Revelation vs Inspiration vs "Getting it right"

[MiserereNobis]

There have been a few times over the years that I have questioned the LDS claim to receiving revelation as being a unique claim. It is very often positioned as a unique claim, meaning that not only does the LDS church claim to receive revelation, but it also says that no other Christian church even has this claim. Statements from other Christians like "the heavens are closed" or "revelation ended with Christ" are used as proof that the claim is unique.

The purpose of this thread is two-fold. First, to discuss whether or not this claim to revelation is unique. And secondly, as part of that discussion, to figure out what exactly revelation is. I think the latter needs to be determined in order to figure out the former. I decided to start this thread because I have noticed a motif on other threads that the definition of revelation isn't quite settled. Threads about General Conference come to mind as does the current thread about the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible.

So, as an outsider, let me give you my views of what I see and then you can clarify and begin to argue amongst yourselves  

When a Mormon tells a non-Mormon "We have a living prophet who receives revelation from God" it definitely conjures up images and ideas. "Prophet" and "revelation" are loaded words for sure. I imagined that if such a statement were true there would be a man who was having visions of God and then sharing those visions with others. However, after years around Mormons it seems that the word revelation has a much much broader meaning, one that could be more accurately placed under inspiration. The president doesn't share visions or statements of God's words. He instead shares policies and procedures and talks about coming to those policies after thinking and prayer. For the Christian world, this would be inspiration, not revelation. My first priest discovered a 150 year-old discarded High Altar and prayed about restoring it and received the inspiration that he should. A few years later this beautiful high altar was once again being used in the church. Inspiration.

I've also been intrigued about the idea to study things out in your mind and then God will help you. That seems to be lowering the bar for revelation even further. If revelation means I study things through and then "get it right" then I can claim revelation when I pass a math test.

So, in Mormonism, what exactly is revelation? And if it is inspiration or "getting it right," shouldn't you just call it that instead of using the loftier sounding term of revelation? If it is inspiration, then every Christian church claims it and every Christian (and others) have it, so it isn't a unique claim after all. I feel that using the term revelation for what I have seen used for makes things sound more special than they actually are. The exception is Joseph Smith (and perhaps others I do not know of). What he claimed I would certainly call revelation. What I have seen discussed here I would not.

What say ye?

[bluebell]

As far as the LDS church is concerned, revelation is simply communication from God to His children.  If someone studies out something in their mind and comes to a conclusion, and then God communicates to them that the conclusion is wrong or right, then that is revelation just as much as any other type of communication from God.

And mormonism doesn't claim that God only communicates to mormons.  

What is revelation to the Catholic church?

[RevTestament]

20 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

There have been a few times over the years that I have questioned the LDS claim to receiving revelation as being a unique claim. It is very often positioned as a unique claim, meaning that not only does the LDS church claim to receive revelation, but it also says that no other Christian church even has this claim. Statements from other Christians like "the heavens are closed" or "revelation ended with Christ" are used as proof that the claim is unique.

The purpose of this thread is two-fold. First, to discuss whether or not this claim to revelation is unique. And secondly, as part of that discussion, to figure out what exactly revelation is. I think the latter needs to be determined in order to figure out the former. I decided to start this thread because I have noticed a motif on other threads that the definition of revelation isn't quite settled. Threads about General Conference come to mind as does the current thread about the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible.

So, as an outsider, let me give you my views of what I see and then you can clarify and begin to argue amongst yourselves  

When a Mormon tells a non-Mormon "We have a living prophet who receives revelation from God" it definitely conjures up images and ideas. "Prophet" and "revelation" are loaded words for sure. I imagined that if such a statement were true there would be a man who was having visions of God and then sharing those visions with others. However, after years around Mormons it seems that the word revelation has a much much broader meaning, one that could be more accurately placed under inspiration. The president doesn't share visions or statements of God's words. He instead shares policies and procedures and talks about coming to those policies after thinking and prayer. For the Christian world, this would be inspiration, not revelation. My first priest discovered a 150 year-old discarded High Altar and prayed about restoring it and received the inspiration that he should. A few years later this beautiful high altar was once again being used in the church. Inspiration.I've also been intrigued about the idea to study things out in your mind and then God will help you. That seems to be lowering the bar for revelation even further.

Good topic MiserereNobis. To answer frankly, I don't believe that LDS are the only people to receive revelation. I believe the Holy Spirit works through revelation to all who will come to Christ. All receive the light of His revelation to some extent through basic notions of goodness and love. If LDS were the only people to receive revelation then I don't think there would be any converts. Indeed, receiving a witness of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon is a revelation. Despite what many modern churches say - that revelation is closed - they have pastors who turn around and say God showed or told me such and such. 

Do I believe the Church President receives revelation? Sure I do. I am sure they prayed about changes to temple rites, and policy changes within the Church. I am sure I am much happier with the new temple endowment, than I would have been say 30 years ago, but at the same time I kind of miss the old initiatories. 

As for the difference between revelation and inspiration, I doubt there is any Church governance on the matter, but I use the words differently. I view all revelation as inspiration, but not all inspiration as revelation. Basically, I think it depends on the source of our inspiration. If we are inspired of our own intellect, then nothing is being revealed to us by God.

Quote

If revelation means I study things through and then "get it right" then I can claim revelation when I pass a math test.

If it came from God in answer to prayer. I received inspiration once when I was brushing my teeth - it just came to me that the main way to solve this programming problem was to build a 3D tree. Whether that was from God, I really doubt. I hadn't prayed about it - I never prayed for help in my school studies. It was just one of those light-bulb moments probably most of us have had. However, I cannot rule God totally out of inspiration either. I believe he probably has inspired certain people to make certain inventions or do certain things as part of the blessings he promised the gentiles. I believe much of history was preplanned, and he steers things here and there when necessary. So some inspiration might actually be revelation without us knowing it.

Quote

So, in Mormonism, what exactly is revelation? And if it is inspiration or "getting it right," shouldn't you just call it that instead of using the loftier sounding term of revelation?

The Lord told JS that he must study it out in his mind first - that he gave no thought to the matter except to ask for an answer. From most of my experience I would say that I pondered and thought about things a good deal before I prayed for an answer. However, one of my first strong experiences with the Lord was unsolicited. I was simply reading scripture when He spoke to me. Most revelation has probably come through what the Lord told JS was a burning in the bosom - for me it's a feeling of something welling up inside is probably the best I can describe it - like a spiritual shiver. I believe the Lord did directly speak with JS in and about the sections of D&C, but in them we also learn that sometimes he just had matters confirmed by a burning of the bosom. I feel the Lord probably spoke less to him during the last half of his presidency. All these things are revelation even if some of them will never be recorded for others. 

Similarly, I view all prophecy as revelation, but not all revelation as prophecy. An example would be receiving a revelation interpreting a prophetic vision already recorded in scripture. Joseph of Egypt received revelation of dream meanings for dreams had by pharaoh. Of all the gifts of God revelation is probably the greatest. Prophetic visions don't do much if men do not understand them. Joseph of Egypt was a seer who turned meaningless prophetic dreams into actionable intelligence for Egyptians and Hebrews alike. He didn't give the law - that gift was through Judah - but his gift of seership was quite important. 

 I don't think the Church presidents have prophesied much since JS. I think the Church is still having trouble living the law given through JS.

[MiserereNobis]

14 hours ago, bluebell said:

As far as the LDS church is concerned, revelation is simply communication from God to His children.  If someone studies out something in their mind and comes to a conclusion, and then God communicates to them that the conclusion is wrong or right, then that is revelation just as much as any other type of communication from God.

What is revelation to the Catholic church?

This is where the definition of terms differs but the ideas are the same. The Catholic Church absolutely believes that God communicates to His children. We are overloaded with visions and prophecies and apparitions, from the ridiculous (Jesus appears on a tortilla!) to the sublime (Fatima, including the miracle of the sun). This wouldn't be called revelation, though, but inspiration.

It's a long quote, but this really will help understand the Catholic idea of revelation and inspiration. I will add my thoughts after. This comes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Quote

I. THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION

75 "Christ the Lord, in whom the entire Revelation of the most high God is summed up, commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel, which had been promised beforehand by the prophets, and which he fulfilled in his own person and promulgated with his own lips. In preaching the Gospel, they were to communicate the gifts of God to all men. This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline."³²

In the apostolic preaching. . .

76 In keeping with the Lord's command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:

- orally "by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit";³³

- in writing "by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing".³⁴

. . . continued in apostolic succession

77 "In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority."³⁵ Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time."³⁶

78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes."³⁷ "The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer."³⁸

79 The Father's self-communication made through his Word in the Holy Spirit, remains present and active in the Church: "God, who spoke in the past, continues to converse with the Spouse of his beloved Son. And the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel rings out in the Church - and through her in the world - leads believers to the full truth, and makes the Word of Christ dwell in them in all its richness."³⁹

Notice at the beginning it says that Revelation is summed up in Jesus Christ. Since Christ already came, this is what Catholics (and other Christians) mean when they say there will be no more revelation. It doesn't mean that God has stopped communicating to His children. He fulfilled Revelation through the Gospel and there will be no other Gospel, i.e. no other Revelation. It is a different meaning of the word revelation that what Mormons use.

Notice in 76 that the Apostles learned the truth and wrote the truth under the prompting and inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Also, notice in 79 that God continues to speak to the Church (the Spouse of Christ) today.

So, Catholics also claim that God speaks to His Church today, both to individuals and to the leaders (the Bishops, who are the successors of the Apostles, and to the Pope, who is the successor to Peter).

15 hours ago, bluebell said:

And mormonism doesn't claim that God only communicates to mormons.  

I guess my main point is that I have heard Mormons say many times that Christians believe that revelation has ended, making the Mormon claim that God continues to reveal things a unique claim. Have I misheard or misunderstood? What do Mormons mean when you say, "We have a living prophet who receives revelation from God." What is different about that from the Catechism I quoted?

[MiserereNobis]

14 hours ago, RevTestament said:

To answer frankly, I don't believe that LDS are the only people to receive revelation. I believe the Holy Spirit works through revelation to all who will come to Christ. All receive the light of His revelation to some extent through basic notions of goodness and love. If LDS were the only people to receive revelation then I don't think there would be any converts. Indeed, receiving a witness of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon is a revelation

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.

14 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Despite what many modern churches say - that revelation is closed - they have pastors who turn around and say God showed or told me such and such. 

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.

14 hours ago, RevTestament said:

As for the difference between revelation and inspiration, I doubt there is any Church governance on the matter, but I use the words differently. I view all revelation as inspiration, but not all inspiration as revelation. Basically, I think it depends on the source of our inspiration. If we are inspired of our own intellect, then nothing is being revealed to us by God.

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.

14 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I received inspiration once when I was brushing my teeth - it just came to me that the main way to solve this programming problem was to build a 3D tree. Whether that was from God, I really doubt. I hadn't prayed about it - I never prayed for help in my school studies. It was just one of those light-bulb moments probably most of us have had.

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:

Quote

At the moment when I put my foot on the step the idea came to me, without anything in my former thoughts seeming to have paved the way for it, that the transformation that I had used to define the Fuchsian functions were identical with those of non-euclidean geometry.

 

14 hours ago, RevTestament said:

 I don't think the Church presidents have prophesied much since JS. I think the Church is still having trouble living the law given through JS.

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.

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

 Revelation is summed up in Jesus Christ. Christ already came, this is what Catholics (and other Christians) mean when they say there will be no more revelation.

I guess my main point is that I have heard Mormons say many times that Christians believe that revelation has ended, making the Mormon claim that God continues to reveal things a unique claim. Have I misheard or misunderstood? What do Mormons mean when you say, "We have a living prophet who receives revelation from God." What is different about that from the Catechism I quoted?

Two questions-

1) Isn't the bolded above you saying that Catholics and other Christians believe that revelation has ended?  

2) And isn't Mormonism's claim about God continuing to reveal scripture and other aspects of His gospel to Prophets on earth unique?

When Mormons say those things we mean them in an unqualified way.  We don't mean that God directs His church and communicates with people, except there will be no more scripture so that kind of revelation has ended, or except God doesn't give revelation to prophets so that type of revelation has ended, or except God has nothing else to reveal about the gospel so that type of revelation has ended, etc, etc.  

We claim that no type of revelation has ended; we claim no exception to the doctrine of revelation in God's church.  If I'm understanding you correctly (and maybe I'm not) that is what is unique and different about LDS claims of revelation.

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

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.

 

The prophet has the authority and stewardship to receive revelation for the entire church.  An individual member does not.  

Everyone can receive revelation for their stewardship but not for those outside of their stewardship.  That means that I can receive revelation for myself, for my family, and to help me fulfill my calling in church.  I can't receive revelation for you or for my neighbor or for the church.  

[MiserereNobis]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Two questions-

1) Isn't the bolded above you saying that Catholics and other Christians believe that revelation has ended?  

2) And isn't Mormonism's claim about God continuing to reveal scripture and other aspects of His gospel to Prophets on earth unique?

When Mormons say those things we mean them in an unqualified way.  We don't mean that God directs His church and communicates with people, except there will be no more scripture so that kind of revelation has ended, or except God doesn't give revelation to prophets so that type of revelation has ended, or except God has nothing else to reveal about the gospel so that type of revelation has ended, etc, etc.  

We claim that no type of revelation has ended; we claim no exception to the doctrine of revelation in God's church.  If I'm understanding you correctly (and maybe I'm not) that is what is unique and different about LDS claims of revelation.

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.

[MiserereNobis]

33 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The prophet has the authority and stewardship to receive revelation for the entire church.  An individual member does not.  

Everyone can receive revelation for their stewardship but not for those outside of their stewardship.  That means that I can receive revelation for myself, for my family, and to help me fulfill my calling in church.  I can't receive revelation for you or for my neighbor or for the church.  

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.

[bluebell]

29 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I1) 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.

According to our definition, there is more to come.  We believe God will yet reveal many important things pertaining to His gospel.  Our different beliefs concerning salvation mean that continuing revelation does not impact the salvation of those who lived with lesser knowledge.  Neither do we believe that Christ revealing more means that He was incomplete.

Do Catholics believe that those who lived before the fulfillment of the Gospel was brought by Jesus Christ (who lived when there was still 'more to come' as you put it) could not be saved? 

Quote

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.

We don't believe we have all of God's truth and we are waiting for more.  It's one of our articles of faith-We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

But, again, believing that we have everything necessary for salvation does not mean that we believe we have all of God's truth.  We believe that Abraham had everything necessary for salvation, for example, and he lived long before Christ came and taught His gospel.  

Do Catholics believe that Abraham had access to salvation even though He lived when there was 'still more to come'?

Quote

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.

We may operate very similarly, but I don't think we are saying the same thing.   

[mfbukowski]

17 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

There have been a few times over the years that I have questioned the LDS claim to receiving revelation as being a unique claim. It is very often positioned as a unique claim, meaning that not only does the LDS church claim to receive revelation, but it also says that no other Christian church even has this claim. Statements from other Christians like "the heavens are closed" or "revelation ended with Christ" are used as proof that the claim is unique.

The purpose of this thread is two-fold. First, to discuss whether or not this claim to revelation is unique. And secondly, as part of that discussion, to figure out what exactly revelation is. I think the latter needs to be determined in order to figure out the former. I decided to start this thread because I have noticed a motif on other threads that the definition of revelation isn't quite settled. Threads about General Conference come to mind as does the current thread about the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible.

So, as an outsider, let me give you my views of what I see and then you can clarify and begin to argue amongst yourselves  

When a Mormon tells a non-Mormon "We have a living prophet who receives revelation from God" it definitely conjures up images and ideas. "Prophet" and "revelation" are loaded words for sure. I imagined that if such a statement were true there would be a man who was having visions of God and then sharing those visions with others. However, after years around Mormons it seems that the word revelation has a much much broader meaning, one that could be more accurately placed under inspiration. The president doesn't share visions or statements of God's words. He instead shares policies and procedures and talks about coming to those policies after thinking and prayer. For the Christian world, this would be inspiration, not revelation. My first priest discovered a 150 year-old discarded High Altar and prayed about restoring it and received the inspiration that he should. A few years later this beautiful high altar was once again being used in the church. Inspiration.

I've also been intrigued about the idea to study things out in your mind and then God will help you. That seems to be lowering the bar for revelation even further. If revelation means I study things through and then "get it right" then I can claim revelation when I pass a math test.

So, in Mormonism, what exactly is revelation? And if it is inspiration or "getting it right," shouldn't you just call it that instead of using the loftier sounding term of revelation? If it is inspiration, then every Christian church claims it and every Christian (and others) have it, so it isn't a unique claim after all. I feel that using the term revelation for what I have seen used for makes things sound more special than they actually are. The exception is Joseph Smith (and perhaps others I do not know of). What he claimed I would certainly call revelation. What I have seen discussed here I would not.

What say ye?

Distinctions without a difference which are definable.

"What shall I do, Lord?"

"THAT!"

"Thanks, Boss "

That's it. Slicing, dicing, parsing impossible and therefore prohibited.

 

[RevTestament]

13 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

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?

Per the Church and D&C there is, yes, and I do believe the President of the Church is the only one authorized to hold all the keys of running the temporal Church. In other words, a general member like me is not authorized and cannot receive revelation concerning changes to temple rites. It seems only the Presidency holds those keys. I believe the general gift of revelation is less clear. JS was authorized to appoint someone to receive revelation for the Church, so it seems one does not have to be President to receive revelations for the Church body, which certainly does not seem to be the general perception of the Church today.

Quote

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.

Well, i believe you are talking about revelation in terms of new scripture, however, i believe this view to be incorrect. I believe there will be more scripture and that the canon is not closed. For instance Revelation says two witnesses will prophesy for 1260 days, and be killed. That is an express scriptural reference to revelation authorized by God, which in the past has always been accepted as scripture. Who is going to say God just spoke to us, but it is not scripture? No, it is binding revelation, and God's communication to us which He intends to be preserved. So, quite frankly traditional Christianity is wrong. God is not done speaking to His people. In fact I believe the last seven horns of the seventh seal will all be scripture.

Quote

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.

Well - will lead us in the right direction towards God, yes. Yeshua said we will know prophets by their fruit. Buddhism has some wonderful teachings, but I don't know that one will find God by following only their teachings. However, I think they are at least in the right general direction, and will help one accept the teachings of God more readily.

Quote

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.

Well, by using the measure of good fruit, I would say the Roman pontiff has more problems than the LDS President. However, I am not crazy about BYs reference that polygamy is necessary for exaltation. I seem to feel that led to some bad fruit - offshoots who didn't want to stop the practice, such as the FLDS, I feel safe saying are abusive. However, they are obviously not condoned by the original Church body.

I would say for the last several decades the LDS Church and the Catholic Church have been run in a fashion which seems similar. However, I have asked you whether your pontiff has received prophecy, and you basically said no. You provided a link to revelation claimed about Mary as mediatrix to Catholics. I pointed you to actual prophecies made by Joseph Smith in D&C and through the Book of Mormon, such as the prophecy of a civil war to begin with the state of South Carolina, made thirty years before war broke out. So over the history of the two churches, the score for actual prophecies made by Church leaders favors the LDS church, with several confirmed prophecies whereas I have found none for the Roman pontiff. So as evidence of authority, I think the LDS Church is ahead by this yardstick. I believe and testify future authoritative scriptural revelation and prophecy will also come through the Church of Jesus Christ. I am not sure if you are familiar with the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon, but that must also come to light. I don't know exactly how the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon will come to light, but my guess is, it will be in a fashion similar to that received by JS - in other words not just through prayer and inspiration but through translation of the actual text. Our Church definitely believes more official scriptural revelation will unfold. We have a thousand years of millennium to live through so it will be a process over some centuries, so the apparent similarities over the last several decades will be insignificant in the large scheme of things. I am not excluding Catholics from receiving revelation, but it does seem it will be limited to revelation through prayer and other personal revelation. I welcome all Catholics to the light of the restored gospel.  

[MiserereNobis]

18 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Distinctions without a difference which are definable.

"What shall I do, Lord?"

"THAT!"

"Thanks, Boss "

That's it. Slicing, dicing, parsing impossible and therefore prohibited.

 

But I like counting angels on pinheads!  

[MiserereNobis]

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Do Catholics believe that those who lived before the fulfillment of the Gospel was brought by Jesus Christ (who lived when there was still 'more to come' as you put it) could not be saved? 

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Do Catholics believe that Abraham had access to salvation even though He lived when there was 'still more to come'?

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):

Quote

633 Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, "hell" - Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek - because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God.⁴⁷⁹ Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the Redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into "Abraham's bosom":⁴⁸⁰ "It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Saviour in Abraham's bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell."⁴⁸¹ Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him.⁴⁸²

They weren't being punished, their lot wasn't identical, but they had to wait because they did not have everything necessary.

30 minutes ago, bluebell said:

We don't believe we have all of God's truth and we are waiting for more.  It's one of our articles of faith-We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

Ok. You are waiting to get more truth, and we are waiting to get more understanding  

[RevTestament]

3 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

But I like counting angels on pinheads!  

I think it is more than just that. I apparently disagree with Mark here. I do believe there are three major types of revelation. There is prophecy which concerns the foretelling of things yet to happen. There is also seeing which involves interpretation and understanding. For instance some prophecies and visions were sealed until the end. In other words, men will not understand them until a servant unseals them for man. That servant may not prophesy anything, but his words would be important, and in the category of seeing or seership. A last type of revelation may fall under general inspiration. Moses' receipt of the law was revelation but in my view not prophecy nor seership, although He did do some prophesying. However, I may agree with Mark if he is just referring to the category of general revelation. The Lord spoke, and man wrote. Trying to slice it and dice it further is kind of pointless. Trying to say we have the gospel, and will not receive further instruction seems a little uppity, and quite frankly, contrary to the scriptures Christians have had for about 2000 years now.

[MiserereNobis]

32 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Who is going to say God just spoke to us, but it is not scripture? No, it is binding revelation, and God's communication to us which He intends to be preserved. So, quite frankly traditional Christianity is wrong. God is not done speaking to His people. In fact I believe the last seven horns of the seventh seal will all be scripture.

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.

35 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Well, by using the measure of good fruit, I would say the Roman pontiff has more problems than the LDS President.

I think Pope Francis is pretty alright guy  

37 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I would say for the last several decades the LDS Church and the Catholic Church have been run in a fashion which seems similar.

This is pretty much the point I am trying to make.

37 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I pointed you to actual prophecies made by Joseph Smith in D&C and through the Book of Mormon, such as the prophecy of a civil war to begin with the state of South Carolina, made thirty years before war broke out.

I must have missed this, because I don't remember this from our previous conversation. Can you point me to it?

 

[MiserereNobis]

9 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Trying to say we have the gospel, and will not receive further instruction seems a little uppity, and quite frankly, contrary to the scriptures Christians have had for about 2000 years now.

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.

[CV75]

18 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

There have been a few times over the years that I have questioned the LDS claim to receiving revelation as being a unique claim. It is very often positioned as a unique claim, meaning that not only does the LDS church claim to receive revelation, but it also says that no other Christian church even has this claim. Statements from other Christians like "the heavens are closed" or "revelation ended with Christ" are used as proof that the claim is unique.

The purpose of this thread is two-fold. First, to discuss whether or not this claim to revelation is unique. And secondly, as part of that discussion, to figure out what exactly revelation is. I think the latter needs to be determined in order to figure out the former. I decided to start this thread because I have noticed a motif on other threads that the definition of revelation isn't quite settled. Threads about General Conference come to mind as does the current thread about the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible.

So, as an outsider, let me give you my views of what I see and then you can clarify and begin to argue amongst yourselves  

When a Mormon tells a non-Mormon "We have a living prophet who receives revelation from God" it definitely conjures up images and ideas. "Prophet" and "revelation" are loaded words for sure. I imagined that if such a statement were true there would be a man who was having visions of God and then sharing those visions with others. However, after years around Mormons it seems that the word revelation has a much much broader meaning, one that could be more accurately placed under inspiration. The president doesn't share visions or statements of God's words. He instead shares policies and procedures and talks about coming to those policies after thinking and prayer. For the Christian world, this would be inspiration, not revelation. My first priest discovered a 150 year-old discarded High Altar and prayed about restoring it and received the inspiration that he should. A few years later this beautiful high altar was once again being used in the church. Inspiration.

I've also been intrigued about the idea to study things out in your mind and then God will help you. That seems to be lowering the bar for revelation even further. If revelation means I study things through and then "get it right" then I can claim revelation when I pass a math test.

So, in Mormonism, what exactly is revelation? And if it is inspiration or "getting it right," shouldn't you just call it that instead of using the loftier sounding term of revelation? If it is inspiration, then every Christian church claims it and every Christian (and others) have it, so it isn't a unique claim after all. I feel that using the term revelation for what I have seen used for makes things sound more special than they actually are. The exception is Joseph Smith (and perhaps others I do not know of). What he claimed I would certainly call revelation. What I have seen discussed here I would not.

What say ye?

Of course, you can get a pat answer by looking up these terms on lds.org… But for the sake of conversation:

I think the “unique” aspect is that no other church is part of the continuum of the Restoration. They may be part of the church of the Lamb of God and trace their roots back to Christ, but LDS see our Church as the only authentic entity (the kingdom of God on earth), the “true and living Church,” wherein the revelations come through the authorized priesthood channels and servants of God.

Aside from that, it is clear that the faithful of any church will receive revelation as God sees fit for their circumstances, both lay people and their ecclesiastical leaders.

“Revelation” can certainly refer to many things, and come in many forms, as you indicated. The common denominator I would say is that they come to the heart and/or mind from God, prompting us to do something that honors Him, blesses His children, otherwise engage in His work, etc. Some might prefer to use words such as: inspiration, epiphany, sign, receiving an answer to a question of/in the mind and heart while in prayer, spiritual confirmation or witness, message, help (as with a math test), etc.

I would typically reserve the term “revelation” to a few things, and call these other things by more descriptive terms (attributing them to God when I feel that is the case), but technically I consider them all forms of revelation.

[pogi]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I guess my main point is that I have heard Mormons say many times that Christians believe that revelation has ended, making the Mormon claim that God continues to reveal things a unique claim. Have I misheard or misunderstood? What do Mormons mean when you say, "We have a living prophet who receives revelation from God." What is different about that from the Catechism I quoted?

Hi Mis!

I think the primary difference is here:

Quote

Notice at the beginning it says that Revelation is summed up in Jesus Christ. Since Christ already came, this is what Catholics (and other Christians) mean when they say there will be no more revelation. It doesn't mean that God has stopped communicating to His children. He fulfilled Revelation through the Gospel and there will be no other Gospel, i.e. no other Revelation. It is a different meaning of the word revelation that what Mormons use.

We simply believe that the fullness of the Gospel was not revealed in Christ's day, but that "God has revealed, does now reveal, and will continue to reveal many great and important things" pertaining to the gospel.  We do not have a closed cannon.  I think that is the primary difference.  

You are right though, practically speaking in every other way revelation continues in the Catholic Chruch too. We simply use a more loose definition of revelation.  At it's core, it simply means to make things which were previously unknown, known through the Spirit of the Lord.  Inspiration conjures up the same ideas - literally it means to breath in, this could be in reference to new light and knowledge, or simply a comforting peaceful feeling, a reassurance, etc. through the holy spirit.  The way I see it, revelation is the new information received, while inspiration is the method of receiving it. All revelation is received by inspiration, but not all inspiration is revelation.  Inspiration could simply be the warm, peaceful reassurance that God loves you.  This is not new information, and therefore cannot be considered revelation, but it is inspiration from the Spirit of the Lord.  That is the difference as I see it. 

Edited May 18, 2018 by pogi

[RevTestament]

26 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

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.

God has shown or said things which aren't scripture because they were not permitted to be repeated at the time. Daniel 10-12 expressly says it was sealed until the time of the end. Will its unsealing make it into Catholic scripture? Nope. The orthodox canon is closed.(Catholics won't like it anyway.)

Quote

I think Pope Francis is pretty alright guy  

I was speaking more over the 1500 year history of Roman pontiffs. I like Francis OK, although he seems to stir up some controversy every year..not really my biz. I think I liked John Paul II the most over my lifetime. Obama is a likeable guy, but I thought he was terrible for our country's future, esp in terms of foreign policy.

Quote

I must have missed this, because I don't remember this from our previous conversation. Can you point me to it?

It was awhile back but that was what I got around our conversation here http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70418-new-revelations-and-the-future/?do=findComment&comment=1209809734

47 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

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.

Ok, correct me if I'm wrong, but no further scripture will be added to the orthodox canon as additional instruction. I don't understand that distinction much though. Like Mark says, it seems artificial. To me any instruction which the Lord intends to preserve for His Church is scripture. I agree that Yeshua was the revelation of the Father to us, but I see the Church as straying from that revelation. I further see express scriptural references to further revelation yet to come. So to try to limit the canon to that approved by the Council of Ephesus, IIRC, some 1700 years ago seems artificial and arbitrary. I think that is what Mark is trying to say.

 

[MiserereNobis]

23 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

To me any instruction which the Lord intends to preserve for His Church is scripture.

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?

 

26 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

It was awhile back but that was what I got around our conversation here http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70418-new-revelations-and-the-future/?do=findComment&comment=1209809734

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?

[RevTestament]

11 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

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?

 

D&C 68:

2 And, behold, and lo, this is an ensample unto all those who were ordained unto this priesthood, whose mission is appointed unto them to go forth—

3 And this is the ensample unto them, that they shall speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost.

4 And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.

Quote

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?

Doctrine and Covenants 87:1

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord concerning the ^awars that will ^bshortly come to pass, beginning at the rebellion of ^cSouth Carolina, which will eventually terminate in the death and misery of many souls;

Doctrine and Covenants 130:12

12 I prophesy, in the name of the Lord God, that the commencement of the ^adifficulties which will cause much bloodshed previous to the coming of the Son of Man will be in South Carolina.

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

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?

Yet again a distinction without a difference. We actually follow both nearly equally which means following neither and both loosely.

Again, no magisterium but the spirit. That's why it is hard for you to understand. You are too used to infallible pronouncements.

Because we have no magisterium we are used to dealing with a couple of hundred years of ambiguity and contradictions. 

Alma 32 really does make us all Pragmatists.

There is a reason I am here and not a Catholic.

 There really is a difference, and this is precisely it. I know you think I am a renegade but I'm not. The difference you see on this board is largely Utah versus the rest of the church. The rest of the church is made up primarily of converts.

Converts by definition have to be able to follow the spirit or they would never find the church in the first place.

 Probably 40% of my stake are converts from Catholicism. The reason they are here is they could not understand the doctrine, and were looking for Doctrine they could understand, along with a lifestyle of commitment. 

 

[MiserereNobis]

8 hours ago, RevTestament said:

4 And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture,

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.

8 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Doctrine and Covenants 87:1

Thanks again for the link.

[MiserereNobis]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Again, no magisterium but the spirit. That's why it is hard for you to understand. You are too used to infallible pronouncements.

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.

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I know you think I am a renegade but I'm not. The difference you see on this board is largely Utah versus the rest of the church. The rest of the church is made up primarily of converts.

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?

Edited May 19, 2018 by MiserereNobis