Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,384 Excellent


About MiserereNobis

  • Rank
    Ora pro nobis, Sancta Dei Genitrix

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,239 profile views
  1. MiserereNobis

    Look what I got!

    In English? You heretical and blasphemous protestant. Get yourself some Latin!
  2. MiserereNobis

    Revelation vs Inspiration vs "Getting it right"

    I am not -- stop setting up straw men.. I have had many spiritual and mystical experiences. There is a reason why I regularly go on weeklong retreats to two contemplative monasteries. So, just to clarify, what I see on this board is Utah Mormonism and Utah Mormonism is not real Mormonism? Outside of Utah Mormons openly believe what you post here, such as relative truth, no need for historicity, etc? This is a terrible apologetics board if it doesn't represent true Mormonism. Where should I go to talk to real Mormons?
  3. MiserereNobis

    Revelation vs Inspiration vs "Getting it right"

    Thanks for the quote. I've seen other threads where people are arguing about what is canon and what isn't. I guess those who say general conference isn't canon are wrong. Thanks again for the link.
  4. First of all, I am not criticizing. I plainly said: Let me be clear that I was not claiming such a thing. I was tossing it out as a possible way to explain similarities between mass and the LDS temple. Second, it is kinda lame to have this tone with me when the reason I don't know what I am talking about is because I have chosen to respect your religion and not look up or watch the temple rites. You forgot to quote what I said in the very next sentence: I'm not saying this is true (I have no idea about the anointing in the LDS temple). I'm just saying that it's one possible explanation. CFR that Mormons are not expected to believe Mormon doctrines. Is this in your scripture? Is this taught by your leaders? Pointing out the temple recommend questions or a quote about getting a testimony doesn't answer the CFR. You are claiming that a teaching in Mormonism is that Mormons do not have to believe Mormon doctrine. That is what the CFR is. Perhaps I'll start a thread on this so other Mormons can chime in. Just to be clear, any quote about this will not answer my CFR. Getting your own testimony doesn't mean that Mormons do not have to believe Mormon doctrine. It simply means that you have had a personal confirmation of Mormon doctrine. I, too, have had many personal confirmation of Catholic doctrine. I do not blindly follow the magisterium. And, as a former Catholic, you should know better than to toss out a silly protestant straw man by calling the Pope infallible. You most certainly know that he is not infallible and that we do not believe he is infallible. He can declare an infallible dogma in the most rarest of occasions, the last of which occurred November 1, 1950. I know it well, too. Why do you think I think this way? Could it be that reasonable minds can differ in belief, because those beliefs are reasonable?
  5. No, the other way around. The masons got their ideas of anointing from the traditional churches, and Joseph Smith got his from the Masons. I'm not saying this is true (I have no idea about the anointing in the LDS temple). I'm just saying that it's one possible explanation. Well, of course they didn't. They are early leaders of the LDS church. They are not going to call Joseph Smith a fraud. Ok. Again, it's hard for me to discuss the topic not knowing the LDS rites. The article you linked focused on aspects of Catholic mass, not the teachings given in the mass, so I'm focusing on the ritual. Felilx culpa is still in Catholicism today, as shown in your quoted section. I chanted that line during Easter Vigil As a side note, in college I wrote a paper about Milton's conflicting theodicies in "Paradise Lost." One was felix culpa. Ok, I hear ya. I'm guessing by you posting this that your views do not reflect a mainstream Mormon's view. Wouldn't be the first time, ha Ha! Let me be clear that I was not claiming such a thing. I was tossing it out as a possible way to explain similarities between mass and the LDS temple. There is no way I could argue on this topic since I am not allowed to have the information necessary for such a discussion. The similarities between religions, especially mystical experience, has always fascinated me. Huston Smith's book Forgotten Truth focuses on this aspect by connecting it to the great chain of being and different levels of consciousness/awareness/perception/what-have-you. It's a short and good read.
  6. MiserereNobis

    Revelation vs Inspiration vs "Getting it right"

    But that's not the LDS view, is it? General conferences is not in your canon, yet Mormons consider that God's instruction, don't they? I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. Can you point me to prophecy about the civil war and South Carolina? Where can I read it?
  7. MiserereNobis

    Revelation vs Inspiration vs "Getting it right"

    Just to clarify, that is not the Catholic position. We do believe that we will have further instruction. We do believe that God communicates with His children. We do believe that the Church is being led by the Holy Spirit and that the Holy Spirit prompts and inspires the leaders.
  8. MiserereNobis

    Revelation vs Inspiration vs "Getting it right"

    Everything God says is not scripture. Don't Mormons agree on that, too? Is every word that God has spoken in the LDS canon? Catholics absolutely believe that God is not done speaking to His people. It explicitly says that in the catechism I quoted. I think Pope Francis is pretty alright guy This is pretty much the point I am trying to make. I must have missed this, because I don't remember this from our previous conversation. Can you point me to it?
  9. MiserereNobis

    Revelation vs Inspiration vs "Getting it right"

    They did not have access to salvation. Abraham and all the righteous who died before Christ came had to wait until the Crucifixion. It's called the Harrowing of Hell. In the creed it says, "He [Christ] descended into hell, on the third day He rose again." The Catechism explains it (bold emphasis mine): They weren't being punished, their lot wasn't identical, but they had to wait because they did not have everything necessary. Ok. You are waiting to get more truth, and we are waiting to get more understanding
  10. MiserereNobis

    Revelation vs Inspiration vs "Getting it right"

    But I like counting angels on pinheads!
  11. MiserereNobis

    Fashion Question

    What are the natural consequences of wearing a tank top? Tan lines on your shoulders?
  12. MiserereNobis

    Revelation vs Inspiration vs "Getting it right"

    This is pretty much true in Catholicism, too. The Pope is the Vicar of Christ for the whole world. There are lots of ideas concerning authority and jurisdiction.
  13. MiserereNobis

    Revelation vs Inspiration vs "Getting it right"

    I'm thinking it goes back to the definition of revelation. Catholic definition: revelation is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which Christ brought completely and fulfilled completely while He was here. As the Catechism says, this Gospel is the source of all saving truth and moral discipline. Jesus didn't leave anything out when He was teaching His apostles. Everything necessary for salvation and morality was given. That is our definition of revelation. So, 1) Yes, according to our definition, it has. What Jesus did and taught was complete and full. There is nothing more to come that is necessary for salvation or morality. If there was more to come that was necessary, then everyone up to this point would not have been able to be saved. If there was more to come that was necessary, then Jesus was incomplete. Again, I think it goes back to definitions. We're both using the word "revelation" but it has different meanings it seems to me. 2) I think this depends. Catholics believe that there will be no more canonized scripture -- nothing will be added to the Bible. But this is more of a technical point because Catholics also believe in tradition (those sola scriptura protestants have to deal with a huge problem that we don't because of this). Tradition includes all truths that are not clear in the Bible. Tradition is handed down from the Apostles and one role of the magisterium, the leaders of the Catholic Church (bishops and the pope), is to clarify, explain, expound, and define these truths under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. When the magisterium declares that something is dogma, it is like canonizing it, even though it doesn't go into the Bible. In a way, it is like adding new scripture, but not into a book. For example, the last time a dogma was declared by the Pope was in November 1950. In tradition, there was the belief that Mary had been taken body and soul into heaven. However, prior to the Pope's dogmatic declaration, it wasn't necessary to believe it -- it hadn't been "canonized." When the Pope exercised his authority to teach, clarify, and define, it made this idea a required belief. It seems to me that if the Mormon claim to revelation was unique, it would mean that Mormonism doesn't have all of God's truth and is waiting to get more of it. This is true at the time of Joseph Smith, especially with something like priesthood authority, but what about now. I imagine the LDS church claims to have everything necessary for salvation. The Catholic Church claims to have all of God's truth, but needs time, authority, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit in order to understand all of it. When it comes down to it, I think we are really saying the same thing, which is why I think the claim isn' t unique. The Catholic Church and the LDS Church seem to operate in similar ways.
  14. MiserereNobis

    The Last Stage of Apologetics: It's your fault.

    I agree that there is some choice involved, but it is much more complex. The point I'm trying to make is if belief were simply a matter of choice then one could pick an idea and choose to believe or not believe it. However, I think beliefs are intertwined with each other which makes it difficult to choose to believe or not a single one. For example, I cannot right now simply choose to be an atheist, because I cannot single out my belief in God. In my web of belief, my belief in God is tangled up with lots of other beliefs, such as my beliefs in all of my spiritual experiences, my beliefs in other's experiences, my beliefs in my rational thinking and study and the conclusions that came from there, etc. (side note: I'm having that experience when a word is repeated over and over and it starts to sound really strange. Belief is the weirdest word to me right now, ha). To use your example about the moon landings, I cannot right now choose to disbelieve them because that would contradict a lot of my beliefs concerning NASA and the government, the people involved, pictures, videos, etc. When someone "chooses" to believe something, there are a lot other beliefs that they have slowly accepted to lead to that point. Likewise, when someone chooses to disbelieve something, there are a lot of other beliefs that they have slowly discarded. While there is some choice in there, there is also the influence of all the other beliefs. My point was probably more of a philosophical one than an important one, but I think it is a good middle ground between "You had a choice" and "I didn't have a choice." The idea of a web of belief (credits to W.V.O. Quine) allows both of those statements to be true.
  15. MiserereNobis

    Revelation vs Inspiration vs "Getting it right"

    This is what bluebell said, too, and it makes sense to me. Is there a difference, though, between the president of the church receiving revelation and an individual member receiving revelation? As I said in the OP, the words prophet and revelation are pretty lofty sounding. That is because "revelation" has a different meaning in traditional Christianity. See my quoted Catechism above. We definitely believe that God communicates with His children. I agree that we can be inspired by many things that don't come directly from God, but we'd probably agree that any inspiration that gives good fruit comes at least indirectly from God. Anything that leads us to the Good, the True, and the Beautiful will lead us to God. This made me think of the mathematician Henri Poincare. He was getting on a bus and the answer to a mathematical problem came to out of nowhere: As an outsider, this is what it looks like to me. I don't see much to distinguish the LDS prophet from the Pope. Both lead their prospective churches in similar ways: thinking, praying, receiving inspiration. The question isn't a matter of method, but a matter of truth. Which one really has God's authority? Now, there's no point in getting into that discussion, ha, but my point is that the method is the same and that the LDS church is not unique in claiming how the LDS prophet works. At least, not unique anymore. Joseph Smith was certainly unique.