Your Notre Dame Mormon on Continuous Revelation

[christianley]

From the catechism on revelation:

God has said everything in his Word

65 "In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son."26 Christ, the Son of God made man, is the Father’s one, perfect and unsurpassable Word. In him he has said everything; there will be no other word than this one. St. John of the Cross, among others, commented strikingly on Hebrews 1:1-2:

In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word - and he has no more to say. . . because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behavior but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty.
27

There will be no further Revelation

66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ."28 Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.

Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations”.

This is exactly what the catechism says. It makes complete sense because how could God say anything more than what he said in his perfect Word, Christ?

 

[christianley]

From the catechism on revelation:

God has said everything in his Word

65 "In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son."26 Christ, the Son of God made man, is the Father’s one, perfect and unsurpassable Word. In him he has said everything; there will be no other word than this one. St. John of the Cross, among others, commented strikingly on Hebrews 1:1-2:

In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word - and he has no more to say. . . because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behavior but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty.
27

There will be no further Revelation

66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ."28 Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.

Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations”.

This is exactly what the catechism says. It makes complete sense because how could God say anything more than what he said in his perfect Word, Christ?

 

[majick275]

For the purposes of this thread, I am happy to stipulate that after Christ, the callling of a prophet was no longer needed. In so doing I am holding that Christ calling His Apostles as witnesses to His divinity, giving them charge to establish and lead the Church, and leading them in that respect through revelation, served that prior function. Do you agree?

Well I hate to quibble but it depends on what you mean by “revelation”. Technically everything Jesus told his apostles was revelation so in that sense YES. was there a need for continuing revelation after his death? maybe. Did they receive personal revelation? yes. was it additional public revelation? no. The Apostles were a special case in that they were taught PERSONALLY by God incarnate. I don’t think after that they needed “further light and knowledge.”

So you could say that the Apostles led the early church by revelation and be correct…but I don’t think there is a similarity between that and how LDS apostles claim to lead the LDS church today. They had already received their revelation in person and then went out after the ascension sharing that deposit of faith with the world.

 

[NotreDameMormon]

Did they receive personal revelation? yes. was it additional public revelation? no. The Apostles were a special case in that they were taught PERSONALLY by God incarnate. I don’t think after that they needed “further light and knowledge.”

So, if I understand correctly, you would you say the revelations recieved by Peter, after the ascension of Christ into heaven, were merely insights into the Word already revealed to help Peter and the Church “to grasp its full significance” and “live more fully by it?”

 

[christianley]

So, if I understand correctly, you would you say the revelations recieved by Peter, after the ascension of Christ into heaven, were merely insights into the Word already revealed to help the Peter and the Church “to grasp its full significance” and “live more fully by it?”

What part of the quote from the catechism don’t you understand?

66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ."28 Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

 

[NotreDameMormon]

What part of the quote from the catechism don’t you understand?

How about this? The part that says “no new public revelation is to be expected” and “Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit.”

If you want to get ugly again we can do that, too.

 

[christianley]

How about this? The part that says “no new public revelation is to be expected” and “Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit.”

If you want to get ugly again we can do that, too.

The Lord promised us he would send the Holy Spirit to lead the Church into all truth. So as matters come along (like stem cell research for example) the Holy Spirit is there to help the Church understand what should be done. It’s not an addition to the final revelation of Jesus, but simply an unfolding of our understanding of what that final revelation meant on new issues as they come up.

 

[NotreDameMormon]

The Lord promised us he would send the Holy Spirit to lead the Church into all truth. So as matters come along (like stem cell research for example) the Holy Spirit is there to help the Church understand what should be done. It’s not an addition to the final revelation of Jesus, but simply an unfolding of our understanding of what that final revelation meant on new issues as they come up.

Agreed. There is nothing new to be revealed. Everything is revealed in Christ.

Peter received revelation after Christ was gone. Was that revelation “simply the unfolding of our understanding of what the final revelation meant?” And, is the ministry of the Spirit revelation?

 

[PaulDupre]

I think a good example of the “revelation” received by the apostles after Christ’s ascension is Peter’s vision recorded in Acts 10.

Peter sees a sheet being lower from heaven with both clean and unclean animals in it. The Lord commands him to eat. He protests, after which the Lord tells Peter “What I have pronounced clean, do not call unclean.” Right after this, some gentiles show up asking to hear the gospel. Informed by this vision, Peter realizes that the gentiles have a right to the good news every bit as much as do the Jews.

But this was not new information being revealed. Jesus had already taught the disciples this principle as recorded, for example, in Matt 15:11

It’s not what goes into your mouth that defiles you; you are defiled by the words that come out of your mouth.”

In fact, Peter probably then realized that the gospel being spread to the gentiles was prophesied many times in the OT.

Peter now understood the application of Jesus’ words, through the private revelation given to him. He acted on that understanding, and a great many gentiles were brought to faith in Jesus.

All private revelation, if it is from God, clarifies Jesus’ teachings and shows us how to apply them in our lives. There will be no revelation of new doctrines, because Jesus taught us everything we need to know. As the Church lives the gospel through the ages, Jesus’ teachings continue to become clearer.

Paul

 

[majick275]

what he said

 

[NotreDameMormon]

Peter now understood the application of Jesus’ words, through the private revelation given to him. He acted on that understanding, and a great many gentiles were brought to faith in Jesus.

Thanks, Paul.

So Peter did not receive this direction as head of the Church, but only personally?

Reading Acts 10 it seems like he was given a vision that baptism into the Church should be made available to the Gentiles where it had previously been limited to the House of Israel. Would that not be an interpretive exercise of his position as chief Apostle?

 

[majick275]

seriously though. If you look at how Gordon B Hinkley described the process of leading the LDS church through revelation thne you will see how the Catholic Church believes the Holy Spirit leads us. We don’t call it public revelation because it does not add to scripture or dogma, whatever term you want to use. We can see a history of DEVELOPMENT of doctrine within the Catholic church that we believe is the product of the Holy Spirit guiding the church.

BASIC example (vastly oversimplified so please don’t flame away)

Catholic doctrine : Love thy neighbor. (revealed by Jesus in sacred scripture)

Catholic developed doctrine : Divine virtue, charity, etc, described here:
newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm

or here:

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a9.htm

Catholic practice resulting: described in detail here:
groups.msn.com/CatholicFaithRefresherCourse/howtoloveyourneighbor.msnw

I compare and contrast that with LDS process (once again oversimplified)

Doctrine : Doctrine and Covenants Section 101, Verse 4 (1835 edition)

"Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy; we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife; and one woman but one husband; except that in the event of death when either is at liberty to marry again." (History of the Church, vol. 2, pg. 247)

continuous revelation change to doctrine: D&C 132:
61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse aanother, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.
62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.

Continous revelation change to doctrine againdescribed here)
scriptures.lds.org/en/od/1

resulting LDS practice: monogamy, polygamy, temporal monogamy with spiritual polygamy

The Catholic process is prayer and study with the holy spirit guiding through thoughts and impressions but guiding TO scripture and tradition with new understanding of how to apply existing doctrine. The level of detail increases but the “direction” does not.

The LDS process (originally at least) is ask God a question, he speaks the answer through the prophet who writes it down as new scripture and everything changes to reflect the new “commandments”. Repeat periodically and complete change is valued as adapting to changing circumstance.

WE prefer an unchanging God who doesn’t capriciously change significant doctrines/practices so that marriages are made, expanded and undone all in the same lifetime. (manifesto era mormons)

 

[NotreDameMormon]

LDS: Continous revelation change to doctrine.

I don’t agree. I would characterize it as we have here: Coming to a higher understanding and clearer view. God has in times past used or condoned polygamy. The question then is: When is polygamy appropriate in God, and when is it not? The LDS Church understands it is appropriate when God commands it and inappropriate when He forbids it. That has been the case throughout time. I don’t see that as a change in doctrine.

 

[dosdog]

I don’t agree. I would characterize it as we have here: Coming to a higher understanding and clearer view. God has in times past used or condoned polygamy. The question then is: When is polygamy appropriate in God, and when is it not? The LDS Church understands it is appropriate when God commands it and inappropriate when He forbids it. That has been the case throughout time. I don’t see that as a change in doctrine.

1842-94
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons) practiced a form of ritual adoption from about 1842 to 1894. It is apparently first referred to in an article in The Latter-day Saints Millennial Star for June 1843, but adoptions may have taken place the previous year
Adoption by “third parties” was finally abolished by President Woodruff in 1894, who declared after a revelation from God that in future ritual adoption could only be practiced where it replicated a real earthly relationship. Adoption by third parties was no longer necessary, and it was now entirely superseded by baptism for the dead and the other sealing rites, which had in any case been practiced in parallel with adoption for many years.
famous.adoption.com/famous/church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints.html

 

[majick275]

I don’t agree. I would characterize it as we have here: Coming to a higher understanding and clearer view. God has in times past used or condoned polygamy. The question then is: When is polygamy appropriate in God, and when is it not? The LDS Church understands it is appropriate when God commands it and inappropriate when He forbids it. That has been the case throughout time. I don’t see that as a change in doctrine.

well I suppose you could say that anything is okay when God commands it and never okay when he forbids it and claim an unchanging doctrine while still preserving the opportunity to do whatever, whenever as long as you claim God commands it now.

I think though that if you look at the supporting statements of the Mormon apostles when these changes were made you will see a context of changing doctrine. Brigham Young made it very clear that only polygamists would achieve maximum exaltation. Gordon B Hinkley says it’s absolutely unnecessary at any level. Further, the D&C has actually changed with the doctrines. Lectures on Faith are in , they are out but they are profitable for instruction, they are wrong. There are MANY examples of LDS scriptures changing along with LDS teachings and practices in ways that sure look like complete reversals of position.

 

[NotreDameMormon]

I think though that if you look at the supporting statements of the Mormon apostles when these changes were made you will see a context of changing doctrine.

I would be happy to discuss these specific quotes regarding the “changes” in doctrine if you want to cite them.

I have to say though, it has been claimed here by the CCC that the revelation of all the Word “has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.”

I wouldn’t think you’d be so eager to attack people for struggling to grasp something that has not been made explicit.

 

[NotreDameMormon]

well I suppose you could say that anything is okay when God commands it and never okay when he forbids it and claim an unchanging doctrine while still preserving the opportunity to do whatever, whenever as long as you claim God commands it now…I think though that if you look at the supporting statements of the Mormon apostles when these changes were made you will see a context of changing doctrine.

Touché. Hence the need for reference to the historical constitution of truth.

What cites are you referring to?

And I would think the language would naturally change as a better understanding was had. Isn’t that the role the CCC, as well?

 

[zerinus]

This is exactly what the catechism says. It makes complete sense because how could God say anything more than what he said in his perfect Word, Christ?

It makes no sense at all. It is all wrong. It is blasphemy to try to shut the mouth of God, and say that having spoken once, He will not speak again. It goes completely contrary to the spirit and letter of the word of God—that He is “the same yesterday, to day and for ever” (Hebrews 13:8); and that He “changes not” (Malachi 3:6); and that He will “do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets” (Amos 3:1). It is the clearest possible indication of an apostate and a dead religion that tries to limit the power of God to speak to His people any time He chooses; and it is a great indictment against any church who espouses such an abominable and blasphemous theology.

zerinus

 

[dosdog]

It makes no sense at all. It is all wrong. It is blasphemy to try to shut the mouth of God, and say that having spoken once, He will not speak again. It goes completely contrary to the spirit and letter of the word of God—that He is “the same yesterday, to day and for ever” (Hebrews 13:8); and that He “changes not” (Malachi 3:6); and that He will “do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets” (Amos 3:1). It is the clearest possible indication of an apostate and a dead religion that tries to limit the power of God to speak to His people any time He chooses; and it is a great indictment against any church who espouses such an abominable and blasphemous theology.

zerinus

In order for a person to receive prophecy he must be must be great in righteousness and wisdom and completely self-disciplined. Such a person, if he prepares himself by immersing himself totally in Torah study and mitzvos, can bring his mind to a higher spiritual state in which he becomes capable of receiving prophecy.

A prophet has no control over whether and when he will receive prophecy. He can only ready himself by meditating and focusing his mind in a joyous state. (Prophecy can only come when a person is happy.) There is no guarantee that a person who has prepared himself will ever receive prophecy.

When HaShem sends a prophet, He gives the prophet a sign to show that he is a true prophet. However, not every person who shows such a sign is automatically accepted. The prophet must be known to be a great, wise, and righteous person. If he is such a person, then we are commanded to accept and obey him if he comes with a sign.

The sign that a prophet must give to prove he is genuine need not be a miracle. He must predict a future event, if his prophecy is fulfilled with perfect accuracy then we believe him, if, however, even the smallest detail is inaccurate then he is a false prophet. We must test a prophet in this manner several times but we are not permitted to overly test him.

members.aol.com/lazerA/prophecy.htm

 

[catsrus]

It is the clearest possible indication of an apostate and a dead religion that tries to limit the power of God to speak to His people any time He chooses; and it is a great indictment against any church who espouses such an abominable and blasphemous theology.

zerinus

His people.
Not one person alone.

This is a MOST divisive and uncharitable post!!!
Whewwww! I will remember this when the next mormons come to my door. They may appear nice but in their minds they are thinking…like you?