The Definitive Comparative Differences Between Mormonism And Other Major/Biblical Religions

[3DOP]

That doesn't really answer Calm's question though. What she is basically asking is, What is the difference between public revelation and private revelation in Catholic theology? The question is not how important one or the other is in Catholicism, but what is the distinction between them.

Here is cal's question:

What is the difference then between apostoiic and postapostolic revelation?

I thought of answering with the obvious. But I doubted I needed to explain that apostolic revelation is that which finds its derivation in the Apostolic age. Post-apostolic revelation is that which finds its derivation in the post-apostolic age. Biblical literature is as diverse in nature as extra-biblical revelation. Other than what I have already explained, which you found inadequate, the only distinction I can discern is its chronological derivation.

Apostolic revelation is also called public, because it is that which all people of every age who would call themselves Catholic must accept as I explained.

Post-apostolic revelation is called private because it does not necessarily apply to everyone of all time. St. Margaret's message to the King of France to consecrate his nation to the Sacred Heart of Jesus was too late after he died. It really isn't applicable to modern Catholics although if I am not mistaken reference is made it to it by our Lady of Fatima, who told Sr. Lucia that the pope, (like the King of France), would be slow to consectrate Russia to her Immaculate heart. The French Revolution began 100 years after this revelation. The warnings of our Lady of Fatima also came to pass as the popes have indeed been reticent, for interesting political reasons about the message of Fatima. (That is my opinion. Of course, the popes would disagree!)

Also, they are so numerous that it would be very impractical for anyone to learn of and absorb all of the words that have been spoken since the times of the Apostles. I have not read it, but the Diary of St. Faustina, a 20th Century Polish sister, contains dialogue between her and Christ that makes a book thicker than the four Gospels. A devotion called the Chaplet of the Divine Mercy has arisen in less than 100 years which also celebrates this message particularly on the Sunday after Easter which is becoming increasingly known as Divine Mercy Sunday. I could not possibly suggest that all modern Catholics are obligated to read the saint's diary and participate in Divine Mercy Sunday. There are translated extra-biblical revelations that would take up several library shelves.

In my opinion, when Catholics say to Mormons that the canon is closed, it gives a false impression. What we mean is that the infallible, apostolic canon is closed. But you guys don't believe in infallibility anyway. You aren't looking for infallible continuing revelation. For practical purposes, if the Church has canonized St. Faustina and her diary is approved by the Church, Catholics should avoid giving the impression that her or other visionaries' words are anything less than continuing revelation...at least in the sense understood by LDS.

Edited April 23, 2012 by 3DOP

[zerinus]

I thought of answering with the obvious. But I doubted I needed to explain that apostolic revelation is that which finds its derivation in the Apostolic age. Post-apostolic revelation is that which finds its derivation in the post-apostolic age. Biblical literature is as diverse in nature as extra-biblical revelation. Other than what I have already explained, which you found inadequate, the only distinction I can discern is its chronological derivation.

Apostolic revelation is also called public, because it is that which all people of every age who would call themselves Catholic must accept as I explained.

Post-apostolic revelation is called private because it does not necessarily apply to everyone of all time. St. Margaret's message to the King of France to consecrate his nation to the Sacred Heart of Jesus was too late after he died. It really isn't applicable to modern Catholics although if I am not mistaken reference is made it to it by our Lady of Fatima, who told Sr. Lucia that the pope, (like the King of France), would be slow to consectrate Russia to her Immaculate heart. The French Revolution began 100 years after this revelation. The warnings of our Lady of Fatima also came to pass as the popes have indeed been reticent, for interesting political reasons about the message of Fatima. (That is my opinion. Of course, the popes would disagree!)

Also, they are so numerous that it would be very impractical for anyone to learn of and absorb all of the words that have been spoken since the times of the Apostles. I have not read it, but the Diary of St. Faustina, a 20th Century Polish sister, contains dialogue between her and Christ that makes a book thicker than the four Gospels. A devotion called the Chaplet of the Divine Mercy has arisen in less than 100 years which also celebrates this message particularly on the Sunday after Easter which is becoming increasingly known as Divine Mercy Sunday. I could not possibly suggest that all modern Catholics are obligated to read the saint's diary and participate in Divine Mercy Sunday. There are translated extra-biblical revelations that would take up several library shelves.

In my opinion, when Catholics say to Mormons that the canon is closed, it gives a false impression. What we mean is that the infallible, apostolic canon is closed. But you guys don't believe in infallibility anyway. You aren't looking for infallible continuing revelation. For practical purposes, if the Church has canonized St. Faustina and her diary is approved by the Church, Catholics should avoid giving the impression that her or other visionaries' words are anything less than continuing revelation...at least in the sense understood by LDS.

So it seems we can agree that the ultimate difference between them is that one is canonical and the other is not. The point of disagreement between us (according to you) seems to be how to define canon. I think we define canon in the same way as you do. I certainly believe in an infallible canon. The reason why other LDS here appear not to is because they define their own terms rather than try to understand what the other guy means by it. Many of them also have a genuine misunderstanding of the nature of the scriptural canon, as revealed in modern scripture. According to modern revelation, scripture is an unfailing guide to eternal life. One cannot err, or be led astray, who holds fast to the "iron rod," which is the word of God (1 Nephi 15:23-24). That is the meaning of infallibility in Mormonism. Infallibility does not mean that there cannot be a spelling mistake in it, or a printer's error, or a scribal error in it. If something is "the will of the Lord, ... the mind of the Lord, ... the word of the Lord, ... the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation" (D&C 68:4), that makes it the "infallible word of God". That is Mormonism. Is the Catholic Church able to add to the scriptural canon? By their own admission, they can't. LDS claims that they can. That is the difference.

Edited September 5, 2012 by zerinus

[Calm]

Calm's

I love this version of my alias....perhaps I will adopt it as my permanent signature in hopes that it becomes the truth.

[blueadept]

That is Mormonism. Is the Catholic Church able to add to the scriptural canon? By their own admission, they can't. LDS claims that they can. That is the difference.

I don't feel completely qualified to answer this but I will point out that Vatican II did generate a lot documents of which two of these are dogmatic for Catholics to accept. One is 'Dei Verbum' and the other one is 'Lumen Gentium.' And while 'Humanae Vitae' was not produced from a council, it is dogmatic for Catholics to accept as well. So while we are not adding to the scriptural canon, we continuously keep pulling out of the 'box' that Jesus gave us a better way to understand what was given to us which involves divine revelation.

Edited April 23, 2012 by blueadept

[zerinus]

I don't feel completely qualified to answer this but I will point out that Vatican II did generate a lot documents of which two of these are dogmatic for Catholics to accept. One is 'Deus Verbum' and the other one is 'Lumen Gentium.' And while 'Humanae Vitae' was not produced from a council, it is dogmatic for Catholics to accept as well. So while we are not adding to the scriptural canon, we continuously keep pulling out of the 'box' that Jesus gave us a better way to understand what was given to us which involves divine revelation.

The first two documents appear to be credal declarations issued by Vatican II, while the third appears to be the Catholic Church's equivalent to LDS Church's official proclamation on the family, with special emphasis on the issue of contraception. I will here focus on the first document you mentioned, Dei Verbum.

One of the major theological issues that arose after the Protestant split was the question of Scripture versus Tradition. While the Protestants rejected Tradition altogether, and stuck to Scripture alone, Vatican II in Dei Verbum argued basically that scripture can best be interpreted in the light of Tradition; and that the Catholic Church was the ultimate authority for determining the validity of such an interpretation. Here is a summary of Dei Verbum:

Throughout, Dei Verbum states it very clearly that the Bible is the word of God and is intended for the people, all of the people, in all times and in all places. It only makes sense, that if God is speaking to people; he needs to speak in a human fashion. Other wise, the intended reader could never read the word of God.

In order, to accomplish that objective, God worked through human authors. The human authors did not know in most cases, that their writings would become part of something called the Bible and be so widely distributed and used. Instead, they wrote with much more modest objective. They were writing to a particular group, in particular time, in a particular place, in a particular setting, in a particular language for a particular objective.with their particular background and with a particular style to meet all objectives. In some cases, their message was a verbal message and only written down many years later.

As a result, they wrote in various literary forms, languages, they use the historical settings that they found themselves in and using the references, and social conventions of their particular day for only that way would they be able to deliver the Lord’s message and to have it understood and accepted by the group that they were writing for. The texts took on various forms such as historical, prophetic, poetic or other forms of discourse. The writer was using the then contemporary literary forms.

But all these variations of literary forms and historical and cultural settings present a problem to us in our historical and cultural settings. Dei Verbum is making it clear that the interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and then express in terms of his contemporary literary culture of his own time.

Dei Verbum makes it very clear, that in order to obtain a correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another.

In other words, one must put themselves in the shoes of writer, and try to understand that given particular time, place, historical and cultural setting, what was the writer saying. The message did not change just the setting. And It is the message that is important. So Dei Verbum is making very clear that to obtain that understanding, one must take the effort to understand the background and objective of the author. For only in that way, can the reader understand the message being converged. But one must do it with the guidance of the teaching authority of the church and with prayers for that it is the only possible way of really under the message of the sacred writer.

Since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the same spirit in which it was written, attention must be given to content and unity of the whole of Scripture. The living tradition of the whole Church must also be taken into account. Any one reading of the Bible is part of a continuous flow with a part to play to bring the total picture into focus. The real meaning can be learned only in content of the whole. That whole consists of all the books of the Bible along with Tradition as pass on as part of the teaching authority of the Church. Source.

It is credal in the sense that it is issued by a Church council held to resolve a theological controversy arising within the Church. While the creeds are considered to be dogmatic in the Catholic Church, I don't think it would be correct to say that they are considered canonical, or to form part of the scriptural canon. I don't think that Vatican II believed they were adding to the canon by issuing the declaration.

[3DOP]

Hi zerinus.

I am so discouraged. I wrote a long and I think, conciliatory answer to your latest comments to me. It was lost in sending. Forgive me, I just don't have the energy for a rewrite.

I said that I agreed with what you say are the differences. I don't care to commit to agreeing with conclusions that you might think follow.

I also added that for Catholics, everything an apostle wrote was inspired by the Holy Ghost. There is no writing of an apostle in which we say, "He wasn't speaking as an apostle". Since you believe in modern apostles, it seems natural, even necessary, that you would from our perspective, believe in continuing revelation. If we thought we had apostles like unto the originals, we would have Scripture "coming out of our ears".

[shalamabobbi]

Hi zerinus.

I am so discouraged. I wrote a long and I think, conciliatory answer to your latest comments to me. It was lost in sending. Forgive me, I just don't have the energy for a rewrite.

I said that I agreed with what you say are the differences. I don't care to commit to agreeing with conclusions that you might think follow.

I also added that for Catholics, everything an apostle wrote was inspired by the Holy Ghost. There is no writing of an apostle in which we say, "He wasn't speaking as an apostle". Since you believe in modern apostles, it seems natural, even necessary, that you would from our perspective, believe in continuing revelation. If we thought we had apostles like unto the originals, we would have Scripture "coming out of our ears".

This problem of a lost post gets mentioned often enough that I will share my solution.

Type your reply in notepad or another basic word processor. Then when you are happy with it, copy and paste.

[3DOP]

This problem of a lost post gets mentioned often enough that I will share my solution.

Type your reply in notepad or another basic word processor. Then when you are happy with it, copy and paste.

Thanks shala...

It would save my constant editing too.

[zerinus]

I also added that for Catholics, everything an apostle wrote was inspired by the Holy Ghost.

Are you sure about that? Do we even have everything that the Apostles wrote? Do you think that everyting that they ever wrote was contained in the New Testament? I don't think so.

There is no writing of an apostle in which we say, "He wasn't speaking as an apostle".

Again, what you are referring to is canonized scripture. You don't have everything that they ever wrote. You are not really comparing like with like here. To compare like with like, you should compare canonized scripture with canonized scripture. We accept with the Catholic Church the Bible as part of the canon. But we also have quite a lot of material in addition to it--i.e. the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. There is no "he wasn't speaking as a prophet" in those additional books of LDS scripture. Everything there is the inspired word of God as the Bible is.

Since you believe in modern apostles, it seems natural, even necessary, that you would from our perspective, believe in continuing revelation. If we thought we had apostles like unto the originals, we would have Scripture "coming out of our ears".

In a sense we do actually. What they speak "when moved upon by the Holy Ghost" is scripture, but not canonized scripture.

[3DOP]

Zerinus...I don't know what you are pushing me to say. Your explanation of the differences between our camps seem okay to me. Isn't that enough of a concession? I'm not trying to score any points.

It was never my position that everything every apostle ever wrote is in the Bible. My position is that we don't have any examples of apostolic writings that are not considered Scripture. Most likely, there are lost writings. Whatever. Can't be helped. Maybe you say conspiracy? I say God's Providence. I would suggest that if we found a papyrus that we KNEW was written by Jesus or any of the eleven, the Catholic canon would have to expand. But there is no way that we can KNOW such a thing. It really just seems like you are nitpicking while I am trying to get away from something that is getting a little tedious.

3DOP

[zerinus]

Zerinus...I don't know what you are pushing me to say. Your explanation of the differences between our camps seem okay to me. Isn't that enough of a concession? I'm not trying to score any points.

It was never my position that everything every apostle ever wrote is in the Bible. My position is that we don't have any examples of apostolic writings that are not considered Scripture. Most likely, there are lost writings. Whatever. Can't be helped. Maybe you say conspiracy? I say God's Providence. I would suggest that if we found a papyrus that we KNEW was written by Jesus or any of the eleven, the Catholic canon would have to expand. But there is no way that we can KNOW such a thing. It really just seems like you are nitpicking while I am trying to get away from something that is getting a little tedious.

3DOP

Are you trying to intimidate me or something? You entered into this discussion with the following comment in post #22, in response to something that Calmoriah had said:

It seems to me like LDS have always misunderstood this position to mean that no further information is forthcoming from God. It is way too simplistic. I can supply you with lots of post-apostolic revelation that has been approved by the Church. Yes they are always judged by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and never the other way round. But that is only to assure that they are reliably from heaven.

This was followed by an evasive reply to something else that Calmoriah had asked. I am simply trying to clear the air with regard to where the LDS Church (and Catholic Church) stands on the issue of canonicity and continuing revelation, which I think I have already done.

[Calm]

This was followed by an evasive reply

3DOP couldn't be evasive if he was playing dodge ball. If he didn't answer quite on point from my perspective, it is because he sees things from a different world view then I do. I think I get the viewpoint now, I'm going to digest it for a bit to see if I need any more clarification.

I appreciate your efforts to clarify things as well, but please don't accuse my friend of being less than forthright.

[3DOP]

calmoriah

3DOP couldn't be evasive if he was playing dodge ball. If he didn't answer quite on point from my perspective, it is because he sees things from a different world view then I do. I think I get the viewpoint now, I'm going to digest it for a bit to see if I need any more clarification.

I appreciate your efforts to clarify things as well, but please don't accuse my friend of being less than forthright.

3DOP

Thanks for the support cal. I doubt I deserve your praise or Z's censure.

----------------

Zerinus.

In answer to your question, it never crossed my mind to try to intimidate you. It astonishes me that you would interpret my words that way. I admit again to being slighlty annoyed with what seems like a continuing unwillingness to accept my concession that you have summarized your case adequately. You say I am being evasive too? I just don't know what more you could want from me. I am willing to leave the conversation saying that your explanation is adequate. As I hinted at before, the discussion doesn't motivate me at this point. Of course, my suggestion that I am disinterested may just be another tactic to evade the fact that I am dumbfounded before calmoriah's question that is somehow unanswerable. Sigh...

There are all kinds on the internet I guess, but without trying to intimidate, I will suggest you really ought to give me the benefit of a doubt. That is not a threat. I would just have you less suspicious of people who might have good will in their hearts. In the end, whether I am dumbfounded or bored, is between God and me.

3DOP

Edited April 24, 2012 by 3DOP

[zerinus]

3DOP couldn't be evasive if he was playing dodge ball. If he didn't answer quite on point from my perspective, it is because he sees things from a different world view then I do. I think I get the viewpoint now, I'm going to digest it for a bit to see if I need any more clarification.

I appreciate your efforts to clarify things as well, but please don't accuse my friend of being less than forthright.

I am engaging 3DOP in debate independent of your involvement in it. What you had said previously in the thread, which sparked his responses, is not primary to the discussion I am having with him. Your response, though appreciated, will not be directly relevant to it.

Edited April 24, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

Zerinus.

In answer to your question, it never crossed my mind to try to intimidate you. It astonishes me that you would interpret my words that way. I admit again to being slighlty annoyed with what seems like a continuing unwillingness to accept my concession that you have summarized your case adequately. You say I am being evasive too? I just don't know what more you could want from me. I am willing to leave the conversation saying that your explanation is adequate. As I hinted at before, the discussion doesn't motivate me at this point. Of course, my suggestion that I am disinterested may just be another tactic to evade the fact that I am dumbfounded before calmoriah's question that is somehow unanswerable. Sigh...

There are all kinds on the internet I guess, but without trying to intimidate, I will suggest you really ought to give me the benefit of a doubt. That is not a threat. I would just have you less suspicious of people who might have good will in their hearts. In the end, whether I am dumbfounded or bored, is between God and me.

3DOP

I am only interested in discussing the issues, not personalities. Not sure why you insist on diverting the discussion from the topic to the personalities.

The central issue here seems to be that whereas in Catholicism the scriptural canon is closed, in Mormonism it is not; and herein lies the superiority that the LDS Church claims for itself above all other Christian churches and denominations. If you have anything further to add that discussion, feel free to do so.

[mfbukowski]

What is the difference then between apostoiic and postapostolic revelation? Is it simply that one is required to believe in (in the sense of this is the doctrine of the Church) what was revealed in the first and in the second, it is one's choice what to accept or is postapostolic also divided into required to believe and not?

Is that like postalcoholic revelation? I think they get that in the Church of Bill W.

Edited September 5, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Tacenda]

Wouldn't the First Vision itself, the creation of any new Scripture/Holy Writ such as the BoM, BoA, BoMoses, the entirety of the D&C also qualify?

Protestants do come out and state that there will be no new Scriptures; Catholics, while allowing for additional doctrinal clarification like the publication on limbo, would not call that clarification Holy Writ (Catholics, please correct if I have misunderstood).

I do think that is a significant difference, that LDS believe that we will continue to get Revelation/Holy Writ/Scripture as the Lord sees fit which may include new information, not just clarification of what has been already received. We are missing that limit, though when it comes to personal nonbinding, ie "private" revelation we are relatively consistent with others though some may be reluctant to call it revelation.

Why haven't current prophesies been cannonized in the D&C? Take for instance The Proclamation of the Family?

Edited September 5, 2012 by Tacenda

[USU78]

I am engaging 3DOP in debate independent of your involvement in it. What you had said previously in the thread, which sparked his responses, is not primary to the discussion I am having with him. Your response, though appreciated, will not be directly relevant to it.

Why the nastiness and dismissiveness? 3DOP is a good egg by any definition. Calm [i like that, too] came to his defense, as Calm should. I agree with Calm. 3DOP disagrees with the LDS, but is by no stretch of the imagination to be seen as less than honestly in disagreement. You do poorly to suggest otherwise.

[thesometimesaint]

Tacenda:

Largely because they haven't been put to the Church as Scripture. But specifically to the PotF. There are items that need further clarification by revelation for it to be accepted.

Edited September 5, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Tacenda]

Tacenda:

Largely because they haven't been put to the Church as Scripture. But specifically to the PotF. There are items that need further clarification by revelation for it to be accepted.

Huh? What is PotF?

[USU78]

Huh? What is PotF?

Proclamation on the Family

[thesometimesaint]

Proclamation on the Family. More correctly called The Family A Proclamation to the World.

[Tacenda]

Proclamation on the Family. More correctly called The Family A Proclamation to the World.

Oh so it's not quite seen as a revelation? The Family, A Proclamation to the World?

[USU78]

Oh so it's not quite seen as a revelation? The Family, A Proclamation to the World?

Well, it took several years before OD # 2 was included in the D&C http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/2?lang=eng and a lot of us speculated for a long time that it would one day end up there . . . and there it is.

Time will tell on the POTF.

[KevinG]

Perhaps a distinction between revelation for the Church in doctrinal form and ongoing revelation for the administration of the church, priesthood and families would be good?

Not all revelation is canonized in our standard works.