out the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

However a brief mention of private revelation might be valuable so that we can clarify its implications to a member of the Catholic church as it relates to private revelation of individuals:

The Church does not propose them to us as part of her message. It is true that in certain cases she has given her approbation to certain private revelations. This, however, only signifies: that there is nothing in them contrary to the Catholic Faith or to the moral law, and,
that there are sufficient indications of their truth to justify the faithful in attaching credence to them without being guilty of superstition or of imprudence.

So, distilling this down the church does accept some types of private revelation which upon review are found to be acceptable to validation:

The Church gives her approval to them only when she is satisfied after rigorous examination of their spiritual utility and of the evidence on which they depend.

Thus when we distill this material down, and again correct me if I am wrong, but while the Catholic Church may not approve of the term the Heavens are Closed to reference the cessation of active ongoing revelation it nonetheless is the fact that there is no room to accept that there is any chance of ongoing revelation since the times of the death of John the Apostle. I freely admit that I do not have a Catholics understanding of these things and so welcome your insight, but as I read the material this is what I have concluded.

I think first it would help for you to understand:

Jesus Christ is the fullness of Revelation.
Jesus Christ is the Revelation that has never ceased.

However, I will concede that Peter makes it under the gun by your own definition. He could receive a divine revelation and actually change the direction and doctrine of the church as he falls inside the window of when revelation actually was permitted by Catholic definition. However, from an outsiders perspective and wading through all of the semantical implications I would still say that the statement the “Heavens are now closed” is a reasonable interpretation of the material from the Catholic resources you provided. If you would explain how that does not seem correct to you, I would appreciate it. Thank you for your insight, I believe I have a better handle on your understandings of when revelation ceased for the Catholic Church.

Still, an erroneous conclusion. But, if this is what you want to believe, so be it.

 

[EllieH]

Hard stance on moral issues? Your definition of hard stance and mine must be completely different. Last I knew, there were no repercussions for a Mormon getting an abortion. If a Mormon makes an innocent pin up calendar, he get’s ex’d. Abortion, no problem. I think you need to reexamine this.

Polygamy? Smith practiced it secretly for 5 years. He got caught, then all of a sudden it was a revelation. Sorry, not buying it.

Blacks and the priesthood. Kind of funny how that all switched when no athletic teams would play BYU because of its racist polices. Presto Chango, we have a revelation.

Even today’s Mormon leaders are saying they don’t know why it happened the way it did, but somehow you do?

Further, about polygamy. (bolding mine)

More recently, President Gordon B. Hinckley has reiterated that plural marriage is “against the law of God. Even in countries where civil or religious law allows [the practice of a man having more than one wife], the Church teaches that marriage must be monogamous and does not accept into its membership those practicing plural marriage” (“What Are People Asking about Us?” Ensign, Nov. 1998, 72).

So, was JS directly sinning against God?

Sorry, all of this fluidity is causing Mormonism to sink. It just seems to be the flavor of the day where doctrine is concerned.

There is really no where to go with this. I can rebut and provide insight as to the error of your perceptions from my perspective however, as this is ignored in deference to hyperbole and unreasonable rational, how can we have a genuine conversation concerning the things that Mormonism considers sacred. As none of it is sacred to you it appears a “double bind” scenario as the term is used on this board, (but which I consider poor rational for the most part). Is the discussion about what is sacred to Mormonism or is this an invitation for Mormons to pop their head out of the ground for a game of “Smack the Gopher.”

 

[EllieH]

Thanks for actually reading it. But as usual, you are applying what you want to see not what is there.

You haven’t supported your position. You’ve only stated what we believe, and applied your understanding to it, which is incomplete. Most notably you insist on leaving out the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

I think first it would help for you to understand:

Jesus Christ is the fullness of Revelation.
Jesus Christ is the Revelation that has never ceased.

Still, an erroneous conclusion. But, if this is what you want to believe, so be it.

Thank you for your efforts in genuinely providing something of detail to explain your perception. As I am heading out at the moment, I will ask but one quesiton which will enalbe me perhaps to further understand. You state above:

Jesus Christ is the fullness of Revelation.
**Jesus Christ is the Revelation that has never ceased.

**Considering all of the other material about expecting no new revelation from the earlier post how do these two lines above differ from the traditional state of most other Christian denominations.

While they use different terminologies if we parse out the semantics, in essence doesn’t this just mean the same thing? That revelation as understood before the death of John the beloved no longer exists to the Catholics. There does exist a new explanation of a type of revelation that is fulfilled in the concept of a living Christ but this definition is essentially little different than saying that after the death of Christ and the Apostles there is no need for direct communication to mankind except as can be defined as using the existing revelations in scripture.

Also as I consider this topic pertinent to the discussion of addressing sacred things in Mormonism I am developing it here. As I am constantly being bonked on the head (yes, another reference to whack the gopher) for off topic addresses and then having my posts deleted if this does not seem consistent with the topic please let us start a more specific thread to this subject and continue form there.

 

[twopekinguys]

There is really no where to go with this. I can rebut and provide insight as to the error of your perceptions from my perspective however, as this is ignored in deference to hyperbole and unreasonable rational, how can we have a genuine conversation concerning the things that Mormonism considers sacred. As none of it is sacred to you it appears a “double bind” scenario as the term is used on this board, (but which I consider poor rational for the most part). Is the discussion about what is sacred to Mormonism or is this an invitation for Mormons to pop their head out of the ground for a game of “Smack the Gopher.”

Hyperbole and unreasonable rationale?

Aren’t you the one who made the statement about mormon’s and a “hard moral stance”? I merely pointed out that in fact that isn’t the case when it comes to abortion.

As far as blacks and the priesthood, you’re saying it because they were less valiant in the preexistence, but yet, your own leader Gordon B. Hinckley says differently here.

How do you explain the coincidental timing of the revelation with the problem with BYU athletes?

Your statement here is quite telling. “my point concerning an ever changing society and world requiring the church to conform to its standards”

Shouldn’t the world be conforming to the church standards, and “hard moral stance”, instead of the other way around?

Again, God doesn’t change his mind. He is the same now as he was in the beginning, and will be the same at the end of time.

This leads me to another interesting observation. I noticed you said “we follow the prophet”, shouldn’t you be following the Lord?

I’m sorry you don’t see the slippery slope you’re on with all of this.

 

[Lochias]

I’m sorry, but this is too much. Ex-Mormons, some disgruntled, do not provide the most unbiased view. I hope even people from other religions can see this. I’m not saying Marie’s, Rebecca’s, or TexanKnight’s views are always invalid but they definitly have a negative bent. The views they express often give some information while hiding other parts. They come at it as deeply unbelieving and so will feed you information in a certain way and of a certain type.

They may say the reverse about me but you must hear both sides. Particularly on issues that are so close to the heart. If you want to know about Catholicism at least talk to a practicing Catholic, if you want to know about Mormonism at least spend some time talking to an active Mormon. It’s just common sense.

As a person who’s family has been on the receiving end of angry, vengeful Mormon “justice”, I cannot now or ever believe anything a devout Mormon has to say about their religions, temples or practices. Secrecy and misdirection are the parents that birthed the LDS church. If you are angry at the way your church is viewed here, you have only your own brethren to blame.

 

[EllieH]

Hyperbole and unreasonable rationale?

Aren’t you the one who made the statement about Mormon’s and a “hard moral stance”? I merely pointed out that in fact that isn’t the case when it comes to abortion.

From the LDS Church website:
Human life is a sacred gift from God. Elective abortion for personal or social convenience is contrary to the will and the commandments of God. Church members who submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions may lose their membership in the Church. (lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=63c139b439c98010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=bbd508f54922d010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD)

Without expressing the details I will say that I have some experience with LDS Church disciplinary councils having convened a few of my own and sitting in council on others. You misunderstand the gravity of the situation of abortion and are completely misinformed as to the Churches perspective. You could have looked but choose not to be informed - just to attack. We don’t just cover the person who had the abortion but anyone who participates and sustains the abortion. Mistake or Hyperbole - you call it…

Hyperbole and unreasonable rationale?
As far as blacks and the priesthood, you’re saying it because they were less valiant in the preexistence, but yet, your own leader Gordon B. Hinckley says differently here

.

Listen to your link again, President Hinckley’s remarks do not make any mention at all of their preexistent valiance or lack thereof. The question was why did it take so long and his answer was “I don’t know.” He didn’t know, I don’t know, and clearly you don’t know. Its not all that important. The Lord wanted it then - we did it then. You heard something not even on the video about pre-existance - potentially your mistake, or potential hyperbole…call it as you like.

Reread my post: Do I say anything at all about their preexistant lack of being valiant. The only possible reference you can even safely assume is that it has something to do with Cain’s slaying of Able. Even at that you are only hoping that is what I mean to say because if you search this entire site you will never find a statement from me that states it was because of the pre-existance. You do not even know what I believe on the matter. I can safely say, I don’t know. I may have some thoughts on the subject but those are mine and until I understand the principles better will remain such. My point is you do not care what I mean you have pigeonholed President Hinckley and me for something neither stated. Hyperbole or misunderstanding? You call it.

Hyperbole and unreasonable rationale?
How do you explain the coincidental timing of the revelation with the problem with BYU athletes?

Really? … I can’t even bring myself to dignify the question with a rebuttal. Just imagine, in light of the Catholics Church’s public issues, if I was to sink to this level of accusation and hyperbole, imagine the claims I could make. However, I do not, I am not here to play attack dog, I am trying to understand you folks a little better. Rebbecca’s response was at least helpful and she pointed me to points of information that were germane to the discussion. I learned a little more on the subject. I may still learn more let but thus far you are not contributing to the conversation - you just have a Mormon in your cross hairs and you appear to be intent on pulling that trigger until he’s dead.

Your statement here is quite telling. "my point concerning an ever changing society and world requiring the church to conform to its standards

"

Shouldn’t the world be conforming to the church standards, and “hard moral stance”, instead of the other way around?

Pure nincompoopery. Read my statement again, if you quit with the default everything a Mormon says is a lie attitude, if you dispense with the judged an idiot before I even read his response standard, you will realize I am simply trying to dialogue and exchange ideas. Your false innuendo of some presumed Freudian slip is inappropriate. I don’t mind if you play hardball and I am happy to answer the hard questions but thus far I have only had three responses out of many where the individual put the attitude on hold long enough to be sincere in their communication. If I thought that all Catholics were like the majority of those who have replied to me, I can see nothing to recommend your organization. However, for the example of the rare few, I’m still willing to tolerate the rest.

Again, God doesn’t change his mind. He is the same now as he was in the beginning, and will be the same at the end of time.

Case in point, I illustrate a couple of possibilities from scripture and you completely ignore the validity of the examples. They are legitimate examples, in fact they illustrate very well the point I am trying to make about the purpose and need for revelation. However, you do not respond to the examples with scriptural illustrations that validate your point. You completely ignore them and recite your mantra…no change, no change, no change…

Your point above is correct he is a never changing being however, what you want that to mean and what it actually means are not illustrated in the precept of Him not instructing his leaders to respond to his will. He has frequently made revealed changes and if the pattern were to hold then ongoing revelation would be the point of never changing. In the Old Testament he revealed his will, in the New Testament he revealed his will and after Christ died he still provided visions and revelation to his Apostles, thus revealing his will. The change is your claim that he has ceased to reveal his will in the exact same manner as he always has before.

I can appreciate the observation that Rebbeca makes that in Christ all revelation is completed. It sounds good and even almost makes sense. However, objectively you must acknowledge that your understanding of what constitutes revelation now and what constitutes revelation then are precisely two different things- not the same- different. While Hebrews 1 references the principle of he having spoken by the prophets and now speaks by Christ does that mean He is the end of revelation? If so why does it continue after his death? It is a change in the process of revealing his will that is what you defend by indicating there is no public revelation. Do some homework and research in the scriptures and you will note that is the case…again I can’t help you more than suggesting some of the areas which example what I am illustrating.

This leads me to another interesting observation. I noticed you said “we follow the prophet”, shouldn’t you be following the Lord?

You are better at making my point than I am. I’m not expecting you to understand the significance of revelation, and what it means to us to have a living prophet nor how we feel about his relationship to Christ. If again I wanted to take you to task I could find a dozen statements on this very forum about how participants consider the Pope infallible and valiant Catholics follow his lead. That is as it should be.

Could I make them an offender for their words as you are attempting to do? Sure I could but I realize that most of you accept the Pope as Christ’s leader for his people and respect his instruction. Do I think that means you don’t think that by following him you are not following the Lord…heavens no. I’m sure you perceive his council as the Lords counsel. On this point I believe I understand what you mean. I am willing to accept that you consider his instruction sacred, his position as the mouthpiece for Christ’s will is sacred. Objectively you should grant me the same consideration. This is a discussion Sacred in Mormonism. Please allow me to respond without the badgering and lets just have objective non-emotional responses. Don’t place me in a position to defend every jot and tittle and I will not do the same to you.

 

[twopekinguys]

From the LDS Church website:
Human life is a sacred gift from God. Elective abortion for personal or social convenience is contrary to the will and the commandments of God. Church members who submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions may lose their membership in the Church. (lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=63c139b439c98010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=bbd508f54922d010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD)

Without expressing the details I will say that I have some experience with LDS Church disciplinary councils having convened a few of my own and sitting in council on others. You misunderstand the gravity of the situation of abortion and are completely misinformed as to the Churches perspective. You could have looked but choose not to be informed - just to attack. We don’t just cover the person who had the abortion but anyone who participates and sustains the abortion. Mistake or Hyperbole - you call it…

First of all, your reference confirms what I have said. “abortions **may **lose their membership in the Church.” (emphasis mine)

I also point you to lds.org (you missed this part where abortion is ok) speaking about pregancies from rape. “abortion is sometimes considered advisable to preserve the physical and mental health of the mother.” Read it here.
EllieH;9729165:

Listen to your link again, President Hinckley’s remarks do not make any mention at all of their preexistent valiance or lack thereof. The question was why did it take so long and his answer was “I don’t know.” He didn’t know, I don’t know, and clearly you don’t know. Its not all that important. The Lord wanted it then - we did it then. You heard something not even on the video about pre-existance - potentially your mistake, or potential hyperbole…call it as you like.

Reread my post: Do I say anything at all about their preexistant lack of being valiant. The only possible reference you can even safely assume is that it has something to do with Cain’s slaying of Able. Even at that you are only hoping that is what I mean to say because if you search this entire site you will never find a statement from me that states it was because of the pre-existance. You do not even know what I believe on the matter. I can safely say, I don’t know. I may have some thoughts on the subject but those are mine and until I understand the principles better will remain such. My point is you do not care what I mean you have pigeonholed President Hinckley and me for something neither stated. Hyperbole or misunderstanding? You call it.

There have been so many versions or “reasons” for the priesthood ban, yours got mixed in with everyone elses. The fact remains, Hinckley said the leaders didn’t know, but yet you offered some explanation. Who’s wrong? You or Hinckley?

Really? … I can’t even bring myself to dignify the question with a rebuttal. Just imagine, in light of the Catholics Church’s public issues, if I was to sink to this level of accusation and hyperbole, imagine the claims I could make. However, I do not, I am not here to play attack dog, I am trying to understand you folks a little better. Rebbecca’s response was at least helpful and she pointed me to points of information that were germane to the discussion. I learned a little more on the subject. I may still learn more let but thus far you are not contributing to the conversation - you just have a Mormon in your cross hairs and you appear to be intent on pulling that trigger until he’s dead.

Good dodge!! Just remember, we’re not talking about the Catholic Church, we’re talking about the mormon church. You have also demonstrated a typical mormon tactic that when confronted with something you cannot explain or defend, attack the person asking the question.

You know nothing about be personally, and I resent, and quite frankly find your personal attacks offensive. “You just have a Mormon in your cross hairs and you appear to be intent on pulling that trigger until he’s dead.”
Please show me where I have made such derogatory assumptions about you.

Ah…more derogatory statements, and diversion how classic.

But yet, you totally ignore the fact that scripture clearly shows that Christ fulfilled the prophesies, and stated, “It is finished”. Which means no further public revelation, and that means no change, no change, no change.

Your point above is correct he is a never changing being however, what you want that to mean and what it actually means are not illustrated in the precept of Him not instructing his leaders to respond to his will. He has frequently made revealed changes and if the pattern were to hold then ongoing revelation would be the point of never changing. In the Old Testament he revealed his will, in the New Testament he revealed his will and after Christ died he still provided visions and revelation to his Apostles, thus revealing his will. The change is your claim that he has ceased to reveal his will in the exact same manner as he always has before.

I can appreciate the observation that Rebbeca makes that in Christ all revelation is completed. It sounds good and even almost makes sense. However, objectively you must acknowledge that your understanding of what constitutes revelation now and what constitutes revelation then are precisely two different things- not the same- different. While Hebrews 1 references the principle of he having spoken by the prophets and now speaks by Christ does that mean He is the end of revelation? If so why does it continue after his death? It is a change in the process of revealing his will that is what you defend by indicating there is no public revelation. Do some homework and research in the scriptures and you will note that is the case…again I can’t help you more than suggesting some of the areas which example what I am illustrating.

Public revelation ended with Christ. It is mormons who believe it continues. You are right, revelation now and revelation then are in fact two different things. The things mormons claim are revelation, really aren’t.

You are better at making my point than I am. I’m not expecting you to understand the significance of revelation, and what it means to us to have a living prophet nor how we feel about his relationship to Christ. If again I wanted to take you to task I could find a dozen statements on this very forum about how participants consider the Pope infallible and valiant Catholics follow his lead. That is as it should be.

Could I make them an offender for their words as you are attempting to do? Sure I could but I realize that most of you accept the Pope as Christ’s leader for his people and respect his instruction. Do I think that means you don’t think that by following him you are not following the Lord…heavens no. I’m sure you perceive his council as the Lords counsel. On this point I believe I understand what you mean. I am willing to accept that you consider his instruction sacred, his position as the mouthpiece for Christ’s will is sacred. Objectively you should grant me the same consideration. This is a discussion Sacred in Mormonism. Please allow me to respond without the badgering and lets just have objective non-emotional responses. Don’t place me in a position to defend every jot and tittle and I will not do the same to you.

Again, please try to stay on topic. We are not talking about the Catholic Church, we are talking about the mormon church.

Also, in no way have I “badgered”. I have simply pointed out the errors. If you read above, you are the one that has used colorful adjectives and personal attacks.

 

[KathleenGee]

The new Mormon Church, and I deeply like the Mormon people…cannot stand next to the universal Catholic Church, 2000 years old.

It is the Mormon religion who has placed itself in adversarial relationship to us and other forms of Christianity…that is your construct.

Christ is ours.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Thank you for your efforts in genuinely providing something of detail to explain your perception. As I am heading out at the moment, I will ask but one quesiton which will enalbe me perhaps to further understand. You state above:

Jesus Christ is the fullness of Revelation.
**Jesus Christ is the Revelation that has never ceased.

**Considering all of the other material about expecting no new revelation from the earlier post how do these two lines above differ from the traditional state of most other Christian denominations.

While they use different terminologies if we parse out the semantics, in essence doesn’t this just mean the same thing? That revelation as understood before the death of John the beloved no longer exists to the Catholics. There does exist a new explanation of a type of revelation that is fulfilled in the concept of a living Christ but this definition is essentially little different than saying that after the death of Christ and the Apostles there is no need for direct communication to mankind except as can be defined as using the existing revelations in scripture.

Also as I consider this topic pertinent to the discussion of addressing sacred things in Mormonism I am developing it here. As I am constantly being bonked on the head (yes, another reference to whack the gopher) for off topic addresses and then having my posts deleted if this does not seem consistent with the topic please let us start a more specific thread to this subject and continue form there.

if it’s off topic it’s off topic, though if we refrain from discussing each other it’s some kind of indication that we’re on topic.

As to your post, as I said, I have yet to meet a Mormon who understands the importance of the Revelation of Jesus Christ. From my standpoint, you seem to be telling me Jesus is not enough for you and asking, “Isn’t there something more?”

What are you searching for that isn’t found in Him?

 

[EllieH]

Also, in no way have I “badgered”. I have simply pointed out the errors. If you read above, you are the one that has used colorful adjectives and personal attacks.

My apologies, perhaps since signing up for this tour of duty I am developing a persecution complex.

 

[RebeccaJ]

My apologies, perhaps since signing up for this tour of duty I am developing a persecution complex.

Nobody here is shooting at you. Have a seat and chill out.

 

[KathleenGee]

Likewise…I just wonder, Ellie, if you are a former Catholic.

We had Steve here so many months back. I had to go out for a over a day. He put up a notice in red asking where I was and why wasn’t I answering his questions. Later I did…but then I answered him a question in black print, and he didn’t answer me.

I asked if he was a former Catholic. He wouldn’t say.

I was visiting a Mormon thread and there he was…and he stated he was a former Catholic. But I just read them, don’t bother getting involved with them. Haven’t gone back since.

 

[KathleenGee]

How Christians could be so wrong for almost 2000 years…but Joseph Smith …1830 years later…that is why we wonder what Mormons think of God and His nature…where He is sacred and where He is not.

He sure made a big mistake with us.

Well, I don’t want to go on anymore here. Just listened to the Democrat Convention where they are leaving God out again and I am going to have a beer, and then pray alot tonight. I deserve it, I am getting old and my dogs are fed.

 

[TexanKnight]

No one with integrity can deny the timing of the revelaiton about Blacks seem to benefit the BYU sports program. The two major revelaitons (stopping the practice of polygamy and the blacks holding the priesthood) seemed to indicate the LDS god was swayed by financial issues.

In addition, many LDS leaders have claimed that the blacks did not hold the priesthood because they were inferior. If Ellie wants, I can certainly post quotes to support that fact.

 

[KathleenGee]

Money talks.

Christ said money is the root of all evil.

I am staying with the Christ revealed to us at His coming as Scripture does affirm in the New Testament that Christ chose to come into this world at a time that would speak to those in need of healing, redemption, and salvation, His message not only for them, but to those in living in His times, and through the timing of His coming 2,000 years ago, His choice revealing He came at the time that would speak to all humanity, those in the past, the present then, and the future.

He did not make a mistake. He did not die in vain.

Christ draws All men to Himself. Alleluia.

To think otherwise, some how former Catholics were not open to the truth to begin with. It is not about us and our pride. It is about Christ and what He has done for us.

 

[PaulDupre]

In addition, many LDS leaders have claimed that the blacks did not hold the priesthood because they were inferior. If Ellie wants, I can certainly post quotes to support that fact.

Me too. Like the terminator, “I have detailed files”.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

 

[KathleenGee]

Having the files…yes…and the newcomers coming into Mormonism or born into a more moderate line, denying any such prior and ever changing beliefs…like we see in the public politicians who will change and do anything to get the vote.

…And then the Mormons now getting hold of our files…the Early Church Fathers…and reinterpreting to mean the opposite of what they intended…to some how vindicate Joseph Smith…it is heart breaking, disturbing, and devious…you can’t justify this penchant of twisting or dodging…

See this in some Mormon sophists who come on here and are even devious about their identity and who they are.

The Early Church Fathers further expanded on the deposit of faith given us by the Apostles through the Oral Tradition of Jesus Christ.

Christ fulfilled His mission…I pray for the Mormons’ conversion to Jesus Christ and to the truth of Who He is, and the Church He founded and sustains.

 

[Miriam1947]

Money talks.
**
Christ said money is the root of all evil.**

I am staying with the Christ revealed to us at His coming as Scripture does affirm in the New Testament that Christ chose to come into this world at a time that would speak to those in need of healing, redemption, and salvation, His message not only for them, but to those in living in His times, and through the timing of His coming 2,000 years ago, His choice revealing He came at the time that would speak to all humanity, those in the past, the present then, and the future.

He did not make a mistake. He did not die in vain.

Christ draws All men to Himself. Alleluia.

To think otherwise, some how former Catholics were not open to the truth to begin with. It is not about us and our pride. It is about Christ and what He has done for us.

The LOVE of money is the root of all evil.

Money is not inherently evil.

 

[ThatOrthodoxGuy]

Today I was listening to an LDS man being asked about the garments. They are sacred, he said, and they are not to be discussed because of their sacredness.
So, after some time it occurred to me, “what is more sacred than God Himself”? Well, nothing. Yet, He can be discussed, and in fact, should be, to bring souls to the fullness of Truth.
How does the LDS church come to the idea that the sanctity of a thing makes it off-limits to the rest of us, when Sacredness Himself is to be shouted from the rooftops, so to speak?

Thx!

Haha they have magic underwear